Are you suggesting that jtoomim is not the lead maintainer? Are you playing ignorant regarding the definition of a hard fork?

I have been consistent. Please show otherwise. You've never addressed anything I've said. How have I been hypocritical? How have I been ignorant? The burden is on you to actually show how that's true -- otherwise, as usual, you're just talking shit.

Ad hominems , classy.

A valid argument? You snipped 7 words from this post:


...And you're suggesting that "the keys of the kingdom to toomim" is the argument I'm making? Have you ever made an honest argument in your life?

You do realize that the intent of a successful hard fork is for all nodes to update to the new consensus rules? And that Gavin's intention, then, is for all nodes to update to Classic? Do you realize, further, that Toomim is the lead maintainer of Classic -- that he controls commit access, and that Core will obviously not control commit access to the dominant implementation in that case?

Never mind that I already explained that in a subsequent post, since your method of debate is to delete everything substantive your opponent says and take the one phrase that's left out of context.

Can we do Wittgenstein next. He was my speciality.

Carnival and the jazz fest are much better. Mardi Gras is more for alchoholics and immature boys who are impressed by a set of tits.

If we were in the Wall Observer thread, I'd say "fair game" but we're trying to discuss the likelihood of a chain fork and what level of risk in that context is justifiable.

It's almost as if people are genuinely using Bitcoin.

Yikes, I haven't heard this argument before. So when should Classic devs walk away from maintaining their repository?

The technical experts you derive your arguments from have always thought that the network needed paternal stewardship.

The mindset reminds me of an excerpt from Mustapha's Chorus Sacerdotum.


If it was true, it would probably mean guaranteed failure at some point in the future. Thankfully it isn't, and our consensus mechanism is built in, as described up thread.

What is a zerg?

sAt0sHiFanClub argued that my opinions are wrong because "I am a bagholder."

Break out the ad hominem, why don't you? Since your argument hinges entirely on personal attacks, I'll have you know that this is not my first bitcointalk account, nor did I sign up on bitcointalk before I started investing in bitcoin. Please explain how my opinions could only be held by a "bagholder." That will be difficult since it's a purely personal attack with no basis in fact or reason.

It's funny because one of the principal arguments I see on this forum is that small blocks hinder adoption -- that we need bigger blocks to foster adoption, and that cheap/no fees is a great selling point to new adopters. And what, pray tell are these new adopters supposed to do? Well, buy bitcoin, of course!

way to understate segwit.

1.75x incess is HUGE!

scaling bitcoin isnt about how big we can make the blocks, but how efficiently we can use block space

Some of us actually care about the security of the network and spend time and effort to protect it from malicious actors. Part of this process is understanding the attack vectors , and educating others the risks so we can collectively make the right decisions so threats aren't realized. MP and other fringe lunatic 1MB forever disciples can indeed carry out this attack and are no friends to me or most/all developers in Core. In fact he has threatened to murder some prominent developers.

If you consider my politics to classify me as unstable , than so be it. I call them principles, you consider them unstable ... but perhaps you would be better off considering them "insane convictions" or "convictions you disagree with" instead because these principles are quite stable and consistent . I'll respect your thoughts and try to offer you some consolidation that we truly do want to increase capacity and are working hard to do so safely.


You are fixated on the code acting as a form of AI that solely does the voting. The network consists of nodes with human agents behind them that "vote" with the BTC in their wallet. Actual human being interacting with the code is part of the network!

I know of at least 3 sidechain projects in the works. Do you think a sidechain will be worth less after a hard fork brings more capacity? Do you think Blockstream will be held legally accountable?

You are wrong with this. If a hard fork happens nodes can reject the block that create miners that support fork. The legit nodes are the last defence in a malicious attack to the system like a hard fork attack.
And this number says nothing because we dont have an official new versiuon of bitcoin core to update.
The other think i like to say is that anyone who support a hard fork without first the segwit patch and the changes of 0.12.0 is simple fool and dont know anything about how bitcoin works. Simple is that bitcoin system can't handle a block size increase even to 2mb as it is now.

* These threats aren't being made by Core or blockstream but other large investors some of which are quite "unstable"

yes, I guess I just don't understand the system ... that must be it.

Mining nodes do vote on what is valid or not, but don't have as much of a vote as a large investor or an exchange.

but ... that ... is just untrue; it reflects a deep and fundamental misunderstanding of what Bitcoin is. The design of the bitcoin system deeply constrains miners-- and doing so is precisely how it creates economic incentives to keep them honest in the other ways it needs them to be.  Miners cannot mine except in conformance with the rules imposed by the users of the system: it's physically impossible for them to break them.