Oh, good points; can we be more surgical and blacklist just blocks below some threshold in size from anyone? Hmm, unless the mempool is low enough then small or empty blocks are ok. Hmm, filling up a block with junk transactions isn't what we want. Oh, maybe their mempool was low at the moment due to something, e.g. network issues. Hey, this might not be an easy issue.
As I understand they spv mine through the Great Firewall of China. Kano has a link to a thread a couple of pages back where he has very strong opinions about it. With larger blocks this would be less of a problem though. |
|
|
|
satoshi fodder? It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
He wanted to remove the 1MB blocksize limit by March 2011 But he did not.. and gavin met with the CIA. He did not. Instead he left. And we are unable to do it apparently. The pussies that we are. Poor orphans  Still I would simply not want any new 'benevolent' daddy messing around with the protocol's holy parameters I bought into. This is Bitcoin, its values thrives from the trustleness and the inability from any egomaniac dev to usurp it. ... bought into.. pffff You've been shorting bitcoins for two years. You just want to see it burn. |
|
|
|
satoshi fodder? It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
He wanted to remove the 1MB blocksize limit by March 2011 But he did not.. and gavin met with the CIA.  And they partied  until Gavin had to go |
|
|
|
for the millionth time, nobody knows if it is fake or not.
Then let's assume it's fake, ok? It just is neither fake nor legit. But whatever makes you feel good. And either way, the message was quite spot on. He is not saying you should accept that it's fake. He's saying we have to move forward as if it was fake. And no. It's not spot on. It's self-contradictory. If you want some satoshi fodder you might want to go and look at the old bct forum discussions where he and Gavin discusses the idea of a plurality of implementations. I don't have the link but I'm sure your buddy brg444 has it. there you go: I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.
Good idea or not, SOMEBODY will try to mess up the network (or co-opt it for their own use) sooner or later. They'll either hack the existing code or write their own version, and will be a menace to the network.I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it. I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.
That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...Gavin's twisted evil mind seems to be quite in action for the last couple years. And this is not fake.  Yup, that's the one. That's what Satoshi wrote 6 years ago. Do you have reading issues also? Don't you see the irony? It is exaclty what gavin and his wingmen whether toomim or hearn tried to do. Highjack the protocol and fork it off to meet whatever the USG told them to and/or to simply flood it. I simply confirmed that you found the correct post. Unless you disagree with that we have nothing to argue about. |
|
|
|
for the millionth time, nobody knows if it is fake or not.
Then let's assume it's fake, ok? It just is neither fake nor legit. But whatever makes you feel good. And either way, the message was quite spot on. He is not saying you should accept that it's fake. He's saying we have to move forward as if it was fake. And no. It's not spot on. It's self-contradictory. If you want some satoshi fodder you might want to go and look at the old bct forum discussions where he and Gavin discusses the idea of a plurality of implementations. I don't have the link but I'm sure your buddy brg444 has it. there you go: I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.
Good idea or not, SOMEBODY will try to mess up the network (or co-opt it for their own use) sooner or later. They'll either hack the existing code or write their own version, and will be a menace to the network.I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it. I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.
That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...Gavin's twisted evil mind seems to be quite in action for the last couple years. And this is not fake. Yup, that's the one. That's what Satoshi wrote 6 years ago. |
|
|
|
for the millionth time, nobody knows if it is fake or not.
Then let's assume it's fake, ok? It just is neither fake nor legit. But whatever makes you feel good. And either way, the message was quite spot on. He is not saying you should accept that it's fake. He's saying we have to move forward as if it was fake. And no. It's not spot on. It's self-contradictory. If you want some satoshi fodder you might want to go and look at the old bct forum discussions where he and Gavin discusses the idea of a plurality of implementations. I don't have the link but I'm sure your buddy brg444 has it. |
|
|
|
So, will Antpool die naturally or will it need help?
Is it possible to modify/enhance Bitcoin to reject/ignore blocks from Antpool? If we don't forward their crap empty blocks then no one will build on top of them, right?
Sure, you can blacklist them I guess. Might want to blacklist f2pool as well. They produce a lot of empty blocks. Maybe just blacklist all blocks originating from China. That way we'll be safe from chinese government interference. Probably best to blacklist Bitfurys blocks as well. They're originally a russian company. We all know the russians haven't been friendly to crypto. Then, of course, we'd have to blacklist Tor addresses and known vpn providers. That's a lot of blacklisting! Probably best to just have a closed network of approved nodes and transaction verification services. Something like ripple might do the trick. Or maybe just Hyperledger? Oh no! It's crap! |
|
|
|
Whaou that's really cool to see that, it's a bit like a saint coming back to give the Good Word ^^ I suppose they're talking about btcClassic. They can do nothing no? I don't really understand what a hardfork is :-/ Bitcoin Classic didn't exist back then. We already know at least some of Satoshis accounts have been compromised. So that message is worthless. |
|
|
|
@BMB your flip flopping is only slightly less frustrating. Marcus might have the correct view on that.  That one hurt.  It ain't cut and dry. Just look at Adam! He freaked out! But he got better.  IDK. You're canadians. That's what you do. Ever wondered why your brand of americans still worships the Queen? Not to mention Quebecs never ending secession flip flop. They're not french at all. They're canadians. You whine a bit and then you go with the flow. |
|
|
|
@adam Are you the anti-semite or is it Blitz?
Why did you delete my jstreet post?
What kind of nazi hell is this?
i didnt delete any post. i rarely delete a post, it's really gotta be completely shit for me to hit delete. Ok, so Blitz stands for:  Or just short for Blitzkrieg. I thought it was in sympathy to The Blitz. Silly me. |
|
|
|
Uh, I'm not an expert, but doesn't Lightning Network have a routing problem? And by problem, I mean in the sense that pigs have a flying problem.
So to sum up:
Bigblockers think technology will happen that will solve the node harddrive bloat problem and we are ridiculed by people who think technology will happen to solve LN's routing problem for the reason that we can't count on tech that hasn't been invented yet. Hmmmm.
Or, bigblockers just think that LN will come in its own time and should be judged according to what it is then. And in the meantime the network should be allowed to grow uninhibited. |
|
|
|
|
@adam Are you the anti-semite or is it Blitz?
Why did you delete my jstreet post?
What kind of nazi hell is this?
|
|
|
|
Seriously?
Yes, its in the Lightning Whitepaper and The Core HF has been discussed in the original scaling roadmap (flexcap) with ongoing discussions with another kick the can in Early 2017. Any questions? wtf is the point of lighting again? He's blowing smoke up your ass. Or someone is blowing smoke up his ass. i know! but why!?!?! If they tell the truth they will get pummeled. Core isn't that united. |
|
|
|
Seriously?
Yes, its in the Lightning Whitepaper and The Core HF has been discussed in the original scaling roadmap (flexcap) with ongoing discussions with another kick the can in Early 2017. Any questions? wtf is the point of lighting again? He's blowing smoke up your ass. Or someone is blowing smoke up his ass. |
|
|
|
I am very sincere. The one thing missing is what we need. NOW!
I thought you already have what you need with classic? It has already been released. Meanwhile lets praise and congratulate the great accomplishments of core developers for a moment before getting back to work. Now who's being insincere? |
|
|
|
Lets give it a lick of paint and see what happens.
This is how I can tell you are insincere and just trolling. Even Classic Developers support 95% the improvements in 0.12.0 and have been testing a Classic variation for the Earlier Release candidates.(with a small possibility of not including opt in RBF) I am very sincere. The one thing missing is what we need. NOW! |
|
|
|
 Lets give it a lick of paint and see what happens. |
|
|
|
We want an armored truck, not a safe on castor wheels pulled by a horse.
We are building a tank with hardened steal, exploding anti- tank missile panels, advanced engine and suspension components for maneuverability, and a more efficient engine to carry a larger capacity and more ammo... You simply want to double the weight of the tank and throw a bigger cc diesel engine in her that guzzles more fuel.  |
|
|
|
Can we get an inkling on who these benevolent non-feeling educators are?
LoL..... tell me about the dangers of people who want to empower each other to have both sovereignty and solidarity in a voluntary manner. Your insinuations are humorous and will not deter our goals. I still love you and hope you find happiness sir! I'm not going to humor you. You don't understand the words you are using! GET OUT!!! Wherever you are!!! GET OUT!!! |
|
|
|
Turns out, you guys become increasingly funny when things get a bit catty. Don't let me disturb you, please.
I am glad you can find humor out of this  If the byproduct is happiness that that is a consequence I can accept. My words are being written without aggression and lack any emotional fervor. They are written with a calm and confident resolution attached to some well reasoned principles. They aren't even intended for many of the individuals I am responding to but to educate other readers lurking to our perspective.  Sure is nice to know. Can we get an inkling on who these benevolent non-feeling educators are? Edit: Ah!
BTW, who are "we"? Who are these people who are so willing to throw everyone under the bus to get it their way?
No one is willing to throw anyone under the bus. I empathize with your position and will not interfere with your choices or vision of bitcoin. That is the beauty of bitcoin, its voluntary nature of participation and involvement. "We" principally refers to those that believe bitcoin should become a settlement network because of the cold hard reality that it cannot scale completely on the chain. "We" are those that believe we need to work together in solidarity and through consensus rather than democratic majority imposing their will upon minorities. Crap! I was just trying to break the wall of mindless pompous crap.
Mission Failed |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
