[ trolling of poor quality ]
Ooh, I wanna play 'feed the silly troll' too! 1) Name is intentionally lame for ironic hipster cred (*orders bright yellow Hulkamania tshirt*) 2) bitching in other threads is the point of bitcointalk 3) bitching about coins is the other point of bitcointalk 4) bitching in general is the overall point of bitcointalk 5) attacking other alts is an honored tradition of the sub 6) Monero doesn't need "innovated tech." We have wild mustangs! 7) this is the same as number 3. are you Rick "trouble counting past two" Perry? Oops! smiley face) We have official mascot; no need for official wallet. 9) wait, I missed the BBQ!?! OMG 10) Monero is well distributed, directly into Risto's grubby paws 11) Monero has so little trade volume, who cares where it's at? 12) I missed the idol worship. was it during the BBQ? sad face!1!!!1! 13) smug is the new humble; also - wild mustangs | your argument is invalid |
|
|
|
You never did respond to my question of what capacity you were involved with the HashFast affair? Yet another aching rabbit hole of incompetence, charlatanism, waste and possible fraud there too?
He's paid shill #2. He was in control of the "Hashfast_CL" account. Unlike cypherdoc (who actually convinced many people to give HF money), all Icebreaker was able to do was convince people to go forward with legal action against HF and solidify this communities hatred for the company. You've clearly lost the debate about Frap.doc's coins, so now you're retreating by making me your substitute target. People took legal advice from a random on the internet? Oh, you must mean cedivad and his infamous lawyer. How is that "legal action against HF" working out for you? What debate about frap.docs coins? He's clearly a shill and a liar and possesses 3000btc collected from HashFast customers, those facts are beyond debate. You made yourself a target, I have no idea why you would come here and argue frap.docs innocence when you are obviously sitting on another huge pile of HashFast's coins, how many btw? So your contention is that by expressing an unpopular opinion I've made myself a "target?" Should people be afraid to speak up when they see factual errors, for fear of you (and The Village) targeting them? "Target" for what, exactly? Please, do elaborate. Is this an FBI-concern type "target" or are you just venting frustration at being unable to control the narrative without opposition? I'm not here to argue frap.doc's innocence (that's for a court to decide), only to correct factual errors. Why do you so greatly resent being referred to primary sources and correction of factual errors? Is it because you are so set in and emotionally attached to your preferred narrative? What a sad state of mind in which to find yourself. No wonder you are so cranky, rabid, and increasingly frothy.  Sorry you are not enjoying your break with consensus reality and ensuing fugue state. I suggest you take your resentment, and shove it in your "aching rabbit hole."  |
|
|
|
I suspect we agree that should 1MB blocks become an undeniably urgent concern (EG, if we see actual congestion resulting in appropriate fees no longer prioritizing their tx) the controversy will rapidly dissipate and be replaced by emergent rough consensus.
I do not understand why do we need to increase block size if we want to "employ minfee".
Let's try to "employ minfee" and if they raise too high then we will increase block size to reduce them.
It is clear that the people here are not so far apart after all. In reality it is differences of opinion on how to reach similar goals. Are you trying to be reasonable? You realize this is bitcointalk, and Frap.doc's goldbug trolling thread to boot, right?  Seriously though, I think we are seeing divergence in not only methods but also goals between the RetailCoffeeCoiners and SettlementBackboneCoiners (with Frap.doc's AllThingsToAllPeopleAtAllTimesCoiners being the worst of all). Ideally, Satoshi should have listened to Jeff Garzik and caveden and implemented a flexible cap with his 1MB change in 2010. Done 5 years ago, the hard-fork would be a big fat nothing event as close to 100% of the full nodes in Bitcoin's network would be upgraded before the first >1MB block. If the change was done early in 2013, when the matter was heavily discussed, it would have given a 2-year delay before activation, so perhaps 95% of the full nodes would be upgraded.
I disagree with your application and the propriety of 20/20 hindsight. We did have a "flexible cap" but it was soft, not hard. Without that, it's less likely the devs could have (so relatively smoothly) scaled and optimized Bitcoin all the way up to coping with full 1MB blocks, which was a very challenging albeit under-appreciated task. Even so and as mostly notably reported by gmax, Bitcoin's decentralization/trustlessness has by some important metrics suffered along the way. |
|
|
|
You never did respond to my question of what capacity you were involved with the HashFast affair? Yet another aching rabbit hole of incompetence, charlatanism, waste and possible fraud there too?
He's paid shill #2. He was in control of the "Hashfast_CL" account. Unlike cypherdoc (who actually convinced many people to give HF money), all Icebreaker was able to do was convince people to go forward with legal action against HF and solidify this communities hatred for the company. "Aching rabbit hole?" LOL, you know someone is getting rabid and frothy when they so carelessly mix metaphors.  You've clearly lost the debate about Frap.doc's coins, so now you're retreating by making me your substitute target. People took legal advice from a random on the internet? Oh, you must mean cedivad and his infamous lawyer. How is that "legal action against HF" working out for you? |
|
|
|
TX fees are still orders of magnitude below their cost in electricity, etc., demonstrating fee pressure insufficient for develop mature markets.
I had forgotten this gem.  Fortunately your personal opinions don't matter; this is not a centrally planned economy. You should take more care in committing to memory my gems of wisdom.  Are you asserting that (contrary to my "personal opinion") TX fees are *not* orders of magnitude below their cost in electricity, etc.? Are you likewise asserting current fee pressure is sufficient to develop mature markets? Please provide citations/evidence for your gainsaying.
I suspect we agree that should 1MB blocks become an undeniably urgent concern (EG, if we see actual congestion resulting in appropriate fees no longer prioritizing their tx) the controversy will rapidly dissipate and be replaced by emergent rough consensus.
And I guess we will have to ask you if the fees are "appropriate" or not. Nope. In that context "appropriate" means "competitive." We simply have to watch and see if tx with appropriately competitive (as objectively defined by current fee context) are given the priority for which they have paid. If you could actually respond to what I write, instead of deflecting by characterizing it as subjective, that would be great. |
|
|
|
You've conveniently forgot this: Care to make a wager, iCEBREAKER? 1 BTC that the longest proof-of-work chain contains a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year (10-Jul-2016).
If you lose, I want real Bitcoin. If you win, expect to be paid in doublespent Gavincoins. Did you just agree to the bet? I can't tell. We'd both deposit 1 BTC to a multisig address (3rd key held by neutral party). If the chain forks, the winner would automatically have coins spendable on both sides. Did you agree? I've conveniently forgotten nothing. Your poor reading comprehension is pitiful, so I will charitably aid you by bolding the parts you most need to sound out until comprehension sets in. 1MB blocks may become a harmful constraint by this time next year, given some black swan for fiat or rapid deployment of sidechain/Lightning. But we're are not even on course to begin getting there yet, given the unwelcome distraction of the Gavinista insurgency inciting the get-rich-quick XT mob. TX fees are still orders of magnitude below their cost in electricity, etc., demonstrating fee pressure insufficient for develop mature markets.
I suspect we agree that should 1MB blocks become an undeniably urgent concern (EG, if we see actual congestion resulting in appropriate fees no longer prioritizing their tx) the controversy will rapidly dissipate and be replaced by emergent rough consensus.
There's also the possibility we do get a technically and politically feasible velvet divorce, in which case we can forget all this nasty controversy about the "best" block size and start a new nasty controversy about which is the "real" Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
We are moved out of bitcointalk. The main forum for the project is forum.getmonero.org. bitcointalk is a secondary social venue along with reddit, twitter, etc.
Perhaps you are asking for a ban on Monero participants posting on bitcointalk.org at all. I believe that would be inappropriate.
The main forums for the project are IRC and bitcointalk. Although I appreciate the 'build it and they will come' optimism, forum.getmonero.org for now is (like monerotalk before it) mostly a vanity project and potential btct backup. We simply do not yet have the critical mass needed to avoid making our coin-specific forum anything but an insular self-preaching choir at best or ghost town at worst. Of course its crowdfunding function brings new utility...but still...Jesus walked among the sinners... |
|
|
|
old Monero-has-no-GUI-so-we-halt-marketing meme is old since mymonero.com got released, the time for marketing is now. After Monero takes off and breaks the $50 mark the ship will have sailed. also its time we move out of bitcointalk. OK, we'll put you down for Option One. As for moving out of bitcointalk, let's recognize that XMR has done very well, whether in spite of or thanks to being based on this forum (which finally relented and granted altcoins their own subs, because Satoshi loves his grandchildren too). If/when XMR gains critical mass, spontaneous migration to other forums will happen naturally. When you push and push and push for it to happen Right Now and Faster, Please you (and by extension, our community) look like a try-hard and an ingrate. |
|
|
|
You can probably guess my opinion on this issue but I am curious to hear the opinions of others.
The last thing I want to do is upset the community by proceeding with some of my marketing ideas for China if lots of people think we are not ready.
Monero is a decentralized community where everyone is free to make their own decisions. However I still respect community opinions.
I'm optimistic about Arabic and Chinese translations, as there are plenty of brilliant underutilized coders in those countries, although the language barrier hasn't stopped our Russian (and Czech?) friends from participating in the fun. I'm a little resentful and borderline bitter about so many XMR being thrown at FreeBazaar, without escrow and to the exclusion/insult of the underfunded core devs. Our rockstar core dev/crypto-boss tacotime's participation rate dropped soon after the thread worked itself into a lather over FreeBazaar, which IMO is extremely regrettable: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg10015296#msg10015296https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg10015353#msg10015353I don't have the right to question how others spend their perfectly (at both protocol and social level) fungible XMR, but will nevertheless raise the issue of when to evaluate ROI on that service-building endeavor vs the opportunity cost of platform solidification. |
|
|
|
LOL you don't like it when people portray you in a bad light too huh? He was just trying to "help you improve".
Your actions portray you in a bad light.
I'm merely taking note of that, and trying to help you improve.
Do you *disagree* with every decision that every US court has ever made? No? Then what is the relevance of retreating from on-point specifics into fuzzy generalities? As an aside, you *do* of course realize that US courts commonly reach contradictory decisions which are resolved by higher courts, and sometimes precedents are overturned. So it is not possible to agree with all of them. I tried to help you and tvbcof improve by pointing out your factual errors (IE, commission vs equity and presumption of innocence). What factual errors of mine have you and tvbcof pointed out? [crickets.png] [tumbleweeds.gif] |
|
|
|
Previously, the XMR community had strong consensus that marketing should to be deprioritized until the DB/GUI were done(ish). Now we're seeing an outpouring of verbal and financial support for translations, etc. Are we in danger of putting the marketing cart before the development horse? Are translation efforts valuable for both development and marketing, as they introduce XMR to users and coders outside the anglosphere? Let's clarify what has changed, and evaluate whether those changes justify a shift to higher marketing priority. Looking back, 3 specific concerns were raised in concluding premature marketing is at best futile and at worst self-defeating: I agree that DRK's marketing is a lot better than ours, but we should wait with heavy marketing till all key features are completed (GUI,DB). Advertising XMR in it's current state will only generate a contradictory effect than what we desire.
i agree, we need marketing soon. but slides and everything needed can already be produced now i too feel this will be really huge. the tech is superior, dev team is honest, community is grown up and coin is fair. I think that we have to do 3 things first + GUI: better usability shows that XMR tech is mature and easy for mass market (== user adoption == liquidity) + Database: amount of memory required for XMR wallet is not trivial any more + Multi-signature: some deep web merchants may need it to protect their buyers Amen to that. The first point is actually an important one. Bad usability and a lack of GUI wallet for the mass market make Monero look like a immature technology. This is true -for now- but progress continues. There is still plenty of time for Monero to grow into it's own. Marketing is done slowly because marketing a command line utility with few B2B solutions at present is an exercice in futility. Main marketing for now is word-of-mouth, which is the most realiable way to avoid disappointment (one only makes one first impression). Also, we are trying to transition to http://forum.monero.cc for this reasonNot for nothing but releasing and marketing something to the general public that is not ready for prime time WILL poison the brand. Even when it gets ready those that tried it and failed with it will never try again. You will sour a huge market if you market to to the uninformed/nontechnical masses.
If on the other hand your just looking for a price surge that will cause a quick selloff then have at it.
I certainly agree with you and forgot to add in my previous comment that we will only start with this (reddit giveaways were already discussed) after the GUI+DB has been released. But discussing about it won't do any harm. All that was many months ago. Is it still too SoonTM? This issues: 1. Database. Official tagged and released client still consumes ~6GB of RAM. But unofficial binaries and official source code use a paltry ~75MB. More and better compilation tutorial videos are available, and the unofficial binaries are from a well-known source. Verdict: not there yet, but tantalizingly close. 2. GUI. The webwallet mitigates most of this issue, as do the four(ish) unofficial GUIs. A compromise, wherein the core devs designate one or more 3rd party GUI wallet as 'Officially Unofficial' is coming into view. Verdict: all systems go! 3. Multi-sig. This requires research into new crypto-magic. But crowdfunding for a part-time dev is going very well, gmaxwell has generalized ring signatures and made them do fancy new tricks, and new services like xmr.to and shapeshift allow markets to use BTC internally while keeping XMR for the on and off-ramps. Verdict: all systems go! |
|
|
|
Just because it was supported by a judge in a court of law of the U.S. doesn't make it right. Do you agree with every decision that every US court has ever made?
Just ignore him. He does everything he can to defend HF and derail any thread that is critical of HF. +1 for the suggestion of outright ignoring Icebreaker. They have a long, established history of fiercely shilling for Hashfast. I question their motivations in this thread, beyond the obvious trolling and shit-posting. Does smoothie *disagree* with every decision that every US court has ever made? No? Then what is the relevance? I can't help but notice your entire post consists of character attacks and speculation about motivation. Is there a reason you prefer mindless tea leaf reading to discussing facts gleaned from primary sources? Did I offend you by countering the dominant local narrative with an unpopular opinion (albeit one in line with off-line consensus reality)? |
|
|
|
...
To make Frap.doc the poster child for BTCT scams is ludicrous, especially as the court has yet to declare his coins anything other than legally earned sales commission, and HF anything other than a victim of changing business conditions.
Your statement seems to imply syntactically that the court did declare the 3000 BTC a 'legally earned sales commission'. Got backup for that? That was not the impression I got on my one pass through the audio. My take-away was that the judge simply said that it was inappropriate for the plaintiff to attach the BTC at that time. IIRC, he specifically said that the question about what the 3000 BTC actually are could be worked out by an appropriate court at some point in the future. Here in the Anglosphere, based on traditions dating back to the Romans, we enjoy the presumption of innocence. No need for syntactic implication when logical implication is sufficient: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat . See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesisThe judge seemed to nullify your rather stretched 'presumption of innocence' by indicating that bankruptcy court was simply not the venue for adjudicating the question. You seem to be flailing pretty hard here and it is unbecoming of you. I don't think that you should count legal skills among your talents and would advise strongly that you seek qualified legal assistance if you find yourself in legal troubles. "Flailing...unbecoming...unskilled...etc." My previous response did not once focus on your person, yet you unleash a torrent of ad hom insult in yours. Let's focus on facts, not personalities. The judge certainly did not "nullify" anyone's presumption of innocence. I could make hay of such a silly, unbounded leap in logic and respond in kind to your invective, but will instead choose to be the better man. |
|
|
|
...
To make Frap.doc the poster child for BTCT scams is ludicrous, especially as the court has yet to declare his coins anything other than legally earned sales commission, and HF anything other than a victim of changing business conditions.
Your statement seems to imply syntactically that the court did declare the 3000 BTC a 'legally earned sales commission'. Got backup for that? That was not the impression I got on my one pass through the audio. My take-away was that the judge simply said that it was inappropriate for the plaintiff to attach the BTC at that time. IIRC, he specifically said that the question about what the 3000 BTC actually are could be worked out by an appropriate court at some point in the future. Here in the Anglosphere, based on traditions dating back to the Romans, we enjoy the presumption of innocence. No need for syntactic implication when logical implication is sufficient: Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat . See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis |
|
|
|
Make all the grandiose claims and populist appeals you wish. Like you, they have no power here. The Gavinistas will continue to discover what it means to attack a system that is defensible, diffuse, diverse, and resilient. I hope these teachable moments will educate them on the principles of Bitcoin Sovereignty! If you're so sure about that, why did you chicken out when PeterR proposed the bet? I am very sure about what I said in the above quote. As for Peter's tangentially related bet, that's already been covered: Care to make a wager, iCEBREAKER? 1 BTC that the longest proof-of-work chain contains a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year (10-Jul-2016).
If you lose, I want real Bitcoin. If you win, expect to be paid in doublespent Gavincoins. 1MB blocks may become a harmful constraint by this time next year, given some black swan for fiat or rapid deployment of sidechain/Lightning. But we're are not even on course to begin getting there yet, given the unwelcome distraction of the Gavinista insurgency inciting the get-rich-quick XT mob. TX fees are still orders of magnitude below their cost in electricity, etc., demonstrating fee pressure insufficient for develop mature markets. I suspect we agree that should 1MB blocks become an undeniably urgent concern (EG, if we see actual congestion resulting in appropriate fees no longer prioritizing their tx) the controversy will rapidly dissipate and be replaced by emergent rough consensus.
There's also the possibility we do get a technically and politically feasible velvet divorce, in which case we can forget all this nasty controversy about the "best" block size and start a new nasty controversy about which is the "real" Bitcoin. Please keep up with the discussion and try not to slow down the rest of the class. |
|
|
|
(Matonis is clueless to claim there is a fee-market - though my estimation of him is now down to zero as he talks about monkeying with the 21M limit).
+KB blocks now.
his whole thesis is, "ZOMG, if we yield on the block size limit, it's a foregone conclusion we'll get a supply increase!" furtheremore, listening to him dissemble over the technicalities of the block size limit is painful to listen to. as little understanding as iCEBlow. ...says the hobbyist who frequently argues unsuccessfully with core devs about how Bitcoin works under the hood. Matonis' point is that abandoning reason and giving into the mob mentality, whether the issue is larger blocks or higher emission, leads to disaster. It's like the time Marge opposed the Springfield Monorail, only to be overruled by the giddy crowd of rubes. Of course fixing Main Street isn't as glamorous as an impressively larger blocksize or emission, but it's the responsible thing to do. |
|
|
|
The 1MB "short term hack" got Bitcoin to where it is today.
Go ahead and make all the noise you want. Stamp your feet and hold your breath.
Enlist Reddit as your personal army. Issue threats. Spin up XT nodes.
It won't make a difference; the block size is staying at 1MB for the foreseeable future.
Nobody except your fellow Gavinistas cares how many times you fatuously repeat 'ZOMG TEMPORARY 1MB LIMIT IS TEMPORARY RAISE IT NOW.'
It won't stay, because the Gavinistas are the majority and you represent a minority. Since when Bitcoin is about majority?! Since never. The Gavinistas, having badly lost the technical debate, are resorting to populist appeals in an attempt to demagogue the blocksize issue. Poor DeathAndTaxes, he made killing the 1MB block the hill he would die on, and has been MIA since April. What a try-hard! |
|
|
|
The 1MB "short term hack" got Bitcoin to where it is today.
Go ahead and make all the noise you want. Stamp your feet and hold your breath.
Enlist Reddit as your personal army. Issue threats. Spin up XT nodes.
It won't make a difference; the block size is staying at 1MB for the foreseeable future.
Nobody except your fellow Gavinistas cares how many times you fatuously repeat 'ZOMG TEMPORARY 1MB LIMIT IS TEMPORARY RAISE IT NOW.'
It won't stay, because the Gavinistas are the majority and you represent a minority. Is that why Gavin's 20MB proposal got #REKT like Stannis at Winterfell? The Gavinista's supposed numerical superiority is irrelevant, because they don't have as many Bitcoins as the 1MB defenders. Even if they had more (and were willing to risk/spend/lose them), the leverage provided by the Gavincoin Short allows Team 1MB to survive extended siege by swarming plagues of redditards. Make all the grandiose claims and populist appeals you wish. Like you, they have no power here. The Gavinistas will continue to discover what it means to attack a system that is defensible, diffuse, diverse, and resilient. I hope these teachable moments will educate them on the principles of Bitcoin Sovereignty! |
|
|
|
Surely your chances of making a single new friend every two months for the next three years is greater than 1%, right?
Just so much wrong with this. I will make many more positive human interactions (I reserve the term "friends" for people I stay in close contact with for years). I won't sell Monero, penny stocks, herbal oils or magic beans to new friends. So you didn't tell your friends about Bitcoin before it was a thing? Oh wait..."Date Registered: April 16, 2013." Sorry your friends didn't tell you about Bitcoin before it was a thing. Or maybe they tried, only for you to ignore their "magic bean" talk? The guys I told about Bitcoin in 2011 have been very interested to hear about Monero. They know I can smell disruption from a mile away. |
|
|
|
[extensive wailing]
[gnashing of teeth] The 1MB "short term hack" got Bitcoin to where it is today. Go ahead and make all the noise you want. Stamp your feet and hold your breath. Enlist Reddit as your personal army. Issue threats. Spin up XT nodes. It won't make a difference; the block size is staying at 1MB for the foreseeable future. Nobody except your fellow Gavinistas cares how many times you fatuously repeat 'ZOMG TEMPORARY 1MB LIMIT IS TEMPORARY RAISE IT NOW.'  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
