Just want to say, I totally called it:

Correct.  That was a clear breach of the rules.  And now that all the other associated accounts are effectively ban-evading, they can be wiped out too.

It depends what you mean by "now", I guess, since active coders come and go as they wish.  Technically, all the people who have contributed code to the Bitcoin Core repository over the years have supported the current build, in which case, mjglqw's reply of 647 is correct, but for those credited in the most recent release, the figure is just 19 people who "directly contributed".  But it's likely more people will contribute changes in later updates to 0.18.x, so you'll just have to keep an eye on the repository to see who's chipping in at the time.

We'd love to do that, believe me, but some of the very users in this topic keep regurgitating faketoshi's nauseating false arguments and lies.  If we could consign that nonsense to the history books and move forward, that would be great.  But it seems some people can't help but drag their heels and live in the past, namely the period of time prior to SegWit being activated.  I'll start listening if they ever get with the times.

Off-topic:  Good timing, how do you feel about Carlton's assertion that you're "very likely anonymint"?

On topic:  The technology also doesn't work in a way where <5% of the network can dictate terms to the other 95%.  Regardless of your personal feelings towards how I've phrased it, people can run whatever software they like, but it doesn't mean they can force their proposed rule changes upon an unwilling network. If enough people on the network elect to enforce new rules, fair enough.  But at some point, when it becomes abundantly clear that you are very much in the minority, there comes a time where it would behoove you to recognise that pissing into the wind isn't serving your goals very well.

And, for what it's worth, I'm intrigued by the potential for sidechains.  If they can provide some form of compromise that keeps all sides reasonably satisfied, it will have my support.

The "system" cannot magically give people equal hashrate because people can own more than one piece of hardware.  First you said there were no pools, but now you realise you have no way of preventing them from forming.

This sounds very much like a fanciful wishlist rather than a well considered plan of action. 

Individuals whom you've just invented a way to prevent from working together?



And who's this doing the "giving" part, exactly?  

Gee, I wonder why no one thought of that until now.  

Oh wait, that's right, people have been saying it for years and still none of them can come up with a way to implement it that doesn't involve coercion and centralisation.  Tell us how you would prevent it.  It would least provide some entertainment value for this otherwise dismal topic.

Fingers crossed that's how it unfolds.  Hopefully that would leave Wright far less disposable income for other frivolous lawsuits and make him generally less of a nuisance.  Once they take away his funding, all he has left are his tall tales.

As far as I was aware, the Zin-Zang account wasn't actually banned.  They just had a shit-fit over all the negative feedback people left and obviously wanted to wipe the slate clean.  I can't be bothered to look up the dates, but the Khaos77 account was definitely registered shortly before the Zin-Zang account made a post declaring they were leaving the forum and not coming back.

Khaos77 is 100% Zin-Zang.  Not a doubt in my mind.  I'm curious about your thought that aliashraf is Anonymint, though.  I didn't get that impression, although I can see some similarities.

I'm also interested in where the banned accounts RNC and anti-cen fit into the equation and whether those are more Zin-Zang/Khaos77 accounts.

I'm a "vigilance over complacency" kind of guy and can't see how you win a debate by only letting the opponent speak, which they will clearly continue doing.  Who knows?  Maybe they do genuinely believe what they're saying.  It's really difficult to tell.  But I'm going to err on the side of caution and presume it's malicious (as I can understand you are doing in this topic).  It looks to me like an ongoing propaganda campaign by determined disinformation agents.  I just don't see how ignoring the problem and allowing the less experienced forum denizens to be mislead helps anything.  False narratives need to be challenged.

Translation:

If 99% of users relied on SPV and only the big corporations ran full nodes, franky1 could realise his dream of near-free transactions because other people would then be paying the underlying cost for it.  But sadly can't reconcile this with the reality of real users wanting to avoid trusting a few big corporations to use Bitcoin.  So the users keep running nodes that enforce small-ish blocks.  Even when the users agree to allow slightly more throughput, it's never good enough for franky1.  Hence never getting what he wants and flailing like an entitled infant about how all the other Bitcoin users don't understand his supposed genius.

It's not rocket science.  It's entirely possible for you to have the network you want.  But it's clearly not this network.  The users on this network do not want your glorious vision of cheap and centralised.  The things you desire are not even remotely compatible with what we're doing.  How is this not obvious to you?  There are other networks that cater to your desires, but you're still hellbent on turning this network into those other networks, even though that's completely redundant and the users on this chain disagree with the approach those other networks are taking.  How do you think you can be a constructive and helpful part of this network when you fundamentally disagree with the software 95+% of the users are running?  And then you have the gall, the unashamed audacity and barefaced cheek, to claim that we don't understand consensus?  What's wrong with your brain?  Seriously?   

If the design worked, then absolutely.  But the design is deeply flawed and probably causes more identity theft than it prevents.  How many of these incidents would have been far less serious if it wasn't a legal requirement to hold all that data?  Creating vast treasure troves for criminals to plunder is utterly stupid.

I don't know how many people have phrased it in quite that way before, but many people, like Andreas Antonopoulos, for example, have popularised phrases like:


and that Bitcoin was going to be used to underpin all manner of other assets, including physical ones.  It can theoretically do that, but no one is having much success at actually making it happen at the moment.

This has certainly been a popular thought over the years, but it's one of those things that hasn't really come to fruition.  The problem, as is often the case, boils down to trust.  The moment your BTC represents an asset that some individual or company is supposedly holding, how do you trust that person/organisation?  How do you know they've still got the asset and they haven't sold it on?  It's something we haven't quite solved yet.  From my standpoint, it seems like something for future generations to figure out, since I don't see us finding the answer any time soon.

It's YOUR COMPARISON you fucking moron.  I know it's flawed.  That was the entire point.  


So yeah, it's not a valid comparison.  That's literally the first thing you've ever said that makes the slightest bit of sense.

Which ones?  The BU devs?   

I'm guessing you didn't speak to the ones who left you negative feedback for:
or

Either way, if I hear directly from a developer that something is wrong, I'll take it under advisement.  If you tell me your contorted interpretation of what a dev supposedly told you, which likely bears no resemblance to what they actually said, I'll ignore it, because you have zero credibility.  Find a new audience, this one is booing you off the stage.

So, not content with wanting to tell Sipa what they can and can't code, you also want to bitch about where they do or don't keep their funds?  Nazi much?  Any other orders, mein fuhrer?

Now run a streaming service where the users keep a copy of every show every user has ever watched in order to watch the latest episodes and tell me how few resources that uses.  

The cost is not the amount per day and nothing else.  The cost is the total current size of the blockchain plus the amount it increases by each day.  Unless you reconfigure the settings on your node, you need to broadcast information to bootstrap new nodes and keep other nodes up to date.  The recommended specification for upload allowance if you don't change the standard settings is: