I'm a notorious big blocks shill (it seems) and even I think 75% is too low.
Oops, it seems the Gavinista brainwashing missed a few of your neurons. Report to The Blockchain Alliance immediately for additional reeducation!  |
|
|
|
All chainforks are not hardforks. Short chainforks happens every day. Usually because miners can't distribute their newfound blocks fast enough. This one was caused by a malicious miner not validating blocks, and mining on top of an invalid one. It disappeared as soon as the correctly validated chain overtook it. This only show the dangers of one miner controlling too much hashrate. All nodes, new and old, accepted the correctly validated chain as soon as it overtook the bad chain, and nobody were forced to upgrade anything. (Those who hadn't upgraded were potentially vulnerable to double spends however, as with all chainforks when you don't require enough confirmations. This is a good reason for merchants to stay up to date.) The August 2010 fork was much longer, btw. That fork was caused by a bug which had to be fixed for the nodes to reject the faulty chain. A hard fork is different. In a hard fork where the fork has a miner majority, the two chains will live on in parallel. Correctly validating nodes will never switch to the fork. The so-called "Classic", "XT", "Unlimited", etc forks are especially dangerous, since upgrading won't help either. There will just be different coins, and you have to make a choice of one of them. Due to incompetent fork developers, you can't even run one of the other coins on the same computer at the same time as Bitcoin Core, since they demand to bind to the same ports. Constantly keeping up with which fork to use this week is too much for most users, and since their SPV wallets will be rendered useless, they will probably just try to get rid of their coins ASAP. It would be sad end for Bitcoin, I think.  If some competent developer should think about forking bitcoin, he should start here and get 100% consensus first. There are many good reasons for a fork. Forking for a simple block size change is just dumb, and most people see that. Very good post; it helped me finalize a previously incomplete thought. It's entirely technically possible for Bitcoin and GavinCoin to have an amicable " velvet divorce." That would obviously be best for both projects, and the general crypto community. They could still be friends, and avoid traumatizing their dependents. But that's not happening, despite Core's peace offerings, olive branches, and other entreaties to stop the escalation and rancor. So why are the Gavinistas insisting on a long, ugly, drawn-out, fractious divorce, complete with accusations and counter-accusations of conflicting interests, infidelity, and 'the other side' being terrible human beings? Cui bono?Thanks to your post, it is now clear the Gavinistas insist on this extended, messy divorce proceeding because they want to take as much of Core's 'stuff' as possible. Like a greedy wife, who anticipates the court (of public opinion) favoring her, the Gavinistas want not only the common law property of the code, but also the kids and everything else, leaving Core destitute but still obligated to work on development. So what we have here is a nasty custody battle. The cheating wife initiating the divorce demands to be awarded the kids, the house, the car, the cash, the IRA, and the dog, plus expansive spousal/child support (expecting Core to continue working just to support them), etc. The Gavinista sense of unlimited entitlement is appalling. They don't care about what's best for stakeholders, only about getting even with (ie, having their revenge on) Core. They won't be satisfied unless they get the sha256 PoW, the ASICs, the pools, the users, the port numbers, the brand, the economy, the ecosystem, the forum, the subreddit, the alert key, etc. For them it is not enough that GavinCoin live; they need Core to die miserable and alone, because Hell hath no fury... Luckily, Honey Badger signed the ultimate prenuptial. Let the screeching Gavinista harpies bitch all they want, they can't touch his assets! |
|
|
|
It's a good idea. Though perhaps it might be even better to hire someone whose job it would be just to effect communication between the Core devs and the Chinese miners. wangchun has been doing this to some extent, but I still feel like there is a severe lack of communication. I especially feel like the overall philosophy of Bitcoin which motivates everything Core does has not been adequately communicated to the Chinese Bitcoin community. In the Chinese->English translations I've read, I see a ton of misunderstandings. Communication has become a problem in general, as well, though the language barrier makes it even worse. I really miss the days when all of the major miners, CEOs, etc. were quite often on IRC, directly talking with the Bitcoin experts and Core devs, and in the process becoming experts themselves. The Chinese community is realizing they have been approaching Bitcoin mostly as a business opportunity, and missing the vital deep background of its raison d'ętre. It won't be fast or easy, but evangelizing for the values expressed in the Hacker/Cyberpunk/Cypherpunk Manifestos will help non-westerners understand why Bitcoin is the way it is. I'm willing to do anything I can to assist our Asian Bitcoin brothers in grokking the ethos. Perhaps a gentle introduction to radical individualism (emphasizing it is, ironically, the best way to structure a civilization) is a good place to start. The PLA/CCP ruling class a big fan of authoritarian Confucianism, but the people have never forgotten their libertarian/anarchist Taoist and Buddhist heritage. |
|
|
|
There's really only two outcomes without a higher or removed max block size: stagnation or network congestion failure.
Like you don't need a gun to kill an ant, you don't need bitcoin to buy your damned coffee. Bitcoin is for gentlemen's transactions. Capisc? Don't tell me what I need. It's that kind of arrogance that is going to make Bitcoin an asterisk in the history of cryptocurrencies. Businesses that dictate to their customers what they should want are gonna have a bad time. Bitcoin is not a business, it is a protocol. Is "ZOMG BITCOIN IS GOING TO DIE BECAUSE ARROGANCE" really your position? What you need is to write less and read more, because you don't understand a thing about Bitcoin ("grok the ethos" as Dr. Back would say). |
|
|
|
Innovation is not burning a gigawatt of mining power to process less than 4 transactions per second. Especially when we could increase that capacity by a factor of eight with almost no additional costs.
In economics, sometimes it's helpful to try and calculate the true cost of something by factoring out the subsidies. In this case the subsidy is the block reward and the cost is paid by investors/speculators.
if users actually paid the full cost of their transaction now, it would be several dollars each. That's a horribly inefficient system and not one worth investing in, IMHO. The fact that it could potentially be much more efficient if some minor changes were made is irrelevant if there is no process for making those changes.
The governance model needs to change, so until Bitcoin Classic or something like it achieves a clear majority of support by nodes and miners, we have to assume the rough consensus mechanism of a small minority having effective veto power is going to continue, which means nothing is going to get done. Blocks will fill up. Fees will increase. There's really only two outcomes without a higher or removed max block size: stagnation or network congestion failure.
The $7/tx subsidy only illustrates how ridiculous the coffees-on-the-blockchain idea is, and how critical it is that BTC become high-powered money rather than yet another retail payment rail. Those four tps are the most precious rare things in existence. The ability to store and/or transfer value quickly, securely, and without permission is unprecedented. A gigawatt is a small price to pay for the provision of such a modern miracle. It's adorable you think Honey Badger cares about ignorant Gavinista fuckwit ramblings and desires for a contentious hard fork and governance coup. Please take your Negative Nancy 'zomg Bitcoin is GOING TO DIEEEEE WITHOUT 2MB RIGHT MEOW' bullshit over to BitcoinObituaries.com. |
|
|
|
worst trolls on side of big blockers ... easy to see who's losing and attracts the agent provocateurs to keep the division raging, sadly they are welcomed into their ranks by the pretenders. Trolfi and notlambchop now honorary members of fraud cypherdoc's goon squad.
Who are they enlisting next to the Free Shit Army ... the Buttcoiner Brigade?
So you're like a less eloquent version of iCEBREAKER now. I liked you better before the war. :- War. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing. Nations destroyed. Lives ruined. Shoes lost.  Thanks for the compliment. Like any civil war, the Great Schism has turned brother against brother and hardened hearts. Just look at Frap.doc's "funny" post for example. Isn't it hilarious that the woman lost everything and is wailing in grief and despair? I guess that's what she deserves for not being a rich doctor hobnobbing among other elites in spendy coastal California enclaves of posh indulgence. LOL, she's holding a (dead son/husband's?) SHOE!!! |
|
|
|
worst trolls on side of big blockers ... easy to see who's losing and attracts the agent provocateurs to keep the division raging, sadly they are welcomed into their ranks by the pretenders. Trolfi and notlambchop now honorary members of fraud cypherdoc's goon squad.
Who are they enlisting next to the Free Shit Army ... the Buttcoiner Brigade?
Didn't you notice Frap.doc's schizophrenic decent into madness, as the cognitive dissonance from trying to be both a Bitcoin Maximalist Monopolist Supremacist and a Bitcoin Obituary Writer destroyed the poor fellow? Buttcoiners already volunteered for and were deployed by the Gavinista insurgency (and vice versa). They were brought together by their common hatred of Core, Blockstream, theymos, cypherpunks, freedom, etc. Generalissimo Trolfi is their big fat brain bug. He's paid by Brazil.gov to FUD BTC, because it represents a threat to the cushy jobs of that violent economic basket case of a country's ruling elite. |
|
|
|
nice  WHOA!!!!! Someone made a fancy version of my concept I did a few months ago! So awesome - I love it! Are you responsible for this GTO911?
edit: I'm doing some digging - it was user aiwe? So cool to see; thank you for keeping the concept alive and growing. Also I agree with the bone simple version. Yes, it can be technically nitpicked, but the idea is to show how Monero is the holy grail of money to someone who doesn't understand or know about Monero in the first place. It's not trying to be an end-all technical reference. If someone likes, they can make two versions: an intro version (this one), and an advanced one showing all sorts of tiny technical details. I'd like an even more simplified version, with the outer word-labeled circles cropped leaving only the three gold/cash/BTC icon fields surrounding our logo. That would be avatar-worthy.... |
|
|
|
How do you guys feel about VIA being used as a guinea pig for segwit?
Great idea but I thought it was still theoretical, is there code out there yet? I think so, since it's been in segwit testnet since last year. Part of Elements Alpha IIRC. |
|
|
|
So much for the idea that Crypty's stolen(?) Dash have already been sold. It now appears BigVern still has control of 456,501 Dash, and can dump them off any time he feels like it, or the bankruptcy/divorce court compels him to do so. Yes,I know for that If you follow where DASH is going you would notice that from big DASH wallet(which address change with each tx) coins are going to address Xqi7sWthYKFPCK3KHcKq8BqY9vMcWy4r3t - Cryptsy hot wallet.https://chainz.cryptoid.info/dash/address.dws?Xqi7sWthYKFPCK3KHcKq8BqY9vMcWy4r3t.htmSo if anyone hacked Cryptsy DASH wallet why hacker would refill Cryptsy hot wallet regulary?They know these wallets were not hacked,because people could easily trace their txs which came direct from wallets formed after 29.July.2014.But they cant explain how these wallets are empty and do not want to reveal balances.That is why we need CSI Miami |
|
|
|
It seems that bitebi9 - https://www.bitebi9.com/ tries to cut all connections with Cryptsy.They change layout,site registrant name, contact address and remove chat. "Hello, welcome to Bitebi9, the exchange that is Definitely Not Cryptsy®!!!" "Would you like to buy some Dash scamcoins that were definitely not stolen?" |
|
|
|
standing outside Core's gates complaining as loudly as possible Lost it right there I did, imagining the filthy petulant Toominista/Gavinista rabble indignantly chanting "2MB!! RIGHT FUCKING MEOW!!1!"  Bitcoin XT, Unlimited and Classic will give birth to another 5 fail implementations. Oh that would be glorious. The next governance coup attempt appears to be based on convincing the Chinese Bitcoin community that Core are racist sinophobes who don't 'respect China.' So we get to look forward to Hearn's beatific vision for "Chinese Bitcoin" (ie one operating solely behind the Great Firewall) creating new heights of FUD, chaos and drama, as well as new (local) lows for the price of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Monero's time is not yet IMHO. Lately we have seen a different focus
55k XMR available to borrow and dump. But bids are so solid that would only take us back to 0.0012.  Monero's time will come. It is known. |
|
|
|
Decred and Litecred are my favourite coins, looking forward for release  What about Decred Classic and Darkcred? |
|
|
|
|
How do you guys feel about VIA being used as a guinea pig for segwit?
It worked out for CLTV, and testing segwit in a live production alt seems like a good idea.
Plus Peter The Todd already knows VIA's codebase!
|
|
|
|
And my company, HaoBTC, has been contemplating sponsoring a core developer recently.
My bet is that Chinese miners will sponsor Luke-jr so that he can change the PoW to put all the Chinese miners out of business. It really seems that Chinese miners kowtow to those who show contempt for them, and they show contempt for anybody who listens to them and tries to take their concerns into account. Do they know that in the West that's considered shameful behavior? Case in point. Nationality does matter after all. There was no point in fatbitcoinfan's post. He was only being a rude sarcastic troll, by making fun of Luke-jr and your excellent idea to sponsor a core dev. If you are convinced nationality does matter to Bitcoin's code and protocol, what should we expect from your core dev? What could possibly make Bitcoin's neutral code and protocol 'more Chinese?' Just the dev's nation of origin, or some new feature like Lucky 8MB blocks? That line of thought makes no sense to me, especially given the Cypherpunk Manifesto's emphasis on code, privacy, and individualism. I don't see how your emphasis on national identity is compatible with it. The personal/national identities of our fellow Bitcoiners should not matter, and it's not any of our business to violate their privacy. |
|
|
|
Some believe that the Chinese community's interest being underrepresented at the level of core development is much due to the fact that as a whole they have been myopically focusing on making money and not paying enough attention to protocol maintenance. As a result, they have almost no say and are little more than merely audience.
Please elaborate on what you mean by "the Chinese community's interest." The three things I've heard about China-specific BTC interests relate to verification, bandwidth, propagation, and GFC latency issues. - 20MB Gavinblocks are too big/slow for Chinese miners (and were vetoed by f2pool, etc.) - 8MB XT blocks are lucky, because of some pun or superstition - SPV mining was being done in unsafe/invalid ways by some Chinese miners, resulting in slightly more chaos and drama than usual Other than geography and government related connectivity issues, I don't understand how a neutral protocol like Bitcoin would have any kind of nation-specific interests. I also don't understand how you can arrive at general conclusions about a group so large, and thus full of conflicting and competing opinions and interests, as the Chinese Bitcoin community (which must number in the thousands or millions). Are you doing the same thing as some big-blockers here in the west, which is to presume to speak for the majority even though no vote has been taken? But you are aware that it is almost impossible to speak without some level of generalisation, aren't you? Sure, I by very definition can't have perfect knowledge of all people who identify themselves as Chinese. But let's not get too philosophical. What prompted me to post this topic is that I went to a BTC conference in Beijing last week - there were about 60 people, all Chinese with exception of two who don't speak the Chinese language. I assume that the rest are representative of the Chinese to some degree? And I find that their views are echoed again and again by the Chinese articles and forum posts that I read on daily basis, which reinforce my impression that these are indeed what the Chinese believe. Also, I work at a Chinese office in Zhongguancun district, Beijing and sometimes, have meals with them, and I sometimes shares a dormitory with some Chinese colleagues - paid for by the company. I assume they are representative in a way too? If that doesn't matter, I lived three months in a Chinese Bitcoin data centre in Western Sichuan and interviewed scores of people when I write for some Bitcoin media outlets. If all these don't qualify me to speak for the Chinese according to your standard, then fine, just ignore me. Ignoring you would not allow us to learn from each other, so I won't do that. I am happy and thankful you are reporting on what you hear and see in the Chinese Bitcoin ecosystem. But your experiences, although very interesting, are anecdotal and do not qualify you to be the Chinese Ambassador to Bitcoin. In the very large group of Chinese Bitcoiners, there are just as many different opinions as we find in American Bitcoiners or European Bitcoiners. I don't presume to appoint myself American Ambassador to Bitcoin, because I think the idea of bringing old-fashioned nationalistic nonsense into a better future (based on a neutral protocol for value transfer) is silly. And if you haven't noticed, we in the West love to disagree with each other! Maybe we have missed an important unique feature of Chinese Bitcoiners, that they may for cultural reasons be less likely to speak up for an opinion perceived to be unpopular. Do you feel there may be truth in that hypothesis? Have you met any outspoken Chinese small-blockers/Core supporters/Blockstream fanboys, do they simply not exist, or are they uncomfortable expressing disagreement with the majority? |
|
|
|
In Bitcoin, only the code matters and the protocol is nationality-neutral.
I think it is a bit disingenuous to argue that nationalities don't matter as many western bitcoiners, including prominent ones, cite Chin as a factor in their assessment of the success of Bitcoin or lack thereof. It is almost like to say that on the level of atoms, there is no sexuality or race, therefore the society should heed nothing but laws of physics. I agree that code itself doesn't recognise nationality, but it is not only the code, but people who are involved with it. The code is everything! We did not come to Bitcoin because of satisfaction with our governments, etc. http://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/manifesto.htmlPrivacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. ...
We cannot expect governments, corporations, or other large, faceless organizations to grant us privacy ...
We must defend our own privacy if we expect to have any. ...
Cypherpunks write code. We know that someone has to write software to defend privacy, and ... we're going to write it. ... So I repeat: In Bitcoin, only the code matters and the protocol is nationality-neutral. All of the rest is just noise and context. I recognize that the noise and context exist, but deny they matter more than Bitcoin's code and neutral protocol, because talking about Bitcoin does not make you part of Bitcoin. Of course China, as the world's largest economy, matters in speculative discussion about "assessment of the success of Bitcoin or lack thereof." But the chattering masses' idle ramblings about Bitcoin's fiat exchange rate have nothing to do with critical engineering decisions like max block size. |
|
|
|
Some believe that the Chinese community's interest being underrepresented at the level of core development is much due to the fact that as a whole they have been myopically focusing on making money and not paying enough attention to protocol maintenance. As a result, they have almost no say and are little more than merely audience.
Please elaborate on what you mean by "the Chinese community's interest." The three things I've heard about China-specific BTC interests relate to verification, bandwidth, propagation, and GFC latency issues. - 20MB Gavinblocks are too big/slow for Chinese miners (and were vetoed by f2pool, etc.) - 8MB XT blocks are lucky, because of some pun or superstition - SPV mining was being done in unsafe/invalid ways by some Chinese miners, resulting in slightly more chaos and drama than usual Other than geography and government related connectivity issues, I don't understand how a neutral protocol like Bitcoin would have any kind of nation-specific interests. I also don't understand how you can arrive at general conclusions about a group so large, and thus full of conflicting and competing opinions and interests, as the Chinese Bitcoin community (which must number in the thousands or millions). Are you doing the same thing as some big-blockers here in the west, which is to presume to speak for the majority even though no vote has been taken? |
|
|
|
It is helpful to clarify and confirm that some of the agitation for 2MB is merely for the sake of "a test of Core team's willingness to listen" (wherein "listen" actually means "obey").
A contentious hard fork is not a "a small compromise" because it puts the entire system at risk of catastrophic consensus failure (and will almost certainly crash the price).
The 'you have to give me something because otherwise you're uncompromising and I will pout' negotiation tactic will not work on Bitcoin engineering decisions.
Our Honey Badger really does not care about hurt feelings from pushy token-demanding nobodies (of any nationality).
If Honey Badger starts negotiating and compromising simply to appease emotionally needy peoples' pleas for a pat on the head, the Bitcoin experiment ends in failure.
I hope this helps you understand why a 2MB increase is not as easy as throwing a bone to a barking dog.
I thought that the core devs wanted to listen to "the community"? Now you are telling me that yes, they may condensed themselves but whatever you Chinese may have to say, it is of no consequence and should have zero effect on the outcome because we know better? Excuse my poor English but this strikes me as a bit condescending. In Bitcoin, only the code matters and the protocol is nationality-neutral. So there is no reason for any particular group to feel sorry for themselves. Core devs may listen to anyone they want, but have no obligation to obey them or compromise with some token of good will. Honey Badger only eats the sweetest code he can find. Right now, the best code is being produced by Core, but everyone else is welcome to try doing a better job. Honey Badger's nature and purpose is to be condescending; opinions are of no consequence to him. He does not have to do what Core or miners or anyone else says. That's why we love him. But if any group of miners or devs or anyone except the socioeconomic majority could tell Honey Badger what to do, he would die instantly. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
