Sent PM to theymos on February 02, 2016, 09:37:45 PM. Should I wait, PM him again or PM BadBear?
It depends on you, there is no exact rule. You shouldn't bother them too often either. I'd say send them a PM every few days (both of them if it is urgent; maybe weekly) until someone answers you. |
|
|
|
6700k just one example. oh wait.. its newer, its faster its cheaper its more capable... oopsy
Intel® Core™ i7-6700K Processor - Launched: 2015; Launch price: 350$ Intel® Core™ i7-3770K Processor - Launched: 2012; Launch price: 342$ Effective Speed +24% Average User Bench +26% 2.3% more expensive Source
After my initial comparison was "incorrect", here you have it. The numbers sure look better, right? It only took 3 years to gain a ~25% increase in computational power. 
No more nonsense will be tolerated. Either admit to being wrong, or submit valid technical evidence that supports your argument (you tend to be a straw-man often). |
|
|
|
If something isn't getting implemented in Bitcoin Core due to lack of consensus, it'd be safe to assume that this something is not good for bitcoin.
Apparently this is not the case for them. If something isn't getting implemented it is because Blockstream is involved. You could argue with them about this, however you would be wasting your free time unlike them. I'd argue that there's no other actively developed alternative that could satisfy the demands of the community is the way Core does. The development process is open, proposals are welcome and you can submit improvements. Is there any other cryptocurrency client with more developers?
There isn't. |
|
|
|
It would be nice if there was another rank (not sure why we don't have more of them). The community could give suggestions and later a poll could be run in order to vote for the best one. However, this was proposed at least once in recent times and theymos has stated that he would not add one (right now; IIRC). I like "Addict" or maybe "Obsessed"
The move from Legendary towards Addict or Obsessed would be a downgrade then. Vodlike
Laudalike > Vodlike.  |
|
|
|
|
He's pretty busy too right now but he does recover accounts (if applicable). If you don't receive an answer from them after a while, send a PM again. However, be prepared to wait some time before your account gets recovered.
|
|
|
|
This is nonsense. This has nothing to do with control. Only 1 developer from Blockstream has commit access and that is what matters. Stop reading biased sub-reddits such as "r/btc" as your source of news (i.e. take the news with a grain of salt). So Tor's development is driven by the US government?
Apparently. |
|
|
|
51%, 75%, 90%, 95%,...those are just different shades of consensus.
They're not. 90-95% ensures that almost everyone is on board with the plan and leaves less than 10(or 5)% of the room for a veto of the change. Another factor that needs to be considered is time. Given enough time (and not rushing unnecessary forks) this ensures that the old chain dies. This way the network successfully achieves a 'upgrade'. I think 90% is just unrealistic in this situation, but more to the point: If consensus cannot be reached, the only alternative is a split.
Call it tyranny if you want, but I say its the freedom of choice.
People can run whatever code they want to, and no one,
not Gavin, not Satoshi, not Greg Maxwell, not Santa Claus
can force anyone to do anything.
It is what it is.
So you're willing to accept a network split and harm both chains just to get your own way? Quite irrational and egoistical behavior. Why not fork off at 5% then, you don't need the remaining network? While you technically can't force anyone to run anything, you can easily manipulate them. I've seen a lot of manipulation attempts from the 'forkers'. |
|
|
|
You're conveniently ignoring VertiasSapere's crucial point (bolded) above. By ignoring that fact, and combined with the fact that Core is the currently used implementation, you've convinced yourself that any change away from Core is tyranny.  This is wrong and a misunderstanding of my views. If Classic had set up a 90 or 95% consensus threshold I would have a lot less arguments against it. Even if we disregard a lot of things in the current situation, I just can't accept a network split. I would never show my support to anyone who wants to do something harmful to the network. |
|
|
|
Node count should be considered centralized when people with decent computers cannot run a node on their bedroom, this is I think very clear. If people can't run a node on a single computer, its when the centralization process starts and once it starts it will expand like mining, it will end up getting "specialized", so it's crucial that we never get past that point where people can run nodes at home.
Exactly. I've asked the 'big blockist' and 'forkers' before and got no reply (aside from insults). Currently there are people that run nodes on Raspberry Pi's. Obviously this won't be possible in the future unless there is an updated version but we can disregard that. Where is the cut-off point, Pentium, Dual Core, Intel i3? They'd be willing to waste a lot of valuable resources and heavily reduce the node count just in order to be able to process small purchases on the main chain. I don't see a valid reason for this; your $1 purchase doesn't need the security of a 1 Exa-hash network. |
|
|
|
There should be no such thing as a main implementation, and if there is a reference implementation like there is now, power and control should be taken away from this point of centralization.
Nonsense. You're pulling up your own biased opinion. Bitcoin has always had a main implementation (QT now Core). There is no reason for which this has to change. To think that we should only change the network when we have consensus is the equivalent to saying that we should never change the rules of the protocol. True consensus in the original sense of the word is impossible among larger groups of people. Enforcing such an idea is no different then a tyranny of the minority. Bitcoin is freedom, it even solves the problem of tyrrany of the majority, exactly because of this ability to hard fork. Which I think is a crucial feature of Bitcoins governance mechanism which helps to ensure the continued freedom and decentralization of the protocol.
I think you misunderstood the 'tyaranny of the majority' part. What Classic is proposing is exactly the kind of tyranny that I'd expect from the people who are behind it. The minority (which is the wrong word for 1/4 of the network) is left with no choice but to join or quit completely. Another thing that you're trying to sell here is that the network can't reach consensus; this is wrong. Miners have demonstrated that this is possible with several soft forks. With enough time and support a hard fork can be easily deployed with 90% consensus and probably more. |
|
|
|
that is just another money making scheme,show me one who actually has intentions to help reduce the spam otherwise. Fuck you. Seconded. People don't say that being a moderator is a thankless job for no reason. It isn't the Staff's job to judge a user's post quality unless it is especially bad.
Exactly. We don't have time to judge every single user and every single post that they make.
In case you didn't mean the staff members, I know a manager who cared a lot about the post quality: Carra23. |
|
|
|
I'll take number 44.  |
|
|
|
Most of the people didn't get it,so i wont be quoting it,but as you are being rewarded for whatever work you are doing and majority of which is handling requests i assume then you will be doing the same in that case too.If there is a bot then you don't need to maintain/manage the campaign ? how come it increases the work or takes more of your time ? There would be no spreadsheet ,no drama like the bitmixer.
Exactly how do you think that a staff team of ~10-15 moderators is supposed to look through (and asses) tens of thousands of posts monthly in addition to handling everything else that we've been handling so far? I wouldn't trust a bot to do this kind of work. Now, who is checking the posts ? no one but the active users are and they(participants) risk a ban if they spam & get reported.
The managers should be doing that. In cases where they fail to do so, the staff picks up on individuals themselves or via reports. |
|
|
|
Are you going to me pay to do so?  You are already getting paid to handle the requests ? We are not being paid to do the job of a campaign moderator. Actually we are not being paid at all, we get rewarded for contributions. You can technically not moderate at all in a month if you choose to. of course you are gonna keep yourself in the 1% lolll,cursing them while wearing one ?
There's no real reason not to find a custom deal for myself if this is already allowed. I can't ban myself either. I'm completely for the removal of all signature campaigns and have been so for a while (since the influx of spam). My point is not to accuse you guys but a Mod is the perfect guy to check the posts & if the enrollment is done by a script it wont affect the users.
No, you've got this wrong. That would take up too much of our time. |
|
|
|
So this is about control? Who do you think should be in control?
It is certainly nothing else. You are unable to get your own (and silly) way with Bitcoin and thus you want to get a grip on the main implementation. I think that the economic majority rules Bitcoin, therefore the majority of the economic participants of Bitcoin ultimately control Bitcoin. If we collectively wanted an increased blocksize limit then the blocksize limit will be raised. This is what I think will happen and is happening now. The incentives are continuing to align.
75% is not a this 'economic majority' nor is it consensus. You're talking one thing but doing the opposite. You're talking about a split all in the name of the 'majority's wishes' while in fact the underlying idea it to take away the control over the main implementation. |
|
|
|
It's not just possible, it's already happening, and happening very fast! Be ready!
It is possible if we scale via off chain solutions. If we focus on scaling via the main chain we will end up centralizing (further) both miners and nodes. The question is where is the limit (e.g. what node count should be considered centralized)? This visualization could be expanded with the Lightning Network added to it (although not sure when we should expect a release). |
|
|
|
Moderators are there to handle the spam and the users will get fair chance.
No problem. This is how I'd proceed: Step 1) Ban 99% of the signature participants for 30 days. Step 2) Remove all signature campaigns. Step 3) Profit?? Are you going to me pay to do so? 0.01 BTC per post removed and I'm in.  |
|
|
|
Thanks, Lauda.
I will check how to do that now.
Open up a thread in this section -> Scam Accusations. You can also look at other threads in order to get an idea of how your thread should look like (to make it better and effective). If your questions have been answered please lock the thread (look at the bottom-left of the thread) to avoid spam. Also if you have any other questions feel free to ask me directly via PM. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
