Increase the block size and if Core takes to long to do it then an alternative implementation of Bitcoin will.
"IF?" "IF?" "IF?"From where did this wild "IF" suddenly appear? All summer long, you Gavinistas were screaming that Core has already taken too long, and as a result Bitcoin is (for the greater profit of Blockstream) choking and dying, thus justifying hearn@sigint.google.mil and gavin@tla.mit.gov's governance coup. Now that XT got fukkin' rekt, you want to backpedal to a conditional hedge? There is no conditional hedge. Bitcoin is moving forward with bigger blocks, whether you like it or not. 1. Bitcoin is not moving forward with bigger blocks anytime soon. blah blah blah.... 2. None of those options reflect well on you, and all are in line with our expectation that Hearn's fanboys will seek to mislead the public.  1. Wrong. This is going to happen, whether you are happy about it or not. 2. They dont go around openly advocating dDos attacks, the MPfag tactic du jour. |
|
|
|
The only revisionism going on there is pretending that XT was never a deadly serious (ie overambitious) attempt at an actual governance coup, which was willing to risk catastrophic consensus failure in order to achieve narrow process and technical changes of strictly limited value. You are, by retroactively reframing XT as merely some kind of magical motivational poster, desperately trying to avoid the stinging cognitive dissonance of its inglorious defeat. Team Gavin said things and acted as if XT would destroy Core with a bang, but what happened is XT died with only the faintest of whimpers. And so, having crushed the enemies of Core, we now enjoy the lamentations of their women.  Just because you keep repeating this, it does not make it true. I have refuted many times now why XT is not the equivalent of a government coup, unless a government coup can be defined as needing 75% consensus.  "Government" and "governance" do look really similar written down, but it's funny how the meaning changes so much when you substitute one for the other  Troll harder VertiasSapere, you're too consistently getting information wrong that construes the argument in dismissal of an invisible enemy: people who don't want scaling up. It's so openly transparent now that it's totally pathetic Governance is what a Government does. Trying to argue that they are unrelated concepts is just being stupidly pedantic. |
|
|
|
Just because you keep repeating this, it does not make it true. I have refuted many times now why XT is not the equivalent of a government coup, unless a government coup can be defined as needing 75% consensus. Dont worry about it. Its a basic tactic of the intellectually and ideologically bankrupt MPfags when they are against the wall - "Repeat a lie often enough and it might start appearing to be true" |
|
|
|
XT was rejected. Get over it, we'll be scaling up without BIP101 or XT. Go away.
The only thing that has been OVERWHELMINGLY rejected is the "no increase in blocksize' mantra trotted out by core devs for the last 12 months. That hope and dream is lying in tatters on the ground as they scramble to reformulate their stand to include "Hey, bigger blocks are ok!!" That is the great victory that XT has brought about. Revisionist much? XT's "great victory" only resulted in the functional ascendency of BIP000.  The blocksize debate is just as, if not more, deadlocked than before the XT fiasco. That stalemate is EXACTLY the outcome Team 1MB wanted (TYVM!). We Core defenders stuck XT's ludicrous plans in the deep freeze, just like Israel did with Dubya's Roadmap to Peace. There, there. Try not to be such a poor sport about it. Ha HA!! MPfaggery such as this might wash at whatever right wing circle jerk you hang out in, but most observers will see your original position being eroded away, not by a rejection of larger blocks, but with a range of large block alternatives being put on the table. Its not about large versus small blocks, but simply HOW LARGE DO WE GO??? See what we did there? Your rectum must be positively glowing red now... This BIP000 nonsense is just the bottom of your very empty barrel of ideas. |
|
|
|
Did you somehow miss the part where actual Bitcoin transactions are a marginal use case that is quite irrelevant to actual adoption as a speculative asset/store of wealth?
ROFL!! Aw, dude, you're killing me. Just when I thought you couldnt get more retarded you spring this one on me!! You still think this whole system is just a big pot of gold at the end of a rainbow somewhere, don't you? That magical wealth has been created by .... Math? |
|
|
|
BIP000 (scale to 1MB now, then reconsider in a couple of years) is winning, and there is literally nothing you can do to change that fact.
LMAO!! Second funniest statement in the whole debate!! You are some clown. Seriously. 70% of last 100 blocks are either 100 or 8mb. Bigger blocks...Mmmmmmmmmmm...  100% of last 100000 blocks are BIP000. Even Jeff Garzik has given up on his broken miners vote proposal. Try again noob. Okay, I will spoon feed you. You sound like you need things broken down to simple terms. The coinbase field being used by miners to indicate their block size preference indicates 70% for 100 or 8mb. If BIP100 dies ( which I hope it will) then 8mb increase will be the only game in town. Saying that all the current blocks are current blocks is a bit childish. |
|
|
|
Where do you get the idea that miners opinion is representative of consensus?
Because we decided to disregard MPfag consensus. Sorry about that. |
|
|
|
BIP000 (scale to 1MB now, then reconsider in a couple of years) is winning, and there is literally nothing you can do to change that fact.
LMAO!! Second funniest statement in the whole debate!! You are some clown. Seriously. 70% of last 100 blocks are either 100 or 8mb. Bigger blocks...Mmmmmmmmmmm... |
|
|
|
We have already given you the proper counter arguments (Pareto, etc).
LMAO!! you are some clown. Seriously. Thats the funniest statement in the whole debate. Well done. |
|
|
|
There is no conditional hedge. Bitcoin is moving forward with bigger blocks, whether you like it or not.
Enjoy your pain.
Says who? Either way a 1 MB incremental raise over 2 years or some 15% YOY sounds like core devs throwing redditards a bone to keep you distracted while they work on proper scaling solutions. The 8 MB increase on an exponential schedule which all the noobs were clamoring for got properly rekt and this all that matters really. Says about 70% of miners. Says the vast majority of nodes. No point in trying to mitigate your butthurt by trying to say "we were only against 8mb - other block sizes are ok!!" because we know the truth. You have been outmaneuvered. While you were screaming about "XT" and gavincoins, the whole debate changed focus and has been pretty much decided behind your back. If you are feeling cheated and irrelevant right now - Dont worry - its because you are. Its a classic trick naive people always fall for - throw them a big red flag that they can go after, screaming and shouting and threatening, while all the time the real debate gets resolved by those who can play the game effectively. |
|
|
|
Increase the block size and if Core takes to long to do it then an alternative implementation of Bitcoin will.
"IF?" "IF?" "IF?"From where did this wild "IF" suddenly appear? All summer long, you Gavinistas were screaming that Core has already taken too long, and as a result Bitcoin is (for the greater profit of Blockstream) choking and dying, thus justifying hearn@sigint.google.mil and gavin@tla.mit.gov's governance coup. Now that XT got fukkin' rekt, you want to backpedal to a conditional hedge? Get your story straight, chump! There is no conditional hedge. Bitcoin is moving forward with bigger blocks, whether you like it or not. Enjoy your pain. |
|
|
|
The decision making processes should be based on where the miners point their hashing power and what code people choose to run. This is the level at which consensus should be achieved. To think that important decisions should be made by a Core development team is tantamount to centralization of power.
There is a very big difference between being a benevolent dictator of your own implementation of Bitcoin and actually being the dictator of Bitcoin. This is a very important distinction. It is not wrong to be in charge of your own implementation of Bitcoin when people are free to choice whatever client they want. Having multiple implementations of Bitcoin is good for decentralization and freedom.
Agreed. One group of developers should not be considered a permanent authority on what Bitcoin is or should be. I don't see how anyone could possibly be advocating for such a thing, but sadly it seems increasingly common at the moment. Disparate factions are emerging here and no one is any closer to agreeing on anything. If anything, the gap appears to be widening. We're not working towards a solution, we're working towards a split. I honestly don't see this ending amicably. Points to remember: - If you want to use an open source coin, that means anyone can modify that code and submit their own version under another name.
- Such actions are not an attack on the system and actually prevent the possibility of a single group having permanent control over development.
- Successfully forking with an alternative client does not give those developers any special power or diktat to enforce future changes on the network.
- Assuming that Core developers are the only permanent authority on what Bitcoin "is" or "should be" is an extremely dangerous mindset.
- Consensus is not a group of developers agreeing, because the people securing the network make the decisions, not the developers.
Oxymorons to avoid: - "Bitcoin is great because it's decentralised, but only the core devs can be trusted to write code"
- "Bitcoin is great because it's open source, but releasing a client to propose a fork means you're a dictator"
- "Bitcoin is great because it's permissionless, but you can't use it to buy a cup of coffee"
- "Bitcoin is great because only the economic majority can decide the rules of the network, but only when I personally agree with them, otherwise I'll dismiss it as an altcoin like a petulant child"
No. The dev team will be just as centralised under anyone else, you can't crowdsource engineering decisions (except if you're trying to hijack an open source p2p network of course...), except on github (which already happens for Bitcoin anyway) XT was rejected. Get over it, we'll be scaling up without BIP101 or XT. Go away. The denial is strong in this one. The only thing that has been OVERWHELMINGLY rejected is the "no increase in blocksize' mantra trotted out by core devs for the last 12 months. That hope and dream is lying in tatters on the ground as they scramble to reformulate their stand to include "Hey, bigger blocks are ok!!" That is the great victory that XT has brought about. Revisionist much? |
|
|
|
It looks like this forum is dead. Reddit is also dead. Where did everyone go?
Rugby is on. What else? |
|
|
|
Great to see Gavincoin doing the dive.
Now what about Gavin Hearn? I think if the community could make a point about the insignificance of Gavin Hearn and how these people will not have an audience in the future that'd help bitcoins' price probably.
The community needs to officially emancipate from Gavinhearn to help bring back investors confidence. As it is now the damage is still there in the PR departement.
Gavin already left bitcointalk (not writing here anymore since months). We need to find a way to make it clear he's a nobody same as Hearn so people can come back in with their dollars.
MPfags are breeding like rabbits.... Stop It!! Its All Over!! Bigger blocks by next year is GUARANTEED. Give up and go back to your circle jerk forum, where you solve the worlds economic problems using big words like rekt and n00b. Your continued participation in this thread will just prolong your agony as MAHHOOSIVE blocks streak across the network. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin expert on Bloomberg: Increasing the block size limit will increase the supply of bitcoins and cause the price to fall, by the law of supply and demand. Oh, and in matters of bitcoin should trust only the opinion of people with Ph. D. Well, I can agree with that part. Wow. SO much waffling in 4 minutes, all the time failing to make a single point regarding the substantive issue... Bullish! |
|
|
|
Nestle is operational, or planning to be, buying water in my state for '$0.00225 per gallon' and selling it for 'up to $2.63 per gallon'. I'd say that multi-national corporations headquartered in Switzerland are as up-to-speed as any on how to exploit 'underdeveloped' populations worldwide. Small wonder that they are as out-in-front as any in trying to get guns out of the hands of people of areas that they exploit. Gotta protect those infrastructure investments. The people of Oregon are 'underdeveloped'? Don't Coca Cola and every other soft drink manufacturer buy municipal water and process it it into finished products at roughly the same price differential? You are either being devilishly obtuse, or simply incredibly thick. |
|
|
|
I don't think you're being fair. Yes you are doing something by putting a little money into Bitcoin here and there. You are supporting Bitcoin because you want a better monetary system that isn't based on debt, and isn't confined by borders. When times are lean then it makes sense to stash something valuable away, until it becomes worth more. When the value appreciates again, Bitcoin holders can use their increased purchasing power to support businesses that embrace crypto, rather than cash out. That's what 'many around here' are waiting to do I'm sure.
Buying a bitcoin and doing absolutely nothing with it for 10 years is about as useless to the bitcoin ecosystem as completely ignoring it. You dont support bitcoin by wanting a "monetary system that isn't based on debt, and isn't confined by borders" .. thats called dreaming. You can support bitcoin by actively seeking out ways that you can integrate bitcoin in your daily life, and maybe provide services to others using bitcoin. Quite a twisted and erroneous view of economics. Holders are the ones giving value to the coins. Its whether or not the next person wants to buy your coin, and for how much, is what gives them value. Not the holder. If there is no utility, no infrastructure and no potential then there is no market. |
|
|
|
Isn't that the distributed decentralised model? Too many possible points of control. It wont work for bitcoin - nodes need to have the choice of getting to any node to be worthwhile. edit: meant to say decentralised, not distributed. |
|
|
|
You left a massive con:
Con) You raise teh blocksize to 8MB and blocks can potentially become way too big for most people to hold blockchains, the full nodes drop and running nodes becomes a centralized business just like what has happened with mining, so rip to Bitcoin.
Additional Con) Potential exploits everywhere because the blocks being too big and not much of it being put to use (very technical shit to explain in a quick post but it's out there).
Why do people still carry this false perception that by raising the limit to 8mb that we suddenly get blocks of 8mb? Why are people still falling for this? Blocks will only be as big as the number of transactions entering the system. Miners are incentivized to produce the most efficient blocks as a function of fees/size. The only con is to say things like "Something bad will happen but I dont understand what it is". |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
