Consensus in the literal meaning of the word is impossible among large groups of people. If that was true though Bitcoin would be a "dictatorship of consensus" or a tyranny of consensus, since any significant change would be impossible. The truth is that Bitcoin is ruled by the economic majority, if the majority wants the blocksize to be increased it will be whether the minority likes it or not, at least with a hard fork they have the option to stay behind if they want. That is freedom, where both sides can have the Bitcoin they want. This is why alternative implementations like Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited are very important, since they give us the freedom of choice.
Without qualifying, "consensus" is rather ambiguous. Wikip on consensus: "The level of agreement necessary to finalize a decision is known as a decision rule.[3][7] Possible decision rules for consensus vary within the following range: Unanimous agreement Unanimous consent (See agreement vs consent below) Unanimous agreement minus one vote or two votes Unanimous consent minus one vote or two votes Super majority thresholds (90%, 80%, 75%, two-thirds, and 60% are common). Simple majority Executive committee decides Person-in-charge decides" Most of the bickering could be avoided if people define the terms they use/stop conflating consensus (as used within the Bitcoin protocol) with level of consensus required to make changes to the protocol. With so many coders here, kinda' weird that this needs to be brought up. |
|
|
|
...
Bitcoin is built on consensus, which is incompatible with dictatorship. ...
'Long as the the dictator gets to define [dictate the meaning of] consensus, I see no problems. Explain? This is not the place for ELI5s of how bitcoin works. See Satoshi's whitepaper. No ELI5 was asked for. If you got nothing, just say "I got nothing." If you wish to reference something specific, clarify plz  |
|
|
|
 ... Bitcoin is not currently broken in spite the many loud mouth fudding about Bitcoin supposedly being broken.
|
|
|
|
...
Bitcoin is built on consensus, which is incompatible with dictatorship. ...
'Long as the the dictator gets to define [dictate the meaning of] consensus, I see no problems. Explain? |
|
|
|
Small blockists you are making ETH holders rich. You are such huge loosers.
"Bitcoin: The only winning move is not to play."--brainyquote.com "In Bitcoin, there are no winners, only losers."--brainyquote.com  |
|
|
|
...
bitcoin is for the 100%, and most of them will use it for commerce. believe what you want.
What does that even mean? WTF is "commerce"? Is sticking BTC in a paper wallet and sitting on it like a hen on an egg "commerce"? This forum has one commerce section -- /securities/ -- dead as a doornail due to captains of industry running away with intrepid investors' coin, leaving the latter crying, dicks in hands. P.S. Apologies, there is the /investment-based games/ section, where young Bitcoin entrepreneurs bilk coin from their equally-enterprising, albeit slightly dummer, marks. |
|
|
|
...
Only Lightning can solve that problem, by making instantly confirmed transactions possible.
Lightning solves a very specific problem, which isn't even a problem right now: Allows creation of a [prepaid] micropayment channel between trading partners. In other words, if you buy coffee at Joe's every morning, you can lock away $100, and buy coffee at Joe's 'til your $100 is spent. Like buying a Joe's gift card. Revolutionary, in a Rube Goldberg sort'a way |
|
|
|
...
I just thought he might know wtf is going on.
Everyone seems to automatically assume it's a spam attack without any proper data.
His definition of "spam" is, basically, "things we I don't want to happen." Starting with that, what is happening *is* spam. Nothing more to be said. A more interesting (and productive) approach would be "let's define spam, describe it, completely and exclusively, in code, so that a dumb machine can know if X is spam or not. Then we wouldn't need to keep having these pointless arguments." Whatever is happening is happening now. So if we got some proper data to explain this massive surge, and some reliable interpretations of that data, then we could have a discussion on whether its a malicious attack or mainly a surge in genuine txs. If this blows over I guess we may never know, because the Bitcoin community is too polarized atm. But if this is real, if this doesn't blow over, both sides will need to look at the data and move on from there. I don't care about the possible motivations behind what is happening, mainly because I can not possibly hope to create a [human] psych-analyzing ruleset for Bitcoin. For me, it's sufficient that a state, a condition *is possible*. It's possible, we don't like it -- how to make it so we either like it, don't care, or make it go away? Does what_is_happening point to our system being fundamentally flawed? Can it be fixed? At what cost? What are the possible repercussions? See what I mean, sort of? P.S. Of course, this is all happening in real time, and girls mainstream press are watching, so the lel factor is not lost on me  I sort of agree, but I'm not the one who needs to be convinced. Nor are you. Right. I've given up quite a while ago. Now read stuff like this & don't even flinch. Don't even care if true or false -- just the fact that such a thing is possible is all I need to know |
|
|
|
...
I just thought he might know wtf is going on.
Everyone seems to automatically assume it's a spam attack without any proper data.
His definition of "spam" is, basically, "things we I don't want to happen." Starting with that, what is happening *is* spam. Nothing more to be said. A more interesting (and productive) approach would be "let's define spam, describe it, completely and exclusively, in code, so that a dumb machine can know if X is spam or not. Then we wouldn't need to keep having these pointless arguments." Whatever is happening is happening now. So if we got some proper data to explain this massive surge, and some reliable interpretations of that data, then we could have a discussion on whether its a malicious attack or mainly a surge in genuine txs. If this blows over I guess we may never know, because the Bitcoin community is too polarized atm. But if this is real, if this doesn't blow over, both sides will need to look at the data and move on from there. I don't care about the possible motivations behind what is happening, mainly because I can not possibly hope to create a [human] psych-analyzing ruleset for Bitcoin. For me, it's sufficient that a state, a condition *is possible*. It's possible, we don't like it -- how to make it so we either like it, don't care, or make it go away? Does what_is_happening point to our system being fundamentally flawed? Can it be fixed? At what cost? What are the possible repercussions? See what I mean, sort of? P.S. Of course, this is all happening in real time, and girls mainstream press are watching, so the lel factor is not lost on me |
|
|
|
Everyone seems to automatically assume it's a spam attack without any proper data.
Definitions can be conceptual , relative and ambiguous and sometimes necessarily need to be regardless of how uncomfortable that makes us feel. Those those are the domain of humanities students, mystics, musicians, artists, and poets. They have no place in an algorythmically-controlled currency, because can not be turned into computer code, a rule set. If definition is, indeed, impossible for us to arrive at [due to being impossible, or due to our own shortcomings], we can not address it in a rational, logical debate [beyond stating that it is undefined and thus lies outside the scope of logic]. In which case, we should stop what we're doing and goo play vidya. Or the definition may be simply difficult to formalize, in which case we're lazy fucks and should get good. The rest is sophistry & bullshit. TL;DR: if we can not strictly define what we're talking about, we we should lrn2lute & become minstrels/lovers. |
|
|
|
...
I just thought he might know wtf is going on.
Everyone seems to automatically assume it's a spam attack without any proper data.
His definition of "spam" is, basically, "things we I don't want to happen." Starting with that, what is happening *is* spam. Nothing more to be said. A more interesting (and productive) approach would be "let's define spam, describe it, completely and exclusively, in code, so that a dumb machine can know if X is spam or not. Then we wouldn't need to keep having these pointless arguments." P.S. And here we go again: "high probability of being X, tho X is undefined, so I'll show you pictures and try to *convince* you that the data pattern is unusual." Probably works great on Reddit, but good luck turning it into code. |
|
|
|
.@Fatman, Debating like this, without clearly defined premises or rules of inference, is either fun or it isn't. Either way, it won't be productive. You're dealing with a guy who claims to be a "developer" (whateverthefuck that means) yet defines "spam" for a Bitcoin thusly: ...actual blockchain use is low and the rest of the free space is topped off with spam. That's why fees don't rise. If every tx was legitimate...
What are the objective criteria by which any given transaction can be classified as being either: a) spam; or b) legitimate? I have been asking this for months of many who like to kick around the term 'spam'. Many of them repeatedly. Perhaps even you? But to date, I have received exactly zero responsive replies. Spam includes any unwanted or unnecessary transactions which impose a burden upon the network. Unwanted and Unnecessary can be defined as tx which are deliberately made to attack the network and hold no purpose other than to cause disruption or bloat. Spam is also defined as any tx that pays far below the necessary threshold of fees that would be considered the norm during a given moment. This can change with time but is always quite distinguishable as seen here. ... Didn't someone define pornography in loosely similar terms? "Serves no purpose but to subvert; A decent person knows it when he sees it?" 1000 sequential 10 satoshi transactions from a dice site -- not spam. 1000 sequential 10 satoshi transactions from a bad_man -- spamz. Only hope you don't code like you post. P.S. >any tx that pays far below the necessary threshold of fees that would be considered the norm during a given moment See the colors? Avoid those, because meaningless and open to interpretation. Again, if you code anything like you write... *Until "spam" is defined (as in "necessary and sufficient," not "you'll know it when you see it"), it's pointless. |
|
|
|
If you see someone moving coins between his addresses back and forth, tens/hundreds/thousands of times, is this an attempt at a legitimate transaction?
Link please. I'd like to see how the current surge is in large part due to a massive spam attack. Data has already been shown - ---------------------------------------------- Looks like we likely found one of the "spammers" attacking the network - This isn't behavior that is typical from a tumbler or mixer. https://twitter.com/DataTranslator/status/7045792815072583681KNCgSJVHg3W5hMCyGeRA1vBiPn9Vi4qXt is been sending coins to itself since the 28th, no signs of stopping.
 and another https://twitter.com/DataTranslator/status/704612433869021184Our Antifragile got disrupt, is kaput? O plz no! ... Let's make bitcoin robust and prepare it to scale way beyond Visa and Mastercard combined: ... If by "robust" you mean "so that one bored gentlemen couldn't bring the whole kit & caboodle to a grinding halt, I'm withya bro! The road to mental health is just around the corner? |
|
|
|
...
tl;dr govvy troll muddies the waters by mixing up "free as in beer" and "free as in freedom" into a witches brew of psy-op misinformation
Lessee... "govvy," "troll," "free beer" & "psy-op(s)."  |
|
|
|
The miners are economic competitors, with each other, to serve their customers (users), with a product (blockspace). The mines are their factories. A bigger mine means more potential blockspace will be theirs to sell.
No , users are not miners customers and blockspace is certainly not a product. There is a power dynamic between Users , miners, merchants, exchanges and developers. Your analogy is a horrible one as it ignores that the "product" isn't something that is created by miners in a "factory" but something created by the combined efforts of users , developers, and miners. Remember, Bitcoin is the longest valid PoW chain and developers and users (using economic full nodes) define what is and isn't valid, and not directly the act of mining. (although miners are users themselves so fill 2 roles) So by requiring their tx confirmed, users contribute to this great product we call the Bitcoine ecosystem (alternate spelling: echo system). I'm starting to understand... Let me try! The butcher's customers aren't customers, that's a horrible analogy. The butcher, the cow, the guy that drives a bolt through the cow's brain at the slaughterhouse, and the woman that gives the captive bolt guy head -- they all interact in this complex interrelated power dynamic, thus creating the product -- that is to say, the market itself. Am I doing it rite? *Although like the miners who may be users themselves, a butcher could also be a user by buying his own meat, just as the captive bolt guy can beat his own meat, thus removing the only woman from our equation, which leaves us with two guys, a dead bolt, and a knife -- a sausage fest without any obvious winners, which is to say ...Bitcoin. >[miners'] decision can instantly be disregarded if they betray the economic majority or will of the users.That is to say, if the miners are discovered to be Enemies of the People. Both "Enemy of the People" & "Economic Majority" are self-explanatory, and only the worst sort of an Enemy of the People would demand a definition for ether one. |
|
|
|
^^
And you'll probably not deliver on the wrenches or the Seagull outboard, and I'll stand there with my Bimmer in pieces & dick in hand.
Just like the average Bitcoin enthusiast, after transact with fellow pedophiles Bitcoin enthusiasts via the medium of Bitcoin.
Because I can see it clear as day already, don't lie to me -- I know exactly how it's gonna go down.
I promise to bring a wrench. Yeah, from a Seagull outboard & a set of wrenches down to a *promised* wrench. In Two Weeks TM. Another promise; another lie  Blockchain Technology, is there anyone you can't corrupt? @BitUsher You really have no idea what a centrally planned economy is, do you? |
|
|
|
^Of course I did. That's because you use words like "onboard" unironically. "Oh, how petty!" some might pshaw. And boy oh boy, how wrong they'd be... Boy howdy! |
|
|
|
...actual blockchain use is low and the rest of the free space is topped off with spam. That's why fees don't rise. If every tx was legitimate...
What are the objective criteria by which any given transaction can be classified as being either: a) spam; or b) legitimate? I have been asking this for months of many who like to kick around the term 'spam'. Many of them repeatedly. Perhaps even you? But to date, I have received exactly zero responsive replies. Spam includes any unwanted or unnecessary transactions which impose a burden upon the network. Unwanted and Unnecessary can be defined as tx which are deliberately made to attack the network and hold no purpose other than to cause disruption or bloat. Spam is also defined as any tx that pays far below the necessary threshold of fees that would be considered the norm during a given moment. This can change with time but is always quite distinguishable as seen here. ... Didn't someone define pornography in loosely similar terms? "Serves no purpose but to subvert; A decent person knows it when he sees it?" 1000 sequential 10 satoshi transactions from a dice site -- not spam. 1000 sequential 10 satoshi transactions from a bad_man -- spamz. Only hope you don't code like you post. P.S. >any tx that pays far below the necessary threshold of fees that would be considered the norm during a given moment See the colors? Avoid those, because meaningless and open to interpretation. Again, if you code anything like you write... |
|
|
|
... anyone who can help onboard more people into bitcoin ...
>onboard > onboard> onboard |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
