Bitcoin Classic...is poised to be the greatest cryptocurrency since Bitcoin XT rofl Hearn better put some ice on that. Because the burn ward won't accept Gavincoins.  Our Front National Trio will be the last men standing behind the Greatest Censor of all time. |
|
|
|
Only the charlatans are not brave/honest enough to come up with a proper name and instead leech on bitcoin's name notoriety.
Only the authoritarians are not brave/honest enough to live by the free market they claim they espouse to. People calling themselves libertarians, but demanding protectionism in what's supposed to be an open and permissionless system, free from restrictions. I'm pretty left wing myself, you'd probably even call me "statist", but apparently even I have more stomach for an open market than you do, coward. Yes. They represent the Front National. They are fulltime statists/fascists/National collectivists. (hdbuck, iCE, brg444) |
|
|
|
I just wanted to point out that the one comment I left in this thread has now been deleted. The idea that this place is "neutral" is silly.
All the good people are leaving.
Zero opposition from Adam against the deletions. |
|
|
|
The idea was to have some technical focussed constructive discourse and this is a more neutral forum and also where more Bitcoin experts hang out. Adam Surely this is a joke? The only reason the other forum was created was because Bitcointalk was becoming known in the Bitcoin community as North Korea. Very nice to see Dr. Backamoto drolly trolling the F*CK out of the Gavinistas, albeit in his studiously academic Sword of Logic idiom! 
Here's all the info you need to know about Unlimiturd: you may have any block size you want, so long as it's <16MB.  Only when Hearn's Redditard Army is unified around a common theme can the next stage of his puppet masters' Manufacturing Dissent strategem be enacted.... Too bad for them sunlight is the best disinfectant, and this thread is the functional equivalent of a coronal mass ejection right onto the Coinbase Pointy-headed CEO, Bitcoin Judas, Frap.doc, and Peter R's stupid faces! Very nice to see what kind of 'Bitcoiners' with what kind of language on what kind of 'communication' channels are trying to back Mr. Back. Very nice to see that such Monero-Trolls indeed believe they help to keep Bitcoin on core's track to cripple Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
inserted by developers who excellent at what they do have no track record as incentive designers, economic parameter setters, etc. They do in fact have a track record. Various economic- and incentive-related decisions have been made in Bitcoin development over the past 6 years and it hasn't completely blown up yet. That includes both changes and decisions about what not to change. I guess this conclusion depends in part on how big a failure you think the "blocksize debate" represents. From where I sit, the blockchain is still working, transactions are being processed, etc. I don't see a major failure even in that. I think the blocksize is the biggest controversial economic aspect they have touched (kind of easy to change something when it's not controversial), but - see my edit - I don't think it would be good to vest power even in someone who did have a good track record on that. I do think we will be fine whatever happens with blocksize, and are fine now, but that adoption could be set back quite a ways if too much friction is introduced and circuitous paths are taken, so I think it's worth pointing out some existing burdens on weighing on the market discovery process. I mean... for how long are you going to dodge the very simple fact that BU is NOT a market driven solution but one that leaves EVERYTHING up to the miners? It's painfully obvious to anyone paying attention yet you (and others to which I've raised the point) continue to swerve around the issue. As long as you can't understand a swarm and autopoiesis, you will never understand. You will always believe in authority. |
|
|
|
He's rekting your destroying streamblocking core solution much more. |
|
|
|
core block size limit should be made dynamic, put in the realm of software, outside of human hands This might be the single most obvious statement ever and Blockstreamers aren't buyin' it. Except that this is practically some pipe dream utopia if not completely irrelevant. Forkers are free to fork into some altcoin with whatever parameter they want tho. Yes, core is working hard on its monster 'soft'-fork into an Altcoin. |
|
|
|
The trivial, mostly harmless "National" strain is not what is meant or implied 99% of the time by the unadorned term you originally used. That nearly obsolete reference doesn't fit your (typically overdramatic) metaphor about authoritarianism, which compares Bitcoin.org's blacklisting of Coinbase ("small block terrorism") with the Russian Revolution's violent destruction of one of the world's greatest empires and resulting Stalinist dictatorship. Thanks for the opportunity to point out Bitcoin.org is not in any way accurately described as Bolshevik, because not giving Coinbase free advertising isn't the same thing as the war/terror/famine of the world revolution's first dominoes. LOL. You know very well that the notorious terrorism of the Politbüro went not just against Coinbase. |
|
|
|
Nobody ever claimed FN is libertarian. It says "nationalist" right on the box. Bitcoin needs adversity to grow stronger. In that regard, FN/EU opposition is as useful as Hearn's subversion and sabotage.  Have you decided how to justify your inexplicable, baffling conjunction of Bolshevism and Nationalism? I'm not the only one who knows the conjuction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevik_Front |
|
|
|
bolshevik Front National
Bolshevism was the Soviet branch of the explicitly internationalist workers' movement. Cite: The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1979) Bolshevism - a consistently revolutionary Marxist current of political thought within the international workers’ movement. Pro tip: internationalist != nationalist. Your knowledge of humanities is as appallingly poor as your technical background. How can you claim to have studied the humanities, yet be so stupendously ignorant of the basic tenets/history of Marxism and Leninism? Do you just randomly use words with a vaguely negative connotation, or can you actually defend your absurd description of FN as "bolshevik?" I'd wager it's the former, because compared to you Jon Snow knows just about everything. LOL Educate yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevik_Fronthttp://anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.ch/2014/09/the-national-bolshevik-alliance-is.html |
|
|
|
small block terrorists
Yes Mayor Giuliani, taking down Coinbase for a few minutes is exactly like 9/11. When you resort to conflating UDP packets with mass murder, it's obvious you have lost the debate. Everybody knows that DDoS attacks are not just terror. It is simply criminal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_%28disambiguation%29But we know as well that you and your 'side' enjoy criminal agitation. |
|
|
|
get back to dogecoin already. unlimited wow. Is that your coin? Monero is the coin of your bolshevik Front National compagnon (no Block Size Limit). |
|
|
|
The roadmap proposed by Core for 2016 looks pretty good aside from the fact that they are too afraid to do a hard fork to X MB (2 would be fine and would not cause harm).
Translation into the real world: The roadmap proposed by Core for 2016 looks pretty good aside from the fact that they destroy adoption by a ridiculous 'scaling solution'. At least it looks pretty good for the Altcoins: https://i.imgur.com/eGhn2IM.png |
|
|
|
Because those who dont allow such huge blocks in their client simply contine on the chain with their choosen maximum blocksize. Although there may be many compelling chains with diferent maximum blocksizes, it doesnt make much sence to using the one what has little support.
At least this is how I understand it, and it is step from today central planning to more freedoom for everyone with the associated responsibility - if you choose wrong blocksize value, you might not be using the chain most Bitcoiners are on.
If this is truly the case and we are talking about chains splitting because of votes, then BU is worse than XT. Then I'm also starting to grasp the idea behind BU. The question is who hired the supporters? To the Politbüro and its hired cheerleaders - the totalitarian traitors of a libertarian project - BU is indeed the worst of all possiblilities. XT and BU already forced Blockstream core to promise to raise the limit (to 4 MB to get 1,75MB). There is more to come beyond this joke. |
|
|
|
how old are you srlsy?
Such cool. Much slang. So few vowels. why are you still hanging around with us old ph0rkers? Different kind of users here. On one side, we have kid slang and meme generator posters like hdbuck and many other no names, and on the other side we have a Peter R, who's getting asked to write overviews for CoinDesk. http://www.coindesk.com/10-must-read-cryptocurrency-research-papers-from-2015/ |
|
|
|
Doesn't XT still have the potential to be activated by miners? Isn't dormant a better word?
Well technically it is. One could argue that as long as a proposal exists there is a chance for it to get activated by miners. If we were talking about probabilities though, it would be very close to null. I'm reserving judgment about BU. It's possible there's nefarious code in there to steal the bitcoins of ignorant big blockers. I think we can all agree that would be hilarious.
Unlimited blocksize is nefarious by itself. It's like trying to put unlimited cargo on a plane; good luck with that. Repeating the same BS doesn't make it better. BU does not mean unlimited blocksize. Educate yourself before talking. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
