Moar Wize Words What a douche.
Yes, HostFat has really lost it over "ZOMG RITE MEOW" blocksize drama. He seems to be in shellshock from the utter loss of XT, and may never recover (especially given how Classic is floundering).  No, it's Bitcoin that is foundering (not floundering). Losing market share. There is all something very Catholic/Protestant about this fight. The One True Bitcoin vs. these upstart individualists. I'd be interested to see from an anthropological study if there is any correlation between church affiliation and blocksize affiliation. Do me a favor and ask the rest of the counter-reformation goon squad where they go on Sundays, will you? A single data point, but a funny one. A piece of toast with a picture of my art teacher from school!!!
Bet he couldn't paint an analogy like this, tho.  |
|
|
|
Brian is basically talking for Gavin. He has been following him like a slave, since XT and also in Classic. There are a group of people, who wants the same control banks have over our money. They also push the total surveillance agenda of their governments. Their whole operation is dependent on what their government will allow. {KYC / AML } They are the slaves of the system that wants to control them, or they want to be a part of that system that controls people. In the end, these companies know they have the support of the governments and they will survive and even prosper in that environment. For them individual financial privacy does not matter... The main goal is to make money, and lots of it... no matter what individual rights are sacrificed.  Preach it brutha. Satoshi made a huge mistake handing the reins to Gavin. Also, Coinbase should just ignore all the BSA bullshit they have to endure just to give you bitcoin for a fee. Whatever happened to sacrificing your business so little johnny could buy his research chemicals directly from an exchange wallet? Payment channels [2 weeks] are our salvation, won't be subject to KYC and AML, and will totally trickle enough fees down to miners... in the face of relentless altcoin competition. All while our security is a few phone calls from the PRC away from nothing, not like we shouldn't make a few sacrifices for the safety we're enjoying... Mewn Boyz. |
|
|
|
I think some more healthy competition against Core would be welcome
You are confusing "healthy" (ie positive-sum) competition among consensus-critical blockchains with unhealthy zero/negative-sum contention within a single consensus-critical blockchain. Altcoins are Bitcoin's healthy competition. If Bitcoin isn't competitive we'll use Litecoin, Primecoin, and Monero instead. Classic and other XT-like governance coup attempts are declarations of a war that only one side can win. I think "healthy" competition can come from both inside and outside of the Bitcoin ecosystem. Internal competition becomes problematic when productive discussion and collaboration devolves into mudslinging, which it too often does. You've got it all wrong. "Mudslinging" is good. Vigorous debate is the crucible from which truth emerges. And Bitcoin runs on drama!  Healthy (ie positive sum) internal competition comes from implementations competing to best preserve/protect/promulgate the critical consensus. Unhealthy (ie zero-at-best but-probably-negative sum) competition comes from contention-generating hard forks that risk catastrophic consensus failure. Gmax mapped it out here: competing implementations are healthy; but the ones that threaten to break protocol are dangerous. Competing implementations of Bitcoin, such as Litecoin and Primecoin, are called altcoins because they establish their own independent alternative socioeconomic consensuses/majorities. Hostile implementations of Bitcoin, such as XT and Classic, are declarations of war because they attempt to threaten Bitcoin's existing consensus-critical distributed ledger. But there are other implementations, like libbitcoin I believe, that aren't altcoins, and are net positives for the Bitcoin ecosystem. Isn't that right? It gets confusing and idiomatic (esp for non-native speakers) if we have to distinguish between the friendly positive-sum competition of btcd vs the cutthroat zero-sum competition of GavinCoin. I'd classify other implementations like libbitcoin and bctd as complementary, not competing, in that they all share the same goal of maintaining the One True Holy Ledger. But let's defer to the core dev, if gmax has a better suggestion for the taxonomy/nomenclature. Open source software generally both cooperates and competes. Handled well the benefits of the former offset the costs of the latter and the result is a gain for everyone. --- but software differentiating in consensus rules is the worst kind of competition: competition here can deprive users of the practical freedom to use their preferred software, and the fight risks leaving a salted earth in its wake. This is not completely unheard of outside of consensus systems: A less powerful version of it exists in the form of file format compatibility. Microsoft was a pioneer of business strategy based on making incompatible extensions to formats, first leveraging their network effect and then-- after introducing incompatible changes-- using it against them, an approach they themselves called embrace, extend, extinguish. Worse than zero sum, these kinds of moves can be tremendously damaging overall. Bitcoin's creator described alternative implementations as a likely "menace to the network"-- words which I think were spoken with an early insight into the incredible difficulty in making distinct software actually consensus compatible even when that is your highest goal, an art our industry is still just learning. I wish we'd built mechanisms earlier on for better ways to enable diversity in the non-consensus parts without ending up with unintended diversity in the consensus parts. But we play the hand we're dealt. The potential harms from consensus disagreements from mistakes in re-implementation are tiny in comparison to those from adversarial implementations which intentionally push incompatible rules.Str8 from the wizard's treehouse... you heard it here folks |
|
|
|
The truth hurts. Not really fatal tho, unless you rush into the arms of your captors, repeatedly. Bitcoin crippled, Monero UP! Monero has an adaptive blocksize, so now you know.  |
|
|
|
Altcoins are Bitcoin's healthy competition. If Bitcoin isn't competitive we'll use Litecoin, Primecoin, and Monero instead.
How right you are! See Bitcoiner, your blood, making iCE (kinda) rich, is all part of the grand plan. Contention is a sin, satoshi was wrong, any needed rules and incentives cannot be enforced with this consensus mechanism. |
|
|
|
It's open source code. Nobody is getting hired or fired. The founder outlined the only relevant consensus mechanism:  If there's a group telling you that you need to keep them in power (administered by an unimpeachable priesthood, 'cause contentious), for your safety... best to watch what they do, and not swallow what they say. |
|
|
|
Oh, would you look at that. A big company in the industry trying to take bitcoin and turn it into another corporate scheme for profits...
I made a bet on betcoin, was told there'd be free Kool-Aid? |
|
|
|
Welcome brand new user. You sound like a 2008 obama supporter.  Moreover we are are Bitcoin lovers.
Bitcoin is the best digital currency and you cant end it so easily.
|
|
|
|
I explain to anyone who will listen why Brian StrongArm is a jackboot-polishing bankster toady. FU CoinBank Well, look on the bright side. Your efforts to smother BTC in the crib are working out swimmingly for Monero! [Not as well as ETH tho.  ] |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoiner, you've gotta ask yourself one question: "Do I feel dumb?" Well, do ya, punk?
|
|
|
|
Cconvert2G36: I actually meant it when I said it was a serious question. For example, what risk would there be in a small miner willing to make any size block, several gigabytes or more maybe?
It would become stale as all the other miners don't even bother validating it and build a chain of smaller blocks instead. To allay the fear, an anti DoS limit could be set just like today, but well above distorting the free market and miners production decisions. |
|
|
|
So what would happen with an unlimited blocksize? Serious question - what would miners do? Would they include all tx, fee or not? Would they set a minimum fee? Would they choose a blocksize cap on their own?
Miners would blindly include all tx's. Rasb Pi full node count would drop to 3. Big Gubmint would turn off the 3 nodes. Bitcoin ded. See, you're just being kept safe by people more technically inclined than yourself. [Oh, seriously... the same thing that happened for the last 5 years, miners would use soft caps. If people don't trust miners to respond to economic incentives, yes, even tangential incentives... they shouldn't own any to begin with.] |
|
|
|
fork off already.
Processing... |
|
|
|
crazy how easy this whole mess could be solved, but core is not able to accept the HK-agreement and to put the fuckin hardfork in the roadmap.
6 billion$ managed by teenager nerds...
They did put it in the roadmap. They just got the year wrong. This was all just so unpredictable...  no, its not in the core-roadmap. not even for 2017. thats the issue at the moment. Err, sorry, my mistake. My roundtable's cluttered up with the damn things at this point. |
|
|
|
-snip-
“My basic thesis was this: anyone who was dumb enough to think that they could make money reviewing television shows would pay $49 dollars for a training program,” said Hill. “And anyone who is that lazy will never complete the training program. So they’d just give up and I could sell a $2 dollar training program for $49.”
It worked: he made about $100,000 in three months. (At that point the crowd gave him an ovation... -snip-
http://betakit.com/montreal-angel-austin-hill-failed-spectacularly-before-later-success/Canadians... and they wonder why the entire world hates them.  |
|
|
|
crazy how easy this whole mess could be solved, but core is not able to accept the HK-agreement and to put the fuckin hardfork in the roadmap.
6 billion$ managed by teenager nerds...
They did put it in the roadmap. They just got the year wrong. This was all just so unpredictable... |
|
|
|
Honestly, I'd rather just be posting memes and gifs while celebrating the halving, confident about growth after having added some modest capacity...
WRT Blockstream... it wasn't until after Scaling HK, when gmax's email to the mailing list literally became the Core roadmap, with no hard fork increase in sight, that the pieces began clicking into place. Others had already described the whole thing as a charade and a stalling tactic, but I was actually hoping for some kind of unifying plan, I should and do feel silly for that now.
Soft fork segwit as a "scaling solution" bifurcates the capabilities of full nodes without their knowledge or permission, completely changes fee economics with favoritism to settlement transactions, and apparently is having mysterious chain forks on its testnet a month before deployment... while being sold as the safe and "ready" option. [Shrugs] The pieces certainly haven't stopped fitting yet.
well, they can't exactly force us to upgrade our clients. i'm very much a "wait a see" kind of guy. if the release of segwit comes and things go kaboom, there will still be a record of how things were before that. if it's really bad, it's technically possible to revert to the pre-forked version and carry on, i think. of course, "technically possible" and "easy" or even "kinda doable" are vastly different things, and frankly i might be talking total bullshit anyway. i'm not totally clear on the whole "soft fork" thing. Unless we plan on keeping the 1MB cap always and forever... any HF to increase it will "force" you to upgrade your client, as it will reject any blocks from miners over 1MB. Soft fork segwit doesn't require anyone to upgrade, but it means your formerly full node client will not be verifying segwit tx signatures, as they would now be in the witness portion of the block, which your client doesn't understand. It becomes a sort of half-node. In the case of segwit tx, it sees them, but can't verify the sigs itself. If you hadn't been paying attention, you might not even know it had happened. In the case of a HF, you know, it's unambiguous that it's time to upgrade. Segwit itself is actually a pretty cool idea, it has the big positive of ridding us of tx malleability problems altogether. I'm not against a version of the idea at all. I argue against aspects of it, like the soft fork deployment, the fee discount for sig heavy settlement tx, and that it's a fairly complex change to the system possibly being rushed and inadequately tested. I worry that the additional capacity it could bring is being dangled like a carrot to get us to turn a blind eye to the economic favoritism it carries, and it could stall out a HF blocksize increase way out to mid or late next year. |
|
|
|
|
Honestly, I'd rather just be posting memes and gifs while celebrating the halving, confident about growth after having added some modest capacity...
WRT Blockstream... it wasn't until after Scaling HK, when gmax's email to the mailing list literally became the Core roadmap, with no hard fork increase in sight, that the pieces began clicking into place. Others had already described the whole thing as a charade and a stalling tactic, but I was actually hoping for some kind of unifying plan, I should and do feel silly for that now.
Soft fork segwit as a "scaling solution" bifurcates the capabilities of full nodes without their knowledge or permission, completely changes fee economics with favoritism to settlement transactions, and apparently is having mysterious chain forks on its testnet a month before deployment... while being sold as the safe and "ready" option. [Shrugs] The pieces certainly haven't stopped fitting yet.
|
|
|
|
admit it .. .the whole "blockstream core planners" spiel/spin is lame.
you just choked up your groupthink vomit all over the place trying to justify using such lame language.
[Politely nods.] If you can't see a conflict of interest glaring you in the face ['cause you chat with the nice fellows in irc], and don't see that conflict manifesting in how this has all gone down over the last year... I really just can't help you, sorry. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
