I remember meeting this total loser once, who tried to tell me that he knew who satoshi was because he'd met him.  You know the type.  The really pathetic, socially inept ones who are so desperate for people to notice them that they can't help but make up what they believe to be a cool-sounding story just to get a little attention.  I certainly didn't bother wasting my time asking for proof.  I just mocked him relentlessly for a while until he finally snapped at me.  At which point I told them "Don't be such a lying sack of shit, then".  The best part was, he even tried getting the only friend he had in the room to ask me to leave.  But his friend just completely blanked him, because even they could tell what a lost cause he was.  It was glorious.  He soon went quiet after that.

Long story short, if they're begging for attention, give them exactly the kind of attention they don't want.  This Hoffman poser sounds like he's cut from the same pathetic cloth.  If he deserves your attention at all, it should be of the hostile variety.  Don't allow him a pleasant stay.

I've seen some tenuous links before, but this really is a stretch.  What next?  Recently they didn't ban socialism, so clearly they're unlikely to ban broccoli?  What the hell kind of news story is this?

I've heard of the adage "Dress for the job you want, not for the job you have", but this might be taking things a step too far.   

In your imagination.  Here in the real world, I don't need your consent.  I find it repugnant that you think I do.  Consensus is where everyone can run what they want and the people who agree build a chain together.  That's not me reading out a "script", it's just how it works.  I could explain it to you a million times and you still won't get it, because you are obsessed with the fantasy in your head where think you matter and we somehow need to have your approval to do things. 



Then run an older version.  Keep living in the past.  You don't need anyone's consent.  But you can't prevent us opting in to new features via softfork when it's not your call. 



You're the one who desperately wants to control things.  Every single post I make regarding consensus is with the intent of preserving freedom.  Every single post you make about your warped and misguided thoughts on consensus is with the intent to take freedom away. 

Tell me unequivocally that you don't want to take away the freedom to implement features via softfork.
Tell me unequivocally that you don't want to take away the freedom to set an activation date for a feature to go live.
Tell me unequivocally that you don't want to take away the freedom to disconnect nodes running incompatible network magic that could damage the integrity of the network and lead to users losing funds.

You can't.  Because you want to stop people having the freedom to do those things. 

Exactly.  We can't stop other chains focusing on their on-chain "scaling" ideas with much larger blocks, so we don't try to.  We leave them to do their own thing, even if we don't agree with it.  Yet, for some reason, they think they can come to us and tell us not to do what we're doing?  Bit of a double standard, isn't it?



It sounds like he's full of hot air and doesn't even understand how the development process works.  New code gets reviewed by everyone.  It's not going to be some shady behind-the-scenes deal between hardwalletattacker1, one single dev and some mining pools.  I'm sure he thinks it's all going to unfold as his vivid imagination paints it, but reality is going to hit hard sooner or later.



FTFY. 

Opine it all you like, doesn't change what I said earlier.  Don't get me wrong, I can sympathise with your perspective.  I spent years campaigning for larger blocks because I thought it was the right course of action at the time.  But I've come to realise that Bitcoin isn't about what I think is best, particularly if I'm expecting other users to bear the costs. 

If those securing the chain choose freely to increase the blocksize and it suddenly helps onboard millions of users around the world, resulting in mass adoption (and I'm not even remotely convinced a blocksize increase alone can do that), then you can call it a fact.  Until then, you're just engaging in wishful thinking.

I see you using the word, yet you evidently still don't comprehend its meaning.  Consensus is people coming together to build the chain they want to build.  If you don't want to build the same chain they do, why do you care if they include you or not?  Consensus has never and will never mean that you can block a feature because you don't like it.  If enough people want it, they'll find a way to make it happen and they will build that chain with or without you.  No one is waiting around for your approval.  That's just not how it works.  If enough people agree with disconnecting nodes, then yes, consensus absolutely is about that.  That's the code people chose to run, so those are the rules the network enforces.  Literally the definition of consensus.  Learn it.

Stop getting confused between the way things are and the way you'd like them to be.  Every single last argument you present on consensus is based on the way you'd like it to be, not the way it is.  You desperately want a consensus where nodes can't be disconnected before having a vote, but that's clearly not the consensus we have.  Ergo, you do not understand consensus, because you keep telling us we can't do something we've already done.  By every measure of logic and reasoning, you are wrong.

One of the best features is the privacy it gives.  Unless you are involved in a transaction, you have no way of knowing how much is being transacted.  There are statistics for just about everything in crypto; a veritable feast of numbers to crunch, but there are no stats for the total sum transacted over LN.  Only the total capacity, which isn't the same thing.  You'd already know this if you put as much effort into understanding it as you do trying to write it off.  The genie isn't going back in the bottle, so it would behove you not to fight it.  Unless you have a better solution (and some code to go along with it), your time would be far better spent learning, rather than arguing.



I already did.  

If it doesn't solve anything, why are there nearly 35000 Bitcoin LN channels at the time of writing?  You think people are doing it for shits and giggles?  It means a far greater volume of transactions can be processed without sacrificing decentralisation.  Some would call that an impressive achievement.

I'm not a big believer in forcing people to do stuff to appease people who make mountains out of molehills.  I'm far more likely to suggest people try to be less entitled and maybe consider that random people on the internet don't owe you an explanation for simply doing their job.  What have you done to earn an explanation?  Clearly your post being deleted hasn't had any adverse effect on the forum whatsoever.  But if such posts were not removed and were instead allowed to multiply, that would quickly begin to negatively impact the forum.  A hundred people lining up to say "congratulations" is not a discussion.  This is a discussion forum.  Send them a personal message next time.

The only sensible answer is "wait and see".  If users begin running code that would permit blocks which are larger than currently allowed, something might change.  If users continue to run code that would reject larger blocks, it won't.  

But what you should always try to remember is this:  All these people out there running code are doing so to enforce their preferences, not yours.  I can't speak for everyone out there, but I have a sneaking suspicion they don't feel any pressure to increase their burden simply in order to reduce yours.  And this is absolutely what you are asking of them when you insist they should store and circulate these larger blocks for you.

In what way?  Blockchains which don't have any incentive for a significant number of users to secure them are equivalent to centralised databases.  Databases arguably have potential, but it's rare for anyone to get excited about that.

Perhaps it wasn't 100% clear-cut, but it was close enough for me to be convinced.  See this CoinDesk article from back in 2013 as an example.  In particular, this section:

Fake volume has always been a thing the entire time I've been involved in crypto.  Not only is it nothing new, but it's not even unique to crypto.  Fiat businesses try to pad their numbers where they can, so it looks good for investors.  Companies about to float on the stock market often have giveaways, or two-for-one deals, basically whatever special offers they can get away with so they can give the impression they're moving a greater amount of products than they normally would be.  Anything to pump up the numbers. 

The only differences in crypto are that it's easier to obfuscate and manipulate figures due to pseudonymity and there are currently fewer regulations to adhere to.

You seem to be under the impression that anyone cares how much glitter you pour on a turd.

Feel free to offer up as many of the selling points as you like, it doesn't offset the compromises you would have to make to implement it in Bitcoin.  It just wasn't designed to function that way.  It doesn't conform to the principles Bitcoin was founded upon.  If you like PoS, then go ahead and use a PoS coin that was designed to work that way and enjoy your glitterpoop.

Given Disney's business model and how they generally seem to operate, they're more likely to try coming up with their own crypto if they can't buy one out.   

Anything they can't own, they try to compete with.  It's a bit predatory if I'm honest.  Not what would traditionally come to mind when you evoke thoughts of what Disney represents.

If the solution was that simple, do you honestly not think someone would have done it by now?  

How is the network supposed to arrive at consensus if there's no longest chain to follow?  How do you validate a transaction with no inputs?  What happens to all the inputs and outputs we've already made?  What's to stop miners altering the data in these so-called super-blocks?


//EDIT:  I'm just going to refer you back to this post made in your last topic attempting to "fix" Bitcoin.  I'm impressed that you managed to come up with an even worse idea than that one.

It's like saying you can take out the hard drive from your PC and just use the memory to do everything you need.  It's not going to work like you think it does. 

I wish you the best of luck in your endeavours, but maximalism has nothing to do with it.  It's more like empiricism.  We see on a daily basis what works and what doesn't.  And what definitely doesn't work is the people who believe they can just turn up here out the blue and announce what would be "better" and assume that everyone will just go along with it.  We're gonna need a little more than that to get over our well-founded skepticism of your "novel idea" that's been proposed and rebuked more times than I care to count.  Why should I be flexible when it comes to inviting terrible ideas that would weaken the protocol?  That's kind of a red line for me.  

I thought it seemed like a peculiar choice of wording.  My initial impression was to take them at their word that they were concerned about mining costs, but your take does seem to make more sense, heh.



All of my "This".  

Bitcoin lives in the moment.  Algorithms in other altcoins come and go, but Bitcoin pays no notice and just churns out another block in ~10 minutes.  Give it all the time in the world if you want, PoS just isn't happening.  Every alt fan thinks their preferred method of securing the chain is better.  But roughly every 10 minutes, they're proven wrong.  

I'm sure that everyone will love dumping their POS-fork coins for more BTC.  But yeah, this just isn't happening.  The best you could ever hope for is a POS sidechain. 

No, the reply is that you don't understand consensus.  You never have.  You like the notion of consensus, in a purely theoretical sense.  But in practice, running live in the real world, you hate consensus.  You can't stand the fact that anyone can code what they want and that people can run it, because it means they can run code which does things you don't personally approve of.  All the things you'll happily spend the rest of your sad life complaining about.  If you had the power to just snap your fingers and magically prevent anyone from coding future softforks, I know you absolutely would without hesitation.  That's just who you are as a person.  If you don't agree with it, there's no conceivable way it should be allowed.  You are wholly incapable of respecting the choices the users on this network have made.  You are wholly incapable of respecting the right of devs to code what they want.  If you don't like what we're running or what devs are coding, that's a 'YOU' problem, not an 'US' problem.