I disagree that BIP101 has been overwhelmingly rejected on both technical and philosophical grounds. It is however irrelevant even if it was, our beliefs should not be based on what the majority believes, it should be based on the result of our own independent reasoning.
 You're a clown. Plain & simple. |
|
|
|
Not disputing this helps with privacy, but as I said before, this doesn't help with fungibility... If you solve the privacy issue you will realize the nonexistence of the fungibility "issue" |
|
|
|
This is a shameful display of censorship and close mindedness of the Core developers. This just further proves that we need alternative implementations of Bitcoin so that important discussions and issues are not just censored and ignored.
To quote Mike Hearn from this discussion: “i'm sorry but you cannot have a situation where there is only one implementation, where that implementation has one guy making the decisions, and then expect people to not engage in argument and debate about decisions being made or not made.”
I agree with Mike Hearn on this point and he should not have been banned for saying this. It is completely unjustified and undeserved to ban him for saying this. Having one person deciding on changes within Bitcoin and having five more people with veto power over the development is an untenable position for Bitcoin especially if we want Bitcoin to be truly decentralized. Multiple competing implementations of Bitcoin is the solution to the political problems we are currently experiencing.
LOL, months later, you are still spewing this crap all over my screen. He was banned (and likely temporarily) because, as usual, he is polluting the technical forum with his inane, political badgering. Wasting everyone's time and energy, constantly pushing ideas that no devs want a part of and endlessly crying that the reason for this is the governance structure -- it's not. It's because he is a cancer, and his ideas and code are horrible. The vast majority of miners, users, devs understand this; that you apparently do not is of little concern to anyone. Go ahead and run your alternative implementation. Go ahead and fork off another. No one is stopping anyone from forking the code. Understand that the vast majority of miners, users and devs will not touch or run shoddy code backed by horrible ideas. That is just a practical reality. It has nothing to do with this perceived "censorship" or "OMG there is only one implementation". It's simple: produce an alternative client that is worth running and developing and people will do so. XT was not that. At all. Give it up. Just saying that his arguments have no merit because he is a cancer is not a valid argument. It is actually a problem that the developers do not want to defend themselves on political grounds. Since having one person in charge with five other people with veto power over the development of Bitcoin when there is only one main implementation is tantamount to centralization of power and is indefensible in terms of decentralization. I am glad that you can agree with me that we need more implementations of Bitcoin, so far we only have one alternative implementation to Bitcoin Core so to support that because we disagree with Core is most definitely defensible. We should all be united in our opposition of what is happening in Core and we need to realize the danger and problems that this presents. You're in for some rough times. Core is going to continue to prevail as it is simply composed of the best and brightest minds in the industry. |
|
|
|
It is concerning that such a strong false narrative has been allowed to build up. Even if you disagree with BIP101 it is not productive that there is so much misinformation and ad hominem.
Thanks for doing me the service of repeatedly bumping the thread during my absence. |
|
|
|
I guess I'm extremely optimistic but as I said, I don't really mind if I won't be able to run a node at some point. Why should I care anyway? The cat is out of the bag and if bitcoin eventually become too centralized and allow censorship then I'll just move to the next uncensored blockchain just like I will do if the bitcoin blockchain doesn't scale enough.
"Just move to the next blockchain"  If only it could really be so simple as it is in your delusions... |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is also about frictionless money. No so much with VISA.
I guess I don't really understand the "frictionless" in frictionless programmable money. There are many kinds of friction I can think of, and it seems like you are just saying censorship-proof in a different way.
I would even go so far as to say that Bitcoin is not frictionless at all. Fees, for example, are one type of friction which is going to be required in order to pay for network security. Edit: Unless Heam's "network assurance contracts" of course! Not sure I understand what you are trying to say. Of course censorship is also aa considerable layer of friction but the legacy financial system has a lot more frictions than just censorship. The last time you mentioned that Bitcoin is also "frictionless programmable money", I responded that I didn't really know what you mean by that. I was hoping for an explanation or some examples. Then while thinking about it, I realized that Bitcoin has several kinds of friction, some of which are essential to the operation of the network itself. I still don't know what the use cases of "frictionless programmable money" are, or why Bitcoin is best suited for those uses. Better questions: what friction are we supposed to believe people experience today in their online shopping experience? Is anyone really complaining? For an average person it comes down to user experience, Bitcoin has the worst of them all. |
|
|
|
I'll be shopping elsewhere with the little people.
I'll be shopping elsewhere with the little people too.
Hey, guys, Shopping is easier done with those plastic VISA cards, they work pretty good, you should try! Users of independent and autonomous Bitcoin network carry both costs: (1) transacting on the blockchain and (2) maintaining its operation. We carry both and it's the sole purpose of Bitcoin existing. This is how real world operates: VISA for shopping, Bitcoin for taking responsibility for your own future. For shopping on internet there will be a better blockchain. Like it or not. That blockchain will be more useful than bitcoin will ever be. But thanks for reminding us that bitcoin is the only one in town.   PLEASE PHORK OFF ALONG WITH YOUR EBAYCOIN |
|
|
|
Your friend Alice gives you two $10 bills. One is good, one is bad. You take both to buy a $20 T-shirt. Now what? You set up a JoinMarket to automate the process, then profit.  Use the two $10 bills where both shows up as good ones. I mean not all jurisdictions will use the same regulation. Pretty much. It only takes a couple of business opportunities lost to a competitor for a "merchant" to think twice about this whole blacklisting shenanigan. |
|
|
|
I think we agree that the block size should be a function of the resources requirement for one person to become a peer in the network (fully validate by running a full node).
Therefore it stands to reason that the Bitcoin blockchain will forever be able to accommodate only a marginal amount of transactions worldwide given the resources load implied. Hence the exclusive, "luxury" qualitative.
In which case, we need a definition for the size/location of the margin. I suspect that outright exclusivity is only one way out of many. Exclusivity is a consequence of the strict security requirements of Bitcoin. Fortunately this exclusivity does not discriminate people based on status, gender, religion, sexuality, etc but mere financial means. Moreover, unlike what some narrow minded people would have you believe this does not limit the benefits of Bitcoin to transactions occuring directly on its blockchain. I'm sure you understand that anyway... Okay, but I stand by my original point really: using words like "luxury" gives the wrong impression of your actual own position, as you've conceded that you only intend a premium on main chain transaction space, not with off-chain transactions or other secondary solutions. You're not making this distinction clear IMO. I did think your issue was with my choice of word but I'd like to remind you that it was picked in response to knight22's qualification of Bitcoin as some sort of "commercial" good. In that context, I do think it is legitimate to qualify Bitcoin as a "luxury" item, an "exclusive" payment network. If bitcoin goes down that path, another more "inclusive" and affordable/competitive system will take over. The bitcoin blockchain has nothing magical tied to it. If you create an artificial cost associated to its usage, you only create an economic incentives for ALL market participant to use another blockchain that scales better and is cheaper. Bitcoin blockchain might be the stronger and bigger one ATM but it could easily change if there is an economic incentive to do so. You sound like all socialist shills. There is no value in "inclusion" and "affordable". Did you not learn anything from your plastic cars, plastic appliances and rampant planned obsolescence. Cheap people deserve cheap chains, driving costs down necessarily means driving quality down and then your left with a piece of shit that everyone can use but has no value. This is pretty much a reflection of what is wrong with this consumer-driven society: everyone feel entitled to things they can't pay for. |
|
|
|
I, for one, enjoy your antics immensely. I do however hope that 'our group' doesn't count these people out prematurely. They are not stupid and do not want for resources. I can pretty much promise that they'll be back and will be constantly learning from their mistakes.
I don't, I have them very present. I'm aware they will keep going at it until they can't any more. If at least Peter R could switch from his usual charting drivel and spherical cows..... I'm up for new challenges but he keeps repeating the same old bored ideas It's strange you still manage to not understand them yet. Maybe his "ideas" were novel to you but I'm sorry to break the news that his stuff was 5th graders economics 101 platitudes. |
|
|
|
Reading Mike Hearn cry on the development emails is the most cringe worthy thing.
Go read the BIP65 deployment thread on the dev emails. He is the only one opposing it, and everyone else is showing consensus.
He is constantly stirring up drama, belittling other devs, and arguing like a little kid. So annoying.
Deployment of BIP65 should not be held up just because one dev is giving NACK.
You shall not worry, it won't. Why not? That's the Core blockade strategy at its finest. There are way more people opposed to what Mike Hearn is suggesting, then the opposite. The block size debate, which is completely seperate from BIP65, probably had 50-50 consensus amongst devs for BIP101.The only NACK for BIP65, if I am reading everyones emails properly, is from Mike. And it's due to hard fork vs soft fork deployment. What  More like 90-10 |
|
|
|
Reading Mike Hearn cry on the development emails is the most cringe worthy thing.
Go read the BIP65 deployment thread on the dev emails. He is the only one opposing it, and everyone else is showing consensus.
He is constantly stirring up drama, belittling other devs, and arguing like a little kid. So annoying.
Deployment of BIP65 should not be held up just because one dev is giving NACK.
You shall not worry, it won't. Why not? That's the Core blockade strategy at its finest. Because one dissident, unless he offers potent reasoning behind his objection (and not mere semantics as Mike is currently doing), is not enough to work against an otherwise vast general consensus. |
|
|
|
I think we agree that the block size should be a function of the resources requirement for one person to become a peer in the network (fully validate by running a full node).
Therefore it stands to reason that the Bitcoin blockchain will forever be able to accommodate only a marginal amount of transactions worldwide given the resources load implied. Hence the exclusive, "luxury" qualitative.
In which case, we need a definition for the size/location of the margin. I suspect that outright exclusivity is only one way out of many. Exclusivity is a consequence of the strict security requirements of Bitcoin. Fortunately this exclusivity does not discriminate people based on status, gender, religion, sexuality, etc but mere financial means. Moreover, unlike what some narrow minded people would have you believe this does not limit the benefits of Bitcoin to transactions occuring directly on its blockchain. I'm sure you understand that anyway... Okay, but I stand by my original point really: using words like "luxury" gives the wrong impression of your actual own position, as you've conceded that you only intend a premium on main chain transaction space, not with off-chain transactions or other secondary solutions. You're not making this distinction clear IMO. I did think your issue was with my choice of word but I'd like to remind you that it was picked in response to knight22's qualification of Bitcoin as some sort of "commercial" good. In that context, I do think it is legitimate to qualify Bitcoin as a "luxury" item, an "exclusive" payment network. |
|
|
|
Reading Mike Hearn cry on the development emails is the most cringe worthy thing.
Go read the BIP65 deployment thread on the dev emails. He is the only one opposing it, and everyone else is showing consensus.
He is constantly stirring up drama, belittling other devs, and arguing like a little kid. So annoying.
Deployment of BIP65 should not be held up just because one dev is giving NACK.
You shall not worry, it won't. |
|
|
|
I think we agree that the block size should be a function of the resources requirement for one person to become a peer in the network (fully validate by running a full node).
Therefore it stands to reason that the Bitcoin blockchain will forever be able to accommodate only a marginal amount of transactions worldwide given the resources load implied. Hence the exclusive, "luxury" qualitative.
In which case, we need a definition for the size/location of the margin. I suspect that outright exclusivity is only one way out of many. Exclusivity is a consequence of the strict security requirements of Bitcoin. Fortunately this exclusivity does not discriminate people based on status, gender, religion, sexuality, etc but mere financial means. Moreover, unlike what some narrow minded people would have you believe this does not limit the benefits of Bitcoin to transactions occuring directly on its blockchain. I'm sure you understand that anyway... |
|
|
|
I, for one, enjoy your antics immensely. I do however hope that 'our group' doesn't count these people out prematurely. They are not stupid and do not want for resources. I can pretty much promise that they'll be back and will be constantly learning from their mistakes.
I don't, I have them very present. I'm aware they will keep going at it until they can't any more. If at least Peter R could switch from his usual charting drivel and spherical cows..... I'm up for new challenges but he keeps repeating the same old bored ideas |
|
|
|
Care to give me a single example of high cost luxury open code? The 'if you charge a cunting fortune, they will come' theory is a prime example of the laughable unworldliness of some of the folks involved in Bitcoin. I'm sure they'll enjoy charging the equivalent of $50 to send a few cents to each other. The rest of the world will carry on happily as before or go with a system that's designed to actually accommodate them. Have to concur with this, bitcoin should not be "luxury", and brg44 is misrepresenting the outlook of the technologies he supports if that's what he really believes. There's a balance to be struck. We've recognised that those fighting for BIP101 want that because it is unbalanced to one extremity, but any arguments in favour of actual exclusivity is clearly the inverse of the BIP101 misbalance. "Luxury" implies "not enough supply to meet demand", which is not desirable. The block size cap is precisely to manage the supply in full expectation that all demand can not be met. You're implying supply = demand - 1 notional unit of demand, and that's doesn't correspond with my idea of a "luxury" service. What is your idea of a "luxury" service? Mine is one that makes no compromise (in this case security) just to appeal to larger mass of users. I don't accept that definition, or it's preposition that there exists a tradeoff between bitcoin's network security and it's transaction rate. Are you genuinely trying to say that the strategy should be to target some factor by which the supplied blockspace should be reduced by in respect of demand? That would be a form of luxury service to me, and if any future overlay payment solutions couldn't take up that slack, then I don't know how competitive that kind of Bitcoin would actually be. I don't support that kind of exclusive/conservative approach any more than the throw-resource-responsiblity-to-the-wind approach of BIP101. I think we agree that the block size should be a function of the resources requirement for one person to become a peer in the network (fully validate by running a full node). Therefore it stands to reason that the Bitcoin blockchain will forever be able to accommodate only a marginal amount of transactions worldwide given the resources load implied. Hence the exclusive, "luxury" qualitative. |
|
|
|
Care to give me a single example of high cost luxury open code? The 'if you charge a cunting fortune, they will come' theory is a prime example of the laughable unworldliness of some of the folks involved in Bitcoin. I'm sure they'll enjoy charging the equivalent of $50 to send a few cents to each other. The rest of the world will carry on happily as before or go with a system that's designed to actually accommodate them. Have to concur with this, bitcoin should not be "luxury", and brg44 is misrepresenting the outlook of the technologies he supports if that's what he really believes. There's a balance to be struck. We've recognised that those fighting for BIP101 want that because it is unbalanced to one extremity, but any arguments in favour of actual exclusivity is clearly the inverse of the BIP101 misbalance. "Luxury" implies "not enough supply to meet demand", which is not desirable. The block size cap is precisely to manage the supply in full expectation that all demand can not be met. You're implying supply = demand - 1 notional unit of demand, and that's doesn't correspond with my idea of a "luxury" service. What is your idea of a "luxury" service? Mine is one that makes no compromise (in this case security) just to appeal to larger mass of users. This is pretty much in line with the idea of Bitcoin as a settlement network. |
|
|
|
Care to give me a single example of high cost luxury open code? The 'if you charge a cunting fortune, they will come' theory is a prime example of the laughable unworldliness of some of the folks involved in Bitcoin. I'm sure they'll enjoy charging the equivalent of $50 to send a few cents to each other. The rest of the world will carry on happily as before or go with a system that's designed to actually accommodate them. Have to concur with this, bitcoin should not be "luxury", and brg44 is misrepresenting the outlook of the technologies he supports if that's what he really believes. There's a balance to be struck. We've recognised that those fighting for BIP101 want that because it is unbalanced to one extremity, but any arguments in favour of actual exclusivity is clearly the inverse of the BIP101 misbalance. "Luxury" implies "not enough supply to meet demand", which is not desirable. The block size cap is precisely to manage the supply in full expectation that all demand can not be met. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
