Yeah. While I personally would like to think it is due to the recent BU surge, I have no way of measuring that, so I am not making such a claim. I am however responding directly to the insinuation that 'BU nodes are mostly fake'. Which is a downright stupid statement on its face.

Not. Even. Close.

Adam Back invented hashcash? Sure. And indeed, hashcash was a significant step forward. But to claim that Bitcoin is nothing but hashcash with inflation control is an absurd overreach. To make this claim is to ignore the central game theoretic advance of coupling reward with validation. You know - the significant breakthrough achieved by Satoshi.

You'd think someone who developed such an important innovation would be happy to stand on his merits. Without resorting to dishonest used car salesman levels of marketing manipulation. It belies an insecurity in his station in life (which from the outside already looks quite elevated, ffs).

Inasmuch as we don't yet know who Satoshi was, Adam would be a plausible candidate. Improbable, but plausible. At least he has not made this claim. But in the meantime, he should be publicly shamed for this arrogant unjustifiable claim.

Kinda hard to fake solved blocks hundreds deep in the Bitcoin blockchain.

Aiieee! The irrationality! It burns!

The $100M is set aside to kill off a minority fork, should some choose to fork off to another algo - thereby protecting the integrity of the Bitcoin blockchain.

What is this 'unlimitedcoin' of which you speak?
Where is the public support for this 'unlimitedcoin' by Roger Ver?
Where is the public support for this 'unlimitedcoin' by Gavin Andressen?
Where is the public support for this 'unlimitedcoin' by Mike Hearn?

protip: Telling lie won't give you any advantages.

1) not quite. Each node should run the code they prefer. I would certainly prefer that BU become the dominant implementation on the network, at least long enough for the community to learn the benefits of emergent consensus. Multiple implementations implementing emergent consensus would be even better.

2) BU has not failed.

3) BU did recently evidence a bug. It had exactly zero impact on the network as a whole. It has been fixed. There will likely be bugs that surface in the future. The Satoshi client has had bugs as well. The worst of such had a impact on the network far more severe than the recent BU bug. Core will also likely evidence bugs in the future. We all hope these will have minor impacts. Your characterization of BU as 'buggy' is unsupported by all available evidence.

Yes, I understand your anxiety. I can scarcely contain my anticipation as well. But we are doing. Quietly amassing commitment from hash power.

All is going according to plan.

Excellent.

Meanwhile, core can't get shit done without Satoshi's code. So what? You seem to have little understanding of the way open source development works. Or really any technological progress whatsoever. Every innovator is enabled by standing atop the giants that preceded her.

I'm hurt. You omitted li'l ol' me. All around lovable chap, and savior of destitute puppies.

How is that decentralized efficient routing design shaping up? About done yet?


I'm not attacking your character. I am merely pointing out that your reply was non-responsive.

Sorry. I meant the entire consideration of the quadratic hashing aspect is a red herring. In the broader 'what is good for bitcoin' context.


I don't know what you are trying to accomplish, babbling about 'semantics'. I'll say it again: mining incentives are already aligned such to ensure that the quadratic hashing aspect is a non-problem.


No. And yes. I mean each and every rational miner.


BU or not is a completely orthogonal consideration.


No.

I see you are incapable of arguing your position, relying upon simple unsupported rebuttal to make your case. Not my issue that you can't seem to reason yourself out of a paper bag. Too bad, so sad.

If use of lightning was already routine, your rhetorical question might have some value. Alas, a lightning usable by end users is still but a pipe dream.


With average blocks in the 85%+ of capacity range, you've got a pathological interpretation of 'empty'.

Red herring. There is no quadratic hashing problem. There is a quadratic hashing aspect, this is true. However, as it stands today (i.e., with no changes to the protocol), mining incentives are such as to render it a non-problem.

Miners will either abandon calculating hashes of such blocks, or they will be bankrupted by other miners who do.

The issue solves itself. Today. No change needed.

The problem is that, if we are only doubling asst each iteration, we won't have two years each cycle. So we'll need to endure two years of drama every year. Dramaception.

1) Well, that's bitcoin's design. Nodeless users have no direct representation on the network. Buck up, buttercup.
2) While true, likely insignificant. Those willing to bear the hassle of running a node are more likely to invest some thought into the issues.
3) Irrelevant. In the end, the only way nodes have any power anyhow, is as a proxy for economic power or for mining power. Back in the day, when essentially every node was a mining node, nodes held some power. Today, ..., err... not so much.

Core does not own any rules. Sorry to break it to you.

Is it indeed the change they wish? The evidence -- at least if one assumes they really are so durned smart -- suggests otherwise.

Same way it is today. My node is a BU node. No fork so far. Observedly.

You seem to be seeking demons where none exist.

I've never threatened a fork. WTF you babbling about?

We don't need to pay for hash rate. After all, d(coreHashrate)/dt is negative, and d(BUHashrate)/dt is positive.

Cheers!

And again ,a core devotee calls for forking the chain.

Meanwhile, d(coreHashrate)/dt is negative, and d(BUHashrate)/dt is positive.

[core doom intensifies]