Finally a substantiated post from franky1.  Hallelujah.  Honestly never thought I'd see the day.  Why couldn't you just do that the first time?  If I didn't have to drag it out of you, I might have even been tempted to merit you. 

So your assertion is that no code was ever made that conforms to this agreement?  Is that correct?  Because it should be emphasised that this agreement doesn't promise that a 2mb+SegWit hardfork would take place, merely that an implementation would be "available".  Are you absolutely certain such code does not exist?  Because if so, I will concede the point to you.

That's not how it works.  You either provide evidence that proves the Bitcoin Core dev team expressed their commitment to 2mb+SegWit, or otherwise I state once again that you are a lying sack of human excrement.  You can't just make stuff up and then reply "research" when someone calls you out on it (well... you can, obviously, because that's what you do in nearly every topic you post in, but it only makes it obvious that you're trolling).

Your memory serves you well.  There was a coin with 6 different hash functions and I had the distinct impression it was mostly a gimmick, as cycling hash functions doesn't guarantee that it's more secure, because security is dependent on other factors too.  But since it sounded like the kind of gimmick others might buy into, I still went ahead and bought some.  Naturally, it tanked and I invested poorly.  

As far as I know, it's still traded.  And, chances are, it's likely they're not the only coin doing stuff like that now.  So yep, the on-topic part of the story is that it's definitely possible to cycle hash functions.

What the hell are you even on about?  No doubt you're deliberately taking something out of context again, so if you could provide a direct quote from a Core dev regarding whatever it is you're spouting nonsense about, we can debunk it more efficiently.

If you're talking about the New York Agreement, I think you'll find you have to commit to something first before you can "back out" of it.  I know such concepts might be difficult for you to grasp while you still entertain the misguided notion that devs have to do what you want them to.   

As if you were in any position to judge.   

If I ever hear you saying something that sounds like it might be an improvement to Bitcoin, I'll let you know.  But it's safe to say most of your ideas are absolutely dismal and would make Bitcoin WORSE, not better.  But keep blaming one dev team for the fact that most of your suggestions are totally unworkable and barely anyone would support them even in the unlikely event someone took the time to code the rare few that aren't impossible.

Because you hate softforks and (if you could code) would deliberately code it in a way that wasn't backwards-compatible.  That's how a) and d) can both be valid.  But I wouldn't expect someone with your limited comprehension to grasp that.

Your reply is a desperate attempt to sidestep the facts that:

a) You have no code for half the things you want to implement
b) Your ideas have little support
c) Many users see you as a discredited troll
d) You think you can be part of a network while also being in a minority that runs code which is incompatible with the code the majority are running (and yet still believe you're in a position to tell us how consensus works)

There's too many of them.  The first two-and-a-half pages of the Bitcoin Discussion board are old posts bumped with spam.  Usernames all appear to end with an underscore and two other characters.

I prefer code and transparency.  I don't see how you're going to attract many users if you can't even tell us anything about it.

Then perhaps an explanation to elucidate the situation would clear things up?  Start at the beginning.  Which project are you referring to?  And where can I view this code?  I get that your forum persona is trying to come across as mysterious and edgy, but it's not helpful when trying to have an open discussion.  If there's some code, let's see it and go from there.

There's no bargaining involved.  People are simply running code to enforce the rules they want to see enforced.  You spouting whatever nonsense you are on an internet forum is not changing that.  If you think you can do better, where's the repository for your client?  How many users does it have?  Who's your special friend who apparently makes all the decisions?  Are they the lead dev?

Wrong as usual.  Lesson one is that those securing the chain decide what Bitcoin is.  You need to learn that before you can even attempt to lecture on anything else.  But chances are, you never will wrap your feeble little mind around it.  When both non-mining full nodes and miners begin to consider more throughput, perhaps at that point, things might change in a way you approve of.  Until then, suck it.  You are wholly impotent and your views are barely represented on this network.  You lack support for even the most miniscule of changes you'd like to see.

But by all means keep calling those securing the chain "fanboys" and "sheep".  I'm sure that's going to win them over to your way of thinking.  

We've had two years for people to decide that they don't like the direction Bitcoin is going in and leave the network in favour of one that functions in the way you'd like Bitcoin to work.  How many more years do you think it's going to take before it dawns on you that you are wrong?  Or are you just going to keep repeating your baseless scaremongering forever, even when it's abundantly clear that users are not fleeing en-masse to the coins with greater throughput (and weaker literally-everything-else)?

I used to argue that users would naturally follow the coin with the lowest fees.  You know what happened?  Reality proved me wrong and I chose to learn something from that. 

When will you learn?  (Obviously that's a rhetorical question because the answer is clearly "never".)

You say that not many can accept it, but surely the fact that the cheaper chain still doesn't handle as many transactions as this one means there are other factors to consider?  I personally don't understand why people are in such a hurry to imitate the chains that have empirically fewer users.

Plus, if more people actually used the cheaper chains, they likely wouldn't be as cheap as they currently are.   

The discussion would be somewhat short-lived when almost every topic ends with "... and that's why it's not sustainable and will quickly centralise, making it no better than a regular database". 

Problem is, it's not exactly easy to create an alignment of incentives to secure a blockchain in a decentralised fashion even when it is a currency.  It becomes that much harder when it's just for tracking goods, storing data, or whatever else these companies are attempting to do.  It really would be an innovation if they got it right, but it remains to be seen that they will.

It's fortunate that the reality-check sunk in pretty quickly, so they only looked foolish for a short period of time.  I don't know why they briefly thought highly enough of themselves to entertain the absurd notion than anyone else would carry the burden of tidying up their mess for them.  I can't even begin to imagine a situation where the majority of users in a decentralised crytocurrency would willingly sacrifice the immutability of their blockchain to rescue a centralised company who dropped the ball.

No surprise here.  Just another ticking time bomb where the clock ran out.  The next one is already counting down.  Expect nothing to change.  We'll be having this same discussion again soon enough.



If not incompetent, then certainly arrogant.  To think you can keep thousands of BTC in a hotwallet where access is enabled via API keys and then pretend you aren't going to suffer the exact same fate as other exchanges that have lost funds in the same manner is astoundingly hard-headed.

And that's franky1 in a nutshell, heh.  He still thinks that by lying about off-chain transactions and taking potshots at Core devs, he'll magically get what he wants.  It seems real life is just going to be one big disappointment after another for him, because he's living in cloud-cuckoo-land.  And if you dare to point out how reality actually is, he calls you a "utopian" because you won't acknowledge the many shortcomings that only exist in his very special imagination.  He's a renowned troll, so don't worry about it.

I can understand your points clearly and would imagine all the other sane people here will be able to do the same.  Thank you for dispelling some myths. 

I used to push for an automated, algorithmic increase, but it never found any real support.  It just seems as though the majority of people who run full nodes don't like the uncertainty of it.  In a way, it's understandable they'd rather know what the resource costs are going to be before they agree to bear them.  

It's all well and good everyone piling in with their views about what would be best and how it should be done, but it all means nothing if no one runs the code.  It's not going to change unless it's an idea that lots of people can get behind and support.

But we have to keep in mind that "affordable" is something that will vary greatly by region.  People in developing countries should also be able to run a full node if they want to. 



Okay, I'll bite.  Who's your special friend, then?

Blockchains need to be decentralised, or they're no better than a centralised database.  Centralised databases are bad.