The idiots on Reddit buying this FUD too  "Oh n0es! Bitcoin censorship-resistance is done because a few corporate statist sockpuppets have figured out you can track the blockchain!" I've been saying for a while that after their attempt to bloat Bitcoin into Paypal 2.0 inevitably fails the "fungibility" attacks are their next battling grounds. |
|
|
|
fuckem. at least i got bitcoins.
 |
|
|
|
lmao ice whats that new profile pic? you french now?
Today, all of civilization is French. Besides, I've always had a fondness for the elder Le Pen and more recently developed a little crush on Marine. While not True Libertarians ® anyone that sends transnational progressives and other Marxists into howling fits of rage is A-OK in my book.  ay, cheers mon ami! im more of a marion crush <3 Je ne peux que vous souhaitez bonne chance pour la suite. Ca va être la galère.... |
|
|
|
boring
I'm not even referring to the block size. You're done as far as I'm concerned. Ignored for ever. I'd ask that everyone in the thread does the same and we stop entertaining this retard |
|
|
|
We have seen this 'longest chain' verbiage where 'valid' is notably excluded for some time. I take it as a backup or auxiliary attack strategy. Every opportunity is taken to lay the foundation participant misunderstanding however. That misinformation effort seems to have picked up again over this last month here on bitcointalk.org.
Basically, if a bloatblock (for instance) can be inserted just one time, it would fork the chain and obsolete Bitcoin core software.
So what if a given version of bitcoin software is obsoleted by evolution of the network? The "core" developers have done this themselves several times. Arguments along the line of "longest valid chain" do not resolve the issue under debate. They just move the debate to the meaning of the word "valid". Despite some advertising claims, the security of bitcoin does not depend on mathematics alone, it depends upon running software, which intern depends on running hardware which is supported by the economic majority. Any other way of defining "valid" necessarily requires the argument from authority, which ultimately results in a debate over who is the authority. With this, any hope of a decentralized system goes out the door. Valid is subjective of course, and the changes to that are decided by the dev team. Very perceptive! That's how it's always been, seeing as even now Bitcoin is still a work in progress. The system is already decentralised in the ways that Satoshi imagined. Yours and the "Bitcoin Unlimited" crowd's mentality involves letting the user loose with deciding every aspect of the system. It's lunacy, it's the opposite of what's been going on up to now, and it would end with all the different "Bitcoins" disintegrating, apart from the overbloated centralised one perhaps Valid being a subjective term is indeed a good observation. The question still stands of who decides? Obviously you think that the Core developers should decide for us, I think that the decision making process for Bitcoin should become more distributed instead, the future of Bitcoin should be decided by the economic majority which as far as I understand it is also how Bitcoin ultimately still functions today. Satoshi decided for us. Should we tear apart the whole thing and have it rewritten by "the economic majority"? |
|
|
|
|
I'm definitely getting trolled right now.
|
|
|
|
Behind the full nodes are people and they can choose to run whatever code they want. So? What's your point? My point being is that the longest valid chain will be decided by the people who are behind the full nodes and miners. Therefore if they choose to support forking Bitcoin in order to increase the blocksize then that will become the longest valid chain, even if you still personally do not consider it valid it does not change the fact that according to the terminology that we are using it is. That is quite a 180 from your previous argument. Shall I remind you? The longest valid chain is determined by the miners according to where they point their hashing power. Miners also choose what code they run and therefore what type of blocks they produce. Therefore the miners can fork the network and create the longest valid chain even if the majority of full nodes choose not to follow such a fork. Essentially both the miners and the full nodes have the free choice to run whatever code they want, however it is the miners that determine which side of the fork will have the longest valid chain.
So basically now you're saying if every node and miners update to a bigger block software then that will become the longest valid chain... Wow you're some kind of genius aren't you? |
|
|
|
What you are explaining here is the longest chain, without the word valid. While the longest chain is usually valid, it's not necessarily so. Validity is decided by the nodes which are the economic majority. Miners are incentivized to follow the economic majority, but they are not required to do so.
I don't think that's how it works at present. As I understand it, the longest chain is decided by the software, the user has no way to determine which chain the software follows. Might be wrong, but it's a debugging feature if it exists at all. The longest chain "The longest chain" per say is irrelevant. Only the longest chain which the network of nodes (users) decide as valid is Bitcoin hence why the miners' decision to fork to a new software is inconsequential. |
|
|
|
Either decisions are made using proof of work or they are not.
 Bitcoin consensus does not comes about through proof of work [longest chain] If the nodes and miners reject a block as invalid then it would not persist as the longest chain. If the nodes and miners accept a block and continue to build on top of it, then that chain is Bitcoin. Proof-of-work both enforces and defines the laws of the systems Proof-of-work exists to order transactions deemed valid by the consensus of rules dictated by the nodes. For the millionth time it's the longest *valid* chain you disingenuous fuck I agree. Nodes will only accept and miners will only build upon a chain that contains valid blocks. A chain that persists as the longest and continues to be built upon must be valid. Except that's not true as was evidenced by the July 4th forks in which 5 consecutive invalid blocks were mined on top of each others. Same is also true for the March 2013 fork. It was true: miners and nodes abandoned those chains and they did not persist as the longest. Great, so we agree that miners hold no power over what constitutes the longest valid chain. |
|
|
|
Either decisions are made using proof of work or they are not.
Bitcoin consensus does not comes about through proof of work [longest chain] If the nodes and miners reject a block as invalid then it would not persist as the longest chain. If the nodes and miners accept a block and continue to build on top of it, then that chain is Bitcoin. Proof-of-work both enforces and defines the laws of the systems Proof-of-work exists to order transactions deemed valid by the consensus of rules dictated by the nodes. For the millionth time it's the longest *valid* chain you disingenuous fuck I agree. Nodes will only accept and miners will only build upon a chain that contains valid blocks. A chain that persists as the longest and continues to be built upon must be valid. Except that's not true as was evidenced by the July 4th forks in which 5 consecutive invalid blocks were mined on top of each others. Same is also true for the March 2013 fork. |
|
|
|
Behind the full nodes are people and they can choose to run whatever code they want. So? What's your point? It is impossible to mine Dogecoin with Bitcoin ASICS, Dogecoin uses a different algorithm compared to Bitcoin. I'm guessing you simply chose to ignore the argument. Dogecoin was simply an example. Technically they can, practically it depends on whether the majority of nodes actually represent the economic majority or not, since nodes can easily be spoofed, this is why proof of work is so useful since it is a better measure of consensus because it can not easily be faked.
You suceeded in side stepping the whole of my argument to basically say nothing. It doesn't matter that nodes can be spoofed. What matters is the nodes being run by the ones holding sizeable investements into the system. If the miners try to go against their will they will be bankrupted. |
|
|
|
What you are explaining here is the longest chain, without the word valid. While the longest chain is usually valid, it's not necessarily so. Validity is decided by the nodes which are the economic majority. Miners are incentivized to follow the economic majority, but they are not required to do so.
I don't think that's how it works at present. As I understand it, the longest chain is decided by the software, the user has no way to determine which chain the software follows. Might be wrong, but it's a debugging feature if it exists at all. The users decide on the software he runs fully aware of the rules it enforces. The point is miners cannot go and start mining invalid blocks on a different chain and expect the economic majority behind Bitcoin will follow, they won't. |
|
|
|
Either decisions are made using proof of work or they are not.
Bitcoin consensus does not comes about through proof of work [longest chain] If the nodes and miners reject a block as invalid then it would not persist as the longest chain. If the nodes and miners accept a block and continue to build on top of it, then that chain is Bitcoin. Proof-of-work both enforces and defines the laws of the systems Proof-of-work exists to order transactions deemed valid by the consensus of rules dictated by the nodes. For the millionth time it's the longest *valid* chain you disingenuous fuck The longest valid chain is determined by the miners according to where they point their hashing power. Miners also choose what code they run and therefore what type of blocks they produce. Therefore the miners can fork the network and create the longest valid chain even if the majority of full nodes choose not to follow such a fork. Essentially both the miners and the full nodes have the free choice to run whatever code they want, however it is the miners that determine which side of the fork will have the longest valid chain. Therefore when Bitcoin forks in order to increase the blocksize which will most likely happen since the majority of miners do support increasing the blocksize. Small blockists can choose to ignore the longest chain causing the network to split. I respect this freedom of choice even though you have continuously denied it, which might be very ironic if you do end up on the smaller chain. What you are explaining here is the longest chain, without the word valid. While the longest chain is usually valid, it's not necessarily so. Validity is decided by the nodes which are the economic majority. Miners are incentivized to follow the economic majority, but they are not required to do so. Exactly, therefore Bitcoin is ruled by the economic majority with the miners acting like a type of proxy for the economic majority. I agree with you completely on these points. A proxy? No. The miners are dogs to the economic majority (the investors). They have to be kept on a tight leach and certainly have never and will never themselves determine the outcome of a fork |
|
|
|
Either decisions are made using proof of work or they are not.
Bitcoin consensus does not comes about through proof of work [longest chain] If the nodes and miners reject a block as invalid then it would not persist as the longest chain. If the nodes and miners accept a block and continue to build on top of it, then that chain is Bitcoin. Proof-of-work both enforces and defines the laws of the systems Proof-of-work exists to order transactions deemed valid by the consensus of rules dictated by the nodes. For the millionth time it's the longest *valid* chain you disingenuous fuck The longest valid chain is determined by the miners according to where they point their hashing power. Miners also choose what code they run and therefore what type of blocks they produce. Therefore the miners can fork the network and create the longest valid chain even if the majority of full nodes choose not to follow such a fork. Essentially both the miners and the full nodes have the free choice to run whatever code they want, however it is the miners that determine which side of the fork will have the longest valid chain. Therefore when Bitcoin forks in order to increase the blocksize which will most likely happen since the majority of miners do support increasing the blocksize. Small blockists can choose to ignore the longest chain causing the network to split. I respect this freedom of choice even though you have continuously denied it, which might be very ironic if you do end up on the smaller chain. I really don't want to get into this debate this morning but you're clueless. Do you even understand the part about valid chain? The valid part is concerned with the fact that the transactions are conform with the rules enforced by the network of peers. Bitcoin being a peer-to-peer network no node is more important than the others, whether they mine or not. If miners today decided to point their hashing power to Dogecoin it wouldn't make it Bitcoin. From the point of view of the Bitcoin network the hashing power merely dropped and that's it. To be clear, the miners can not go against the majority of nodes. If they do so they only succeed in forking themselves out of the network and mine worthless tokens. If you don't understand this very simple fact there's really no use pursuing any Bitcoin related discussion with you. I give you a E for effort. Now return to your homeworks. |
|
|
|
Either decisions are made using proof of work or they are not.
Bitcoin consensus does not comes about through proof of work [longest chain] If the nodes and miners reject a block as invalid then it would not persist as the longest chain. If the nodes and miners accept a block and continue to build on top of it, then that chain is Bitcoin. Proof-of-work both enforces and defines the laws of the systems Proof-of-work exists to order transactions deemed valid by the consensus of rules dictated by the nodes. For the millionth time it's the longest *valid* chain you disingenuous fuck There's real civil discussion going on here huh? Deception agents deserve not an ounce of respect |
|
|
|
No, what's happening is that you people are hitting the real bitcoiners with wave after wave of propaganda, desperately trying to distort the facts to make it appear like you're "saving" Bitcoin, when really you're part of a campaign by the banks (who own all the companies who support BIP101) to get hold of Bitcoin and destroy it's decentralisation. What's so hilarious is that this is literally the only avenue of attack left open to you people, you can't use real arguments or force, because you know they won't work. You're essentially one long letter of capitulation. I am advocating decentralization and freedom and you are accusing me of working for the banks. I am making real arguments even though you deny that I am, at least I do acknowledge that you are making arguments as well. There is an irony to you resorting to such personal attacks even after you made this statement: You claim you've been "insulted and attacked on a continuous basis", but the evidence for that simply doesn't exist. As I said, your beliefs and ideas have been ridiculed, but only those that relate specifically to this debate. Not ad hominem. Er, I wasn't talking to you. Is there anything else I can help you with? Maybe explain to him how consensus work and why we can't have multiple implementations out there enforcing different block size. This divide & conquer tactic is really getting tiring. |
|
|
|
Either decisions are made using proof of work or they are not.
Bitcoin consensus does not comes about through proof of work [longest chain] If the nodes and miners reject a block as invalid then it would not persist as the longest chain. If the nodes and miners accept a block and continue to build on top of it, then that chain is Bitcoin. Proof-of-work both enforces and defines the laws of the systems Proof-of-work exists to order transactions deemed valid by the consensus of rules dictated by the nodes. For the millionth time it's the longest *valid* chain you disingenuous fuck |
|
|
|
Either decisions are made using proof of work or they are not.
Bitcoin consensus does not comes about through proof of work. Also, you do realize there already are multiple implementations out in the wild? LukeJr's, BTCd, XT, Bitcoin-assets' etc. So what exactly are you complaining about here? |
|
|
|
The ultimate reality is that if the economic majority turns against Core, it will be left in the dust. You can deny this all you like but the truth is on my side. Do you think you're bringing some sort of novel argument here? Here's the current reality: the economic majority has ignored XT, and it has been left in the dust. I am arguing against the concept of top down governance from Core and advocating bottom up governance from the economic majority instead which ultimately is where the power lies. Every single Bitcoin users has the choice to run whatever code he desires. Several miners and peers run different implementations & versions of the protocol. If they wish so they can adjust and re-compile whatever setting they desire, as long as it respects the existing consensus. So really, when you speak of "top-down governance" and Core totalitarianism I have no fucking idea what is it you are talking about. Especially seeing as the Bitcoin Core repo is an open-source project. It is becoming very obvious that you indeed have no idea what I am talking about, I would urge to keep trying and maybe study some political philosophy and history, that might help. Please just fork off. I'm sure by now you yourself have no idea what you are talking about. To top it off you're a notorious liar and we don't like these types over here  |
|
|
|
You do realize that I am replying to the claim that the economic majority does not rule Bitcoin, which obviously is not true. I am arguing against the concept of top down governance from Core and advocating bottom up governance from the economic majority instead which ultimately is where the power lies.
And how do you reconcile this unprecedented Bitcoin parameter and characteristic setting model with supporting XT which is much more totalitarian than Core? Part of the goal of XT is to further decentralize development and break up the monopoly of development that Core currently possess. Everything considered I can view XT as being the least totalitarian choice out of the two, especially considering that some of the Core developers oppose alternative implementations on principle, whereas XT embraces this concept instead. Please stop swallowing every lie that comes out of Mike Hearn's mouth. Wladimir has repeatedly stated that in situations where consensus critical parts of the code would be debated he would require at the very least rough consensus amongst dev to move forward with any proposition. Don't confuse a code repo maintainer with a dictator that just shines light on your technical ignorance. From a purely political perspective I do not see the difference. A repository admin is simply a person with the ability to merge pull requests into Bitcoin Core. Spare me your political BS it makes me sick. To be clear: Wladimir does not hold the "final call", as Mike Hearn claims it, in cases where consensus critical code is debated. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
