A good laugh  https://archive.is/lQCHpOn Black Friday, with 9,000 transactions backlogged, Peter Todd (supported by Greg Maxwell) is merging a dangerous change to Core (RBF - Replace-by-Fee). RBF makes it harder for merchants to use zero-conf, and makes it easier for spammers and double-spenders to damage the network. Nobody intelligent is going to take these clowns serious if they keep posting nonsense like that. Fork off already guys, nobody needs nor wants you here. Nobody cares about your 'blockstream core only implementation' imperatif. The totalitarians will be forced to raise the limit soon, or being forked off. No chance for BIP103 and similar jokes. |
|
|
|
I noticed the price had an upside bias since Mike's ragequit moment, coincidence?
Gavin, give it up, XT has more baggage than a trophy wife going on holiday.
LoLCows over at bitco.in claiming Gavin's consideration of XT "leadership" is actually responsible for the rise Which is obvious. The market is realizing that Gavin's actions will lead to an increased cap soonish and the stalemate tactics will come to an end. Whether it is via BIP101 by this or that implementation or another enforced compromise is not that important. Adam's/Wuille's BIP 103 joke with no increase until half a year after the halvening will not be accepted by the market. Gavin still enjoys an overwhelming support, even on theymos' 'moderated' subreddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3u9mnq/gavin_andresen_i_might_take_over_lead_of_bitcoin/ |
|
|
|
I understand the next block size meeting will be soon. Coming up to the meeting and wondering if anything has changed and where things stand as of now? What do people consider will be the likely outcome?
PLEASE TRY TO KEEP THIS THREAD ON TOPIC. I NOTICE ANOTHER THREAD ABOUT GAVIN WHERE TROLLS HAVE TRIED TO DISRUPT THE THREAD BY TALKING ABOUT RACISM OR CLIMATE CHANGE. I HOPE THIS THREAD CAN AVOID THE PAID TROLLS AND PEOPLE WILL STICK TO THE TOPIC
You seem to be a paid troll, since you start this thread with ad hominems. Don't expect a discussion on a higher level when you start a topic that way. Let's try to keep to the topic please. Your post doesn't add value and is exactly what I was hoping to avoid. Your topic was about which ones you do believe to be paid trolls. You can't avoid an ad hominem discussion by opening one. |
|
|
|
I understand the next block size meeting will be soon. Coming up to the meeting and wondering if anything has changed and where things stand as of now? What do people consider will be the likely outcome?
PLEASE TRY TO KEEP THIS THREAD ON TOPIC. I NOTICE ANOTHER THREAD ABOUT GAVIN WHERE TROLLS HAVE TRIED TO DISRUPT THE THREAD BY TALKING ABOUT RACISM OR CLIMATE CHANGE. I HOPE THIS THREAD CAN AVOID THE PAID TROLLS AND PEOPLE WILL STICK TO THE TOPIC
You seem to be a paid troll, since you start this thread with ad hominems. Don't expect a discussion on a higher level when you start a topic that way. |
|
|
|
Well, if you actually accept that, then why are you arguing with me? Or iCEBREAKER? I accept Taleb's position. Since we do not know exactly how the climate will change when we change the composition of the atmosphere, we should conclude to be super-green, which is the opposite position of the truthers, bible throwers, nationalists and other right wing 'living' jokes. They claim that mankind can't disrupt the climate by changing the composition of the atmosphere. Stupidity in perfection. Taleb's position and postulate of being super-green as a consequence is certainly not iCEBREAKER's postulate: It's bad science and bad economics to try to protect the earth from "climate change."I think there is room to accommodate both your view (which resembles mine) and iCEBREAKERs. iCE is coming from the perspective that CO 2 hasn't increased to the extent that it is in any way accountable for recent measurable temperature variations; I'm inclined to agree, +0.01% increase really isn't much, Which is a ridiculous argument. The CO2 proportion increased by 50% in a short time. It is irrelevant that its portion as a percentage of the atmosphere is small. What is relevant is how many reflective gases retain the heat. |
|
|
|
... the cheerleaders of the Front National and alikes.
I hope this isn't too off-topic for a thread about Climate Change, but I just wanted to point out that you seem to be a bit of a Frontaphobe. I don't want to be too judgmental, because maybe you've had bad experiences with the French. But you shouldn't give in to fear-mongering lies. The vast majority of supporters of the Front National are peaceful people who are proud of their heritage. Rightwing socialists/collectivists/frontists/statists. Yes, that is the usual litany of NF's sins against political correctness, which you Marxist tranzis trot out at every opportunity. LOL, Marxist. The Marxists represent the frontists on the other side of the collectivist front in the stadium. A fight of right wing vs. left wing collectivists; judean peoples front against the peoples front of Judea. We, the punks and anarchists live beyond those collectivist-statist clowns. We have nothing in common with such ridiculous collectivist behavior and character. |
|
|
|
Nassim Taleb: Climate Change.
I am hyper-conservative ecologically (meaning super-Green). My position on the climate is to avoid releasing pollutants in the atmosphere, on the basis of ignorance, regardless of current expert opinion.
.............
To those who say "we have no proof that we are harming nature", a sound response is "we have no proof that we are not harming nature either" --the burden of the proof is not on the ecological conservationist, but on someone disrupting an old system.
http://www.blackswanreport.com/blog/2010/01/opacity-3/Are you blind? Those sentences literally sum up my position perfectly, and you're still all "global warming will kill us all" Unbelievable. You can't read. I didn't say 'global warming will kill us all'. Another outright lie. I said we do not know how the climate of the atmosphere will change when we change its components. Your discussing tactics are among the most dishonest here. Well, if you actually accept that, then why are you arguing with me? Or iCEBREAKER? I accept Taleb's position. Since we do not know exactly how the climate will change when we change the composition of the atmosphere, we should conclude to be super-green, which is the opposite position of the truthers, bible throwers, nationalists and other right wing 'living' jokes. They claim that mankind can't disrupt the climate by changing the composition of the atmosphere. Stupidity in perfection. Taleb's position and postulate of being super-green as a consequence is certainly not iCEBREAKER's postulate: It's bad science and bad economics to try to protect the earth from "climate change." |
|
|
|
+ 157 at the moment. How young and stupid does someone have to be to ban @hellobitcoinworld? |
|
|
|
... the cheerleaders of the Front National and alikes.
I hope this isn't too off-topic for a thread about Climate Change, but I just wanted to point out that you seem to be a bit of a Frontaphobe. I don't want to be too judgmental, because maybe you've had bad experiences with the French. But you shouldn't give in to fear-mongering lies. The vast majority of supporters of the Front National are peaceful people who are proud of their heritage. Rightwing socialists/collectivists/frontists/statists. |
|
|
|
Nassim Taleb: Climate Change.
I am hyper-conservative ecologically (meaning super-Green). My position on the climate is to avoid releasing pollutants in the atmosphere, on the basis of ignorance, regardless of current expert opinion.
.............
To those who say "we have no proof that we are harming nature", a sound response is "we have no proof that we are not harming nature either" --the burden of the proof is not on the ecological conservationist, but on someone disrupting an old system.
http://www.blackswanreport.com/blog/2010/01/opacity-3/Are you blind? Those sentences literally sum up my position perfectly, and you're still all "global warming will kill us all" Unbelievable. You can't read. I didn't say 'global warming will kill us all'. Another outright lie. I said we do not know how the climate of the atmosphere will change when we change its components. Your discussing tactics are among the most dishonest here. |
|
|
|
That's an outright lie. Taleb would never say global climate change being bunk. He is not an idiot.
No it isn't, I was paraphrasing. "Bunk" is an exaggeration, he said something closer to "unknowable". Exaggerating what Taleb said is a little different to "all neo-serfs must bow to the solar-shielding/carbon-credit overlords", which is presumably an exaggeration of your point of view? Are you crazy? |
|
|
|
Ad hominem again. Except that my assessment of how you conduct your arguments just so happens to be true. But it's pretty clear that you've been lying again. He doesn't say global climate change being bunk. He essentially says that we do not know how the old system will be disrupted, since it is not possible to model it exactly.
To claim that the climate of the athmosphere won't change when we change its components, is the greatest Bullshit ever. That's something for the truthers, the cheerleaders of the Front National and alikes.
Who made that claim? Not me. Taleb says the arguments of both sides are bunk, that was his point. And so what your point is supposed to be, who knows? You claim that he is also saying that releasing fewer waste exhausts into the atmosphere is a good idea anyway, despite global climate change being bunk.That's an outright lie. Taleb would never say global climate change being bunk. He is not an idiot. |
|
|
|
Well, people that actually can read/comprehend what Taleb said may disagree with you. I fully subscribe to the Taleb view of environmental pollution: a plague on both your houses.
The is the usual unimaginative irony from you Zara: like all inexperienced debaters, your only recourse when you know you cannot rebut your adversary's claim, is simply to turn the claim back on the adversary. And it doesn't seem to matter to you how implausible that is!
i.e. "that's not me that's you. You're that, not me"
This is how very young children/teenagers handle unresolved arguments, not mature adults.
Ad hominem again. But it's pretty clear that you've been lying again. He doesn't say global climate change being bunk. He essentially says that we do not know how the old system will be disrupted, since it is not possible to model it exactly. To claim that the climate of the athmosphere won't change when we change its components, is the greatest Bullshit ever. That's something for the truthers, the cheerleaders of the Front National and alikes. |
|
|
|
What can we expect from the Front National? Ad hominem and science fiction. That's all. Nassim Taleb: Climate Change.
I am hyper-conservative ecologically (meaning super-Green). My position on the climate is to avoid releasing pollutants in the atmosphere, on the basis of ignorance, regardless of current expert opinion.
.............
We have polluted for years, causing much damage to the environment, while the scientists currently making these complicated forecasting models were not sticking their necks out and trying to stop us from building these risks (they resemble those "risk experts" in the economic domain who fight the previous war) --these are the ones now trying to impose the solutions on us. But the skepticism about models that I propose does not lead to the same conclusions as the ones endorsed by anti-environmentalists, pro-market fundamentalists, quite the contrary: we need to be hyper-conservationists ecologically, super-Green, since we do not know what we are harming with now. That's the sound policy under ignorance and epistemic opacity. To those who say "we have no proof that we are harming nature", a sound response is "we have no proof that we are not harming nature either" --the burden of the proof is not on the ecological conservationist, but on someone disrupting an old system.
http://www.blackswanreport.com/blog/2010/01/opacity-3/But Zara, Taleb is saying that he doesn't believe the climate scientist global warming alarmist nonsense. But, simultaneously, he is also saying that releasing fewer waste exhausts into the atmosphere is a good idea anyway, despite global climate change being bunk. Did you actually read your enlightened come-back quip before you posted it, or did you just search for "superior climate change opinions". No, what he is saying is not the same as what you want him saying. |
|
|
|
It is bad science to prematurely change a control variable like block size before gathering all relevant data (EG what happens when blocks are always full and fee backpressure ensues).
Changing the block size before we know how Bitcoin reacts to full blocks and fee backpressure is as foolish and wasteful as changing (absent a justifying external crisis) the 21e6 emission limit, the 10 minute block target, or the SHA256 proof of work.
Sure... and it is bad science to try to protect the earth from climate change. Because let's first look if we maybe like the climate change.  It's bad science and bad economics to try to protect the earth from "climate change." You are afraid of ManBearPig, and thus obviously scientifically illiterate, so of course you think changing a control variable in the middle of an experiment is a good idea. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/Oh right... a climate denier... well i should have awaited. It matches you. And the people moving from places they know will be under water in some years surely can understand you fully. I mean it's not as if the results already can be seen. Well, i won't discuss that. I already lost enough time to discuss that topic with smart guys that follow corporation advertising for cheaper production costs. The block size limit was never a control variable as it would be in a scientific experiment. It's completely hilarious that you lift that limit in that level. It was always only a precaution against spam. And you now come here and claim it was a long planned scientific experiment for a fee market. *rofl* "Denier?" You mean like a holocaust denier? What a nice cowardly way to commit Godwin-by-proxy. In science, denial (aka skepticism) is the default position, as the burden of proof is on the hypothesis being tested. By not understanding that simple concept, you once again demonstrate what scientific illiteracy looks like. Did you even read the linked Climategate: Why it Matters article? I guess since your mind is already made up, you don't care the data was massaged and the model literally used a "fudge factor" designed to produce a hockey stick output no matter the inputs. I've on top of the warming/climate (and related Malthus) controversy for longer than you've been alive; I can stomp you into the ground in any fact-based debate. No wonder your only available option is to close your mind and say 'Shut up you Nazi, ManBearPig is totally cereal!" You know nothing about economics, the scientific method, or software engineering. In other words, you are the perfect candidate to be a useful idiot for Mikey and his puppet masters at Team Goldman. I like your way of communication. You give me every time a laugh when i read how you attach something to what i said so that it sounds like i wrote something indecent. For example... you making me making misusing the holocaust. Great idea though a little bit inappropriate i think. Well, i forgive you since it shows that you think you can't solve the conversation on a factual level. Which hypothesis? Only because you claim the blocksize limit was implemented for checking out a hypothesis does not make your statement true. In fact it is utterly wrong. So you can come up with that argument all the time, it doesn't change the fact that you made that argument up. The blocksize limit never was implemented to test a fee market. Well, i know all these "arguments" against a climate change happening. It is pretty simple. Go to wikipedia and search the corresponding article. Pretty much every of these nonsense claims are dissected there. Well, some people seem to want to believe what they want to believe. Maybe it feels better to "know" that you are part of a small group that really knows what is going on. Shut up you Nazi... *rofl* you know, i can't get myself to being angry at you with having to laugh so much. What can we expect from the Front National? Ad hominem and science fiction. That's all. Nassim Taleb: Climate Change.
I am hyper-conservative ecologically (meaning super-Green). My position on the climate is to avoid releasing pollutants in the atmosphere, on the basis of ignorance, regardless of current expert opinion.
.............
We have polluted for years, causing much damage to the environment, while the scientists currently making these complicated forecasting models were not sticking their necks out and trying to stop us from building these risks (they resemble those "risk experts" in the economic domain who fight the previous war) --these are the ones now trying to impose the solutions on us. But the skepticism about models that I propose does not lead to the same conclusions as the ones endorsed by anti-environmentalists, pro-market fundamentalists, quite the contrary: we need to be hyper-conservationists ecologically, super-Green, since we do not know what we are harming with now. That's the sound policy under ignorance and epistemic opacity. To those who say "we have no proof that we are harming nature", a sound response is "we have no proof that we are not harming nature either" --the burden of the proof is not on the ecological conservationist, but on someone disrupting an old system.
http://www.blackswanreport.com/blog/2010/01/opacity-3/ |
|
|
|
I am simply advocating for the freedom of choice, which many people here seem to have a problem with. you can say whatever you want it does not change the merit of my message. Freedom of choice through multiple implementations, the ability to fork is a governance mechanism inherent in Bitcoin which can be justifiably used when there are fundamental disagreements, there is no tyranny of the majority in Bitcoin. Everyone is free to choice whatever implementation they agree with the most, it does not matter what you say, this can not be changed.
From the bottom of my heart I wish everyone the best, love and peace, even towards the people that constantly insult me, I hope that you will see the light one day. I support an increased blocksize since it adheres best with the principles of decentralization and financial freedom over the long run, trust without centralized authority.
The over-earnest sincerity is so staggeringly disingenuous, you're clearly a dangerous person to know in the flesh. You're not being insulted: your arguments are deliberately subversive and dishonest, and you are constantly getting called out for it. I can understand how it could be irritating that your dishonest tactics don't work on Bitcoiners, but doubling down is only making it worse. The representatives of the ad hominem threads are the last ones who represent Bitcoin. You are just a tiny, irrelevant fraction. Good night. |
|
|
|
Even BTCD, the most recent victim of your pathological tendency to bend the truth your way, have clearly expressed trust in Core's ability to come to a consensus on the necessary course of action.
I have also clearly expressed trust in Core's 'ability' (under the pressures of the marketplace) to come to a consensus to raise the limit. Otherwise they'll be forked off. But that wouldn't be a problem. It's their decision. The market rules. |
|
|
|
Satoshi invented Bitcoin not to disrupt corrupt central banking and gold markets, but so we could save 20% on Frappuccinos, dont'cha know?  I mean, who would want to hlod nasty old BTC, when they could be spending them to get Big Savings on Pumpkin Spice Lattes? It's not like Frap.doc spent years exhorting us to avoid spending our BTC too early because they will someday be worth much more than gold....
Back to the truth.
Bitcoin.pdf
Abstract
A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.
Introduction
The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for nonreversible services.
[–]aminok
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party.
Satoshi on doing small transactions on the blockchain:
http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/318/
While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall. If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time. Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms. Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical. I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.
This was the vision most adopters signed up for. Adoption has slowed as the attempt has been made to implement a new vision.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3tyxz7/bitpay_the_original_vision_for_bitcoin_was_the/ |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
