Thatcher always maintained that "no such thing as society" is a misquote. Maybe it is in the interview, and Thatcher was lying. Doesn't really improve the situation much, whichever way one wishes to look at it.

And besides which, if that's the verbatim quote, she contradicts herself by describing societal relationships in the last line ("It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours"). There is such thing as society, and community. You and Thatcher were both wrong (at least Thatcher both tacitly and expressedly admitted her fault)


Do you have any more paraphrased, self-contradictory quotes from women's weekly magazines spoken by mass-murdering, robber-baron enabling liars to support your arguments, dinofelis?

That was me, not The One.


And you're wrong. Or at least I believe you could be.

Satoshi turning up now would not make enough difference, I agree with that, there's no panic now (not among Bitcoin supportres, at least ). But in a serious crisis, Satoshi reappearing and telling everyone "do this" would be very powerful, especially if some kind of time limit was involved.

And it might not even be the real Satoshi, all one needs to impersonate Satoshi is access to a Satoshi email account, Satoshi's old PGP key and maybe his forum account here on Bitcointalk. Someone began to use Hal Finney's account recently in exactly the same way.


If Satoshi returns to "show us the way" when the clock is ticking in or on the way to a major crisis, it might not even be him. Do not underestimate the lengths that the money powers will go to to keep control of the money power. Trust yourself, trust your logic. You are the one you have been searching for.

I don't find the advertising argument very convincing.


If you were the advertiser, be honest, how much would you pay for Google Ads? Considering how effective it is, I doubt it would be very much.

And think, Google have a huge amount of R&D, some of which is never commercialised, all of which requires top professionals in their field. It doesn't seem to add up. How can Google really be the biggest technology company right now, and probably the biggest ever, just from the advertising revenue that 80% or 90% or users never engage with?

I don't get it. Why are you doing it, then

there are 3 sides:


"1 MB Forever" Immutability advocates

Including iamnotback, dinofelis and trainscarwreck. And that's all of them, the "Popular Front of Judea", lol. No one takes that view particularly seriously, but I sympathise with it to a degree.

"The Gamed Market decides" Infinity blocksize yesterday advocates

The dangerous group. Large numbers of very repetitive forum members, very thin (10%) representation in the Bitcoin network itself, and that's questionable. Mining represents 40% support for this group, but that's going to change for a variety of reasons

"One node one vote" Technical solution advocates

Yes, I'm biased towards this group. But I also don't like how big the blocks will be (4MB) either. Forum support is sporadic, but widespread within it's patchiness. Node support is highest (60%, or arguably higher if you count pre 13.1 Core nodes too). Mining support is lowest (30%), or maybe it's now about even with the 1MB-by-default miners who have abstained from signalling so far.



I fear a 4th side, like I mention on the previous page of this thread. All it would take is some kind of a major crisis to take place, and people could be panicked into choosing a cleverly contrived power grab with an appeal to authority of some kind, which Bitcoiners would not have sufficient time to assess properly.

.....and hopefully you can now see my original point more clearly.


There is more than one way to compare FLOPs with distributed SHA-2 hashrates, and none of them are definitive. All comparisons between the two are arbitrary to some extent, and yield different factors of difference between supercomputer performance and Satoshi's design for a distributed trust network.

Yes, I broadly agree.

But it sounds like you're saying Segwit might not have a chance, but support from miners is steadily rising, consistently above 30% for nearly a week now.

Also, stopping ASIC Boost might cut Bitmain's hashrate share significantly (assuming they're actually using it, which is not an unfair assumption). Fear of getting their blocks orphaned by >51% of miners signalling Segwit might indeed change Bitmain's mind, they'd have little choice but to start signalling Segwit too, or they'd risk losing blocks and revenue.
the


I'm not in favour of bigger blocks, but you will have your wish, when Segwit activates. I think 4MB blocks are a danger, especially since geopolitical tensions seem to increase every day (and more and more governments are using the tension to advocate putting more controls on the internet).

But I'm willing to compromise with Segwit. If you don't think 4MB blocks will be enough today, I don't know what compromise any of us could agree to.

Controlling the price is one option with that setup, and exchange insiders are no doubt making that happen.




What concerns me far more is some "voice of reason" stepping in with a poisoned compromise in a situation where everyone is panicking.


This is a classic deep state/shadow government technique:

take a thesis (Bitcoin), create it's anti-thesis (XT/Classic/BU etc), then have a pre-prepared synthesis to break the deadlock (but make sure to plan the anti-thesis carefully so that the synthesis step is very appealing, but ultimately gives the deep state as much power as possible)


thesis + antithesis = synthesis was described by social psychologist Hegel in the 19th century, and is commonly referred to as the "Hegelian dialectic".



I suspect an attempt to create such an appealing compromise has long since been in the works, and some well known and very trusted figure in the Bitcoin dev community has been positioned to "break their silence" to promote such a move.


But it will be a pre-prepared trick. Part of the problem with all the fork-coups thus far is that the trolls are suspiciously obvious alot of the time. It's almost as if they want to be just distrusted enough to set up the dialectic tension. I mean, who can really take Peter Rizun and BU seriously, he was always a bit of a joke with his fanatsy gif charts and his MS Paint pictures of a "Blocked Stream". And Mike Hearn was always just that little too off-message in cypher-punk anarchist terms, no-one who caught the Bitcoin bug would realistically follow Mike anywhere.

Call me cynical, suspicious, paranoid, whatever. But it seems increasing likely to me that the Hegelian dialectic will be invoked: a major crisis will be provoked somehow, sometime. And someone will step forward, perhaps even Satoshi himself will emerge from the shadows to do it, and propose a drastic or radical change to "save" us all

And it will all have been one big trick, and the joke will be on those that blindly follow through fear.

Danny's alternative explanation is that those defending Core's current position are the instigators and perpetuators of the wedge.

Do you agree with that assessment DooMAD? Answer directly or not all

I'm finding it hard to tell the difference between lies and the truth with the swirling masses of claims and counter-claims that come out of Syria.

The conclusion for me is that I can't either believe or disbelieve any of it, and I'm getting the feeling that that's the whole point. There is pretty good evidence to suggest that the Shanghai Co-operation Pact side (China, Russia, Iran etc) are equally as malevolent as the NATO side. Some even say the 2 are working together, and I can see the argument for that, but the evidence is not there.


And why should we be surprised? In the age of abundant information, pumping the world full to bursting point with information that's weird or difficult to interpret is an obvious resort of those that don't want the truth to be known (which has the useful side-effect of heightening tensions). "Cursed is the man who lives in interesting times" is the expression that come most readily to mind. We are slowly descending into full-on overt Orwellianism, and it's likely going to get worse before it gets better. Prepare accordingly.

Even so, there still isn't any proof. But I agree, it's highly likely Bitmain are mining empty blocks to make use of ASIC Boost. They've admitted it's there in the ASICs, but deny using it. The BIP to remove covert ASIC Boosting should still happen of course, but there genuinely is no proof it's being used, just some highly suspicious circumstantial evidence, it's not called covert ASIC Boosting for nothing.

I never initiated that claim. For what reason are you directing your indignation at me?

This thread happened in a sequence, and Danny Hamilton started the very blame game you're implying is my responsibility. Yet he escapes your indignation, how exactly?




Again, you're telling me this for what reason, exactly? I responded to antagonism, it's plain to see for any who reads the thread



The wider community is responding to some really crafty trolling, of which you are no small part, DooMAD. No-one invited the trolling, you jackals turned up of your own accord, and hilariously perpetrate malignant and deceptive acts, then accuse those that defend themselves of that which only you are all guilty. I will defend myself and my property from liars and manipulators, such as you and Danny Hamilton, at all times.

Extraordinary allegations require extraordinary proof. Poon provides no proof, but there is definitive proof of Poon himself behaving questionably (taking his sophomore Extension Blocks proposal to the establishment media before he took it to the development community, "accidentally" posting provocative personal emails to the development mailing list etc)


The only proof of bad faith comes from Joseph Poon, who alleges collusion with no proof.

You refuse to answer the pertinent question, and instead continue to derail with over-complicated and diversionary walls-of-text full of unproven assertions. Done here, hope you're getting paid by the line

Because it involves doubling MAX_BLOCK_WEIGHT as well as MAX_BLOCK_SIZE.

In practice, that means 2MB + 6MB, not 1MB + 3MB (Segwit BIP 141 as proposed).


No, that's the whole point behind Antpool/Bitmain blocking Segwit (apparently). Segwit activation would stop ASIC Boost working, because of the way Segwit changes the coinbase structure in blocks. Blocking Segwit would allow Bitmain to continue covert ASIC Boosting, although we haven't got direct evidence that Bitmain are using it (but a range of highly suspicious indirect evidence, of course, exists)

The only answer is to take full responsibility for educating one's self.


We're in the information age. Lies told in the past, propped up for a long, long time by various establishment mouthpieces, are unravelling. The establishment appear displeased.


But are they really unhappy? The establishment have had a long, long time to think about how they will handle the effect that an information revolution would have on their status and control, and have been planning their mitigation of the effects for that same long, long time. You could argue that the Book of Revelations itself was a testament to the same logic: it's just a logical fact that if rulers tell lies to the masses to keep them under as much control as possible, planning for an era when the lies come undone makes alot of sense, and so writing the Book of Revelations was no prophecy, the writers had zero clue when it may happen, just that an apocalyptic unravelling of tyrannical lies was certain to happen eventually.

Expect "raining frogs", "cataclysms" and "mark of the beast" stuff, but not because of actual supernatural deities (which cannot exist by definition IMO), but because the self appointed gods of this world have planned to make these things happen, to scare those of subnormal intelligence into yet more compliance with authority figures telling them what to do. I don't know exactly what to expect, how could I, but I get the feeling things could be pretty serious for the human race in the coming years, these are like kids who don't want others playing with their toys, and they will not let go.

Indeed, we have no direct proof that Bitmain were using their ASIC Boost mining, despite all the implications. I guess that's why this technique is labelled covert.


The closest to actual proof we can attain is more correlation without causation type of evidence: will Antpool empty & near-empty blocks suddenly stop happening once the flag day for the ASIC boost BIP becomes activated? That would increase the suspicion, and nothing more. Antpool's hashrate may drop by the vaunted 20-30%, but they could easily mask that by carefully staging future hashrate rollout that was already planned to make their hashrate appear unchanged. If that were the case, I hope they work hard on this camouflaging job

hmmmm..... except those are all capacity change proposals, not scaling proposals. Who's the sh(r)ill troll, jonald fyookball?

Where do you actually refute the charge that Danny Hamilton was lying and manipulating? Nowhere


All your wall of text serves to illustrate is that you're talking alot and saying nothing.


I proved Danny Hamilton is a liar. It's that simple, and it's not attacking his character, it's attacking his specific behaviour, behaviour which is pertinent to the issues at hand. Not ad hominem, in other words. And it's proof positive that he knowingly lied and manipulated the discourse.
 


Iranus:

Do you accept Danny Hamilton's clarification that Core users and/or supporters began the blocksize debate, and that Core users and/or supporters perpetuated it? That's where Danny is lying, to which he could only add further manipulation in an attempt to stem the damage to his reputation.


Answer the question without diversion, or there is nothing left to talk about (you avoid it entirely in your above reply, despite that being the central point I was making)

Can't you respond without putting words in my mouth, words that closely resemble my criticism of your deceptive behaviour?

Anyone reading between the lines would think you're trying to bait me here



Stop diverting. You cannot keep maintaining the obvious lie that "the Bitcoin community desperately wants bigger blocks"

It's obvious that they do not. If the desire for blocksize increases had any strength at all, it would have happened by now, Bitcoiners have been given 3 opportunities to increase the blocksize, all were rejected.


Trying to throw up strawman bamboozles about "Core echo-chambers" is just lame lame lame. Bitcoin node operators rejected XT, Classic and BU, not forum users talking hot air.