Really, Danny? Semantic sleight of hand, that's all you've got in your defence? My ostensible "trolling" requires you to come down from your ivory tower, huh?


But then again, I'd expect you to start trying to twist the meaning of your own sentences to prosecute your position. And oh how much rhetoric (the colours are very pretty) you need to do it.


If it's a consensus system, as you constantly re-iterate, how can addressing one user make any difference? Because if we are to accept your version of events, you are implicitly targeting the small number of Bitcointalk users that are advocating the truth with your hypocritical and cowardly ad hominem attack, aren't you Danny Hamilton?




Edit:

And I'll tell you something else Danny Hamilton.



If we assume that your re-interpretation of context in the English language is correct, then the substance of what you said is still wrong, i.e. you're still a shameless liar


How can you possibly declare that the opposition to blocksize-pushing began the argument? Or that blocksize opponents maintained the argument?


"Big-Blocks" Andresen began the debate, pushed it, and every day of every week of every year since, a horde of big block promoters have been brigading this forum and others like it, with constant distortions of the facts and outright lies. We're the reaction to the antagonists, we are not the antagonists, as you falsely (and knowingly) state.


And you're no different, are you Danny Hamilton? You distorted the facts, claiming Core started and maintained the blocksize (read: putsch for control) war, and then you distorted your own lie, attempting to alter the addressee of your original lie, as if that somehow made what you said about the culpability for the instigation and continuation of the debate magically truthful?


It's clever little lie after clever little lie with you, isn't it Danny Hamilton?

 
I did understand the difference.

Did you see what I mean when I said "the code is the policy". If the code is written in a way that equates to the policy, what is the purpose of writing public policy statements? The code is the most meaningful public policy statement there could be, written words in human language are essentially promises. Spoken promises can be broken, the programming logic cannot.

Hence, the code is a more valuable statement of intent than any written statement could ever be. I realise I'm talking down your vocation, but perhaps your skills would be better transferred to some other area as we move into a true cypher punk era. I guess we'll have to wait and see, but I suspect cypher punk philosophy has the potential to propagate faster than many might predict.

Hopefully, the preventative change to remove the closed-source ASIC Boost advantage (currently in a work in progress) will reduce Bitmain's hashrate enough to push Segwit above a 51% signalling rate. No miner likes the orphaning risk that 51% signalling of any BIP represents, so BIP 9 (Segwit) might get enough of a boost from the Anti-ASIC Boost BIP that Bitmain will lose 20-30% of their hashrate, and Segwit signallers will fill the gap.

With Segwit at over 30% now, I would expect alot of the miners and pools who represent the holdouts to finally get on board (node support is now over 60%). And maybe even former BU miners/pools will switch, now that BU is officially dead in the water. That makes the prospects for 51% Segwit acceptance pretty good today, so even UASF might be unneeded, the miners might yet activate Segwit.

Yes.

But like all the smart disinfo agents, he began by building trust.

Some of the best info and reporting on the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing was gathered by none other than Alex Jones. He then went on to ridiculous stuff about "Bohemian Grove satanic rituals" and "the Chinese are building a Death Star"


That's how all, and I mean all, these people work.

Who subtly pumped Roger Ver's reputation, both before and during the BU coup attempt? Who subtly propagated the "Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landings" myth? Who subtly promotes the veracity of hypnotised assassins and mind control? None other than trusted darling of the alt-media conspiracy/NWO personalities, James Corbett.

It's not an Apples to Apples comparison.


Supercomputer performance is measured in FLOPs, which is an abbreviation for floating point operations per second. But the Bitcoin mining rate is measured in hashes per second.


The Bitcoin hashing algorithm for calculating the next block header (which miners invoke to produce the overall network hashrate) is not a floating point operation, it is integer based arithmetic, not floating point arithmetic.


So to make a comparison, assumptions have to be made about equating 1 FLOP to 2 SHA-2 hashes (a single Bitcoin block header involves 2 SHA-2 hashes). The assumptions one makes alter the equation, so it's not really a true empirical measurement.

Fully in agreement. We may have averted a real disaster for Bitcoin in the shape of BU, but the plans for the next coup have already been made public, and all the blocksize obsessives on the forums have started the cycle all over again.

The honest miners should not be penalised for maintaining their decorum faced with adversity, but the risk of mining centralisation is still too significant. A staged move away from SHA-2 hashing must happen sooner rather than later to mitigate the risk. Miners can take the opportunity to halt their development of mining ASICs, and concentrate on making the transition to CPU mining, there's no reason why they cannot still compete in the marketplace using their other marginal advantages, which will still exist after chaging the PoW algorithm.


Isn't this the same as point 1, though? If the Bitcoin developers write the code, that is the policy, and it couldn't be any more clear written as code. In cryptographic networks like Bitcoin, the code is the policy, the code is the law.


Further to this, it's possible that UASF might not even be needed. Bitmain's loss in hashrate share resulting from gmaxwell's neutering of ASIC Boost might be enough to force Bitmain's hand. Segwit signalling might rise to above 50% from removing ASIC Boost's viability, and 50% BIP acceptance has a tendency to move to 95% very quickly, it makes miners and pools nervous that they may start losing block solution races when 51% threshold is passed.

For over 65 years, regular newspapers and TV news in the Western world maintained the lie that the 1953 coup d'etat in Iran that deposed President Mossadegh was "just a conspiracy theory"

Now, no-one credible, including regular newspapers (many of whom covered this "news" in the year 2013) and historians, accept the lies that newspapers and TV news used to repeat about the 1953 Iranian coup. The fact is, CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt (a nephew or cousin of former US president Theodore Roosevelt) created the coup and sold the lies to the world, using lots of money and faked news pictures of small numbers of paid Iranians pretending to riot in the streets.


So please, get with the 21st century. "Conspiracy theory" doesn't mean "fake story", it's psychological language used by state intelligence services covering the tracks of their crimes.

Some conspiracy theories acutally are BS, and some are the truth. Which is which? Only you can decide. No authorities will tell you now, the world you thought you knew is gone

For what reason?

Prove me wrong. Demonstrate I'm wrong or being deceptive. You can't, and so you must try to use repetitive rhetoric to censor me instead.

"Politicians declared authoritarian and immoral" says Bitcoiner (me)

And remember also that Central Banks achieve stable currency values in the same way that they promote price stability for general goods: limited access to centralised markets.


Who trades on the currency and commodity markets that set the price of basically everything regular folks buy? Huge merchant banks, like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. What stops them colluding with each other to fix the price of commodities and currencies, so that they can take maximum advantage of the markets they control? Not state regulation, that's for sure. The state can't even get these parasites to pay any tax, these motherfuckers actually get net tax rebates instead of paying tax. Not to mention, when they're about to go out of business, who lends the money to JP Morgan to stem the "credit liquidity" crisis, like in 2008? The Central Banks, via state approval.

Can anyone explain to me how that's not basically a fascist system, or a totalitarian, or a communist system? Whatever one wishes to call it, these scumbags control the price of everything in essence, not just the supply and demand (and ergo the price stability) of currencies.

You're wrong.



Above, Danny states that Core forced a wedge, created an us & them mentality, that they incited FUD and that Core needs to stop trying to tear Bitcoin apart.

All wrong.


The perpetrators of all of Danny's unfounded accusations was the succession of pressure created first by Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn (using XT and "Classic"), then by Peter Rizun and his Unlimited merry men. Danny Hamilton is simply the latest in a long line of people lying about real world events and the systemic effects of blocksize increases on the system, and as I say, he's an exceptionally insidious example of that strategy, as he's been uninvolved up to now, building trust in his readers. Now, Danny Hamilton is using the trust he's built up to sway opinions toward the big blocks position, and it's a very crafty strategy.

I have demonstrated everything I'm saying as a fact, with reasoning. Where are your facts? You're saying little more than "Danny is right". Why is Danny right? Can you tell us without avoiding the falsehoods Danny has presented (as is the typical tactic for lie-driven big blocks rhetoric)

Why does the big blocks position always require lies to convince Bitcoiners? Why must the lies (and the liars telling them) become more sophisticated and subtle, as they lose battle after battle?




Nope. Unbacked assertions. I have demonstrated that Danny is obscuring the truth and replacing it with carefully constructed lies. What have you proven?

I have some sympathy for Luke-jr's various positions, despite not always agreeing with him.


He's right that the current blocksize is coping with present demand, and that 1MB can serve near-term demand to some extent. We only have to look at what happens when the spam attacks stop; daily transaction volumes fall comfortably back down between 250,000 and 275,000 tx per day. Sometimes lows closer to 200,000 have been reached, although that never lasts long.

The fact is that the fee market for on-chain transactions is important. When blocks are not quite full, the miners can decide which transaction they process, and in turn the fees they are willing to accept. Today's 6.25 BTC bock reward helps the miners to decide in the users favour, but I think it's been amply demonstrated recently that miners have a penchant for taking decisions against users interests, in spite of likely damage to their own interests in the mining market (one wonders why they would choose self destruction to hurt the users' interests)

But, with permanently full blocks, the users must fight to compete for the blockspace with their fees. This creates a secondary incentive effect also; the miners lose profit margins to their competitors if they decide they don't care so much about fees. It's a positive feedback loop between user fighting for blockspace, and the miners fighting for profits.

When blocksize is so high that miners can afford to ignore transactions (because the profit margin is in the block reward, not the tiny fees they could earn), the Bitcoin system starts to lose this property of economic incentives dictating fees. Users don't need to fight for blockspace, because there's plenty of space going unused. But miners don't have to provide the space, they won't earn much from it anyway. The only reason miners might include adequate transactions in blocks under those circumstances is plain goodwill, and there's a danger a negative feedback loop of disincentives could develop. Even now, with fairly full blocks, certain pools still cynically produce entirely empty blocks, so there is evidence that maximum competition among miners is vital to the Bitcoin network's smooth running.


Explain why, and which developers feel that way. Provide evidence, not assertions. Why should we take your unsupported proclamations as facts?

I understand why people criticised Luke-jr's 300 KB blocksize proposal.

Luke was trying to be too clever for the audience, and it backfired on him rather badly. His idea was that no-one would accept 300 KB today, but because of the effects of time on the size of blockchain, maybe people would begin to accept his point that even 1MB is too big for today, but maybe in 2 years or 4 years from now. Because in 2 or 4 years, Luke's blocksize increase schedule would have decreased to only 400-600 KB, and Luke expected the smaller decrease would become more appealing once everyone has had 2 or 4 years more to think about it. (Luke's proposal finally gives a bigger blocksize than 1MB in 2024)

So there is a lot of psychology involved in Luke's proposal, and I think that's where it unwinds. Like I say, he was simply trying to be too clever. But who knows, maybe Luke's judgement that people will begin to take his proposal more seriously once 2 years (~120 GB of full blocks) or 4 years (~240 GB of full blocks) passes will come true. That would mean a 240GB blockchain in 2019, and a 360GB blockchain in 2021 (and that's all assuming we still have a 1MB blocksize limit at that point), maybe that would motivate everyone (especially considering that Segwit will likely be activated by then, we may as well multiply those figure by 4 in which case).

Will more efficiency tweaks to the Bitcoin software, better internet infrastructure and cheaper/faster storage be enough, or will the hard limits of those factors be enough for people to consider reducing the blocksize? I guess only time will tell.

You literally did say that, and also that the Core team both began and perpetuated the conflict.

And I have demonstrated you are lying. It's impossible for you or anyone else to claim Core began the conflict and expect to be taken seriously as one who is interested in the truth of the matter.

It's so simple, you decided to tell a lie, and used your reputation to sell the lie. You're a liar and a manipulator.



You're using up that social capital rather quickly, Danny. This haughty aloofness of yours is in fact the manifestation of a genuine superiority complex, another weapon in your rhetoric box.

If what I say is nonsense, dismiss it with words, not the ad hominem labelling you use against me (and for which you provide no evidence), yet hypocritically direct ad hominem insults towards me (and you do so passive aggressively, without making a direct reference, knowing that people will realise who you are not referring to by name)


You cannot dismiss what I'm saying about you, because it's the truth. You cannot explain why I am labelling your behaviour unfairly, because what I am saying about you is the truth.

If I'm lying, distorting or making clever editorial decisions in what I say, be a man and address it directly. Instead, you have no choice but to defend yourself with veiled insults, whereas I am upfront and direct about who and what I am dismissing, and I give soundly argued reasons for doing so.

You provide no reason, you just bandy labels around, like childish playground name calling. I call you out for what you are, loudly and proudly, because your demonstrably insidious rhetoric is a danger to the value of mine and others BTC assets.



That wouldn't be credible even if it ever happened. I doubt anyone would take that seriously, you've suddenly revealed a consistent big-blocks position only just recently. You say nothing in respect of supporting or rejecting the Core position that I've seen.


Interesting that you follow a claim of being a victim of "creative insults" with..... rather a creative insult of your own.


But my claims that you are a liar are plain for all to see. You said that Core both started and perpetuated the big blocks debate, demonstrably and obviously false. That you are a liar is not an insult at all, it is the truth.


If you are so interested in knowledge, why are you telling easily debunked lies?

I will not tolerate you or anyone else suggesting that I am the person behaving in bad faith when I am simply standing up for what is right and for the truth.


You are a malevolent liar, and I will call you out on it each and every time you perpetrate falsehoods, against Core's management or anything else (although I expect your gameplan is to stick to attacking the people at Core and their decisions)

You're missing something.

Danny Hamilton stated



Danny Hamilton is a highly intelligent individual. This is obvious from his extensive technical explanations concerning Bitcoin, cryptography, game theory and the mathematics concerning all three. I read his posts regarding those with interest, he writes and explain those topics very well.


Square this circle. How can someone, otherwise demonstrably so intellectually adept, state and believe such basic and blatant falsehoods?

It's very simple. Danny Hamilton has spent several years on this forum building up social capital, and he's cashing in that social capital on support for the Bitcoin Unlimited campaign.



Or do you think that Danny Hamilton actually believes that Bitcoin Core started and perpetuated the blocksize debate? That's so entirely absurd, that I would question the judgement and/or motivation of anyone who knows Danny Hamilton and believed it.

The original and best canard that is always invoked by those that wish to suppress the "free" in  "free speech"


1. Theatres are private property. Free speech does not apply on private property, the proprietor may rightfully eject anyone they deem to

I could stop there, because that's the literal No.1 killer blow to this statist idiocy, but I love deconstructing this nonsense non-argument


The patrons of any theatre have common sense on their side if someone were to falsely shout "fire"

2. Theater's are dark, on account of their evening schedule. Even with the lights up they are difficult to keep well lit, as theatres are typically rather spacious. Fires are highly visible in dark places, because of how bright they are in contrast to the darkness.

3. The dulling of one sense (i.e absence of light in the theater) tends to enhance the perception of other senses. Other patrons may well smell the smoke before a fire becomes visible enough to see.


There are no limits to free speech. The "shouting fire in a crowded space argument" argument doesn't cut it. If danger to others were justification for limiting free-speech, censoring the blocksize debate would have been accepted a long, long time ago (although false accusations of censoring that debate are still used as anti-Bitcointalk propaganda even today)

A good example of what you're saying would be the various hardware wallets (e.g.Satoshi Labs' Trezor). Without BIP32 and BIP44, implementing multiple cryptocoins for use with hardware wallets would be a far more laborious task than it is now. Key differences in coin features (such as the PoW algorithm used) can still add to the workload, but BIP32 and BIP 44 still remove huge obstacles to both development and user experience (e.g. 1 wallet seed can be used for many different cryptocoins)

So Litecoin is as intensely developed, has as many expert coders, and as many expert eyes on the differences in the codebase (between Litecoin and Bitcoin)?


Who really knows how "creaky" Litecoin actually is, until they find out through use. Litecoin has the potential to be everything you say. But it's not actually any of things you say, and neither is Bitcoin. You've got some very subtle biases, as usual.

You don't understand what "evidence" means, Danny Hamilton


All that BU's existence proves is that some programmers out there have the time on their hands to produce it. That's it. What their genuine intentions are is unknowable, but friends of yours (like Peter Rizun and Gavin Andresen) have unequivocally stated that their intention is to prevent a Bitcoin Core blockchain from being able to operate, using more friends at Bitmain to perform the required hashrate attack.

All this seems a little coordinated, and the design of BU is perfect to perform a whole variety of attacks against any blockchain. But, "Free the Market" right?

BU cannot compete, painting yourself as a "concerned regular user" doesn't wash when you're clearly intelligent enough to understand that the BU software and it's cheerleading campaign (of which you are the most subtle part) are designed as a weapon, not as a network. That's aggression, brute force and fraud, all rolled into one. Not free market competition.



And from whence did this wedge originate? You're saying that Core devs started and perpetuated the argument, and it's a cheap and ignoble trick.

The party that both began this war, and will not let it go, is yours, and yours alone. You are a disgraceful liar, and a disgrace in general to try to state the opposite as the truth.

You are in essence committing a violent and provocative act, then claiming the other party is the instigator. You have no shame, not worthy of being called human. Only cowards and thieves lie to obtain their worldly goods, and you have proven that about yourself in spades. But by all means, keep digging. You are a real person, and one day you will be sold out, one cannot exist uncovered for long as a liar in the information age.


If you really believed your own words, shut your lying mouth and stop telling lies to try to commandeer this project away.


Why can BU not compete against Bitcoin freely? Why can BU not launch itself as a separate cryptocurrency? What is this pathological obsession with using a cacophony of falsehoods to wrest Bitcoin away from the Core team?

If your idea is so good, why must you use fraud and force to make it so? You are a liar and a bully, Danny Hamilton

It's distressing to me, not because I'm interested in the opinion of MPs, but because I'm interested in the opinions of everyday people.


And everyone responding in this thread has in some way or another deferred to the "authority" of the MP in question and the parliament in which that MP sits.


They have no authority. They have men with guns, and that is the only difference between regular citizens and the politicians: politicians always seek to ban regular folk from owning their own guns "because safety".


But who kept us safe from the soldiers sent to kill in 1914 & 1940 in France, Germany, Britain, Italy, Czechia and Slovakia, The Netherlands, Belgium, Poland, Russia? The politicians had already instituted gun control in those countries, and ordinary people were forced to rely on politicians, military & industry, who organised the people to kill one another, and not to kill the politicians, the military and the industry, who were the people who actually started the World Wars.

Who kept the Iranians safe in 1953? Who kept the Koreans safe? Who kept the Burmese safe? Who kept the Tibetans safe? Who kept the Vietnamese safe in 1964? Who kept the Cambodians safe? Who kept the Afghans safe in the 70's, 80's and 2000's? Who kept the Iraqis safe in 1980s , 90's and 2000's? Who kept the Croatians, Bosnians, Serbians and Montenegrans safe in the 1990's ?

Who keeps the Syrians safe now, who keeps the Yemenis safe now, the Sudanese, the Venezuelans, the Libyans and the Egyptians?


NOT your precious politicians, who consistently start wars that kill millions, and look at you shamelessly from pictures in newspapers and on TV screens, as if they're good people trying hard to do a hard job

---

Why are you all asking for permission to do something that frees you from these mass murderers? They don't want you to be free, can you not all see that? They want you dead, they think its their world, and that you must ask their permission to use it.

That's why Satoshi made Bitcoin, to give you the power back to make your own decisions without asking first. If you don't understand that, your Bitcoins will be taken from you, because you gave away all your power to genocidal thugs using clever intellectual arguments.

No you will not.

The only way to limit me to your personal definition of "reasonable" free speech is to sew my mouth shut with a needle and thread.

Do not even suggest that free speech requires some arbitrator to decide on what is "reasonable" or "responsible" to define limits to that which is by definition unlimited. You are not responsible for my speech, you are responsible for your own. You will do very well to respect those boundaries, lest you manoeuvre yourself towards defining limits to your concept of "free" speech again

Non-contentious speech has never required protecting. Controversial speech is the only form of speech that needs the principle of free speech for it's protection. Your hypocritical and contradictory attack against the principles of free-speech, which you have cleverly disguised as a defence of free-speech, deserve just as fierce a denigration as Gavin Andresen's conceited attacks on Bitcoin's principles.


Don't do it again




Who is making ad hominem statements? Provide evidence

It's very simple, Gavin Andresen has made several public statements of his views on changing Bitcoin's transaction capacity that were objectively foolish.


That was all I said, and strike me with your "reasonable" free-speech stick if you dislike the way I expressed that fact.

Ad hominem arguments are not arguments at all, there is no component of ad homs that serves as justification for the label used as an ad hominem, it is a non argument that attacks an individual's character, and not the substance of what they are communicating.


I have provided full and reasoned arguments for why Gavin Andresen's arguments are foolish. I did not call the man a fool, he most certainly is not a fool.




If you're not interested in what's right or wrong, and only want a discussion where an agreement is reached, then you inherently misunderstand the debate.


This is not, and never has been, an argument about increasing capacity at a better scale, or about "which blocksize". If you do not understand that at this stage, you are at a disadvantage to make meaningful commentary in your own thread.




What mitigating circumstances from Gavin Andresen's life, exterior to the debate, can excuse him from making foolish or dangerous public statements?

Is it not your entire position that personal characteristics are not important, and that the substance of what that person says is all that's pertinent? Except, apparently, when it's convenient for you to argue the antithesis of your ostensible principles



What is the purpose of this text?

You are implying you do not speak in respect of a specific person or any specific dialogue in this thread, and yet you feel the need to spend 8 lines talking about no-one in respect of something that didn't happen? All except you are saying this specifically in reply to me?


You are the only person perpetrating ad hominem attacks (and deviously constructed as such), strawman arguments and attacks against free speech in a thread which you created yourself with the expressed (and self-contradicted) purpose to establish a high quality of debate.


There's a word for someone who behaves that way. I don't need to say it, I'm sure people who understand the form of bad faith you are exhibiting have thought of this word themselves long before this point.