Silly arguments by meme carry no weight. Samson Mow, BTCC's chief operating officer, said: "BlockPriority is a unique and innovative service available exclusively to BTCC users. It's also a means of mitigating potential impact to our customers from the lack of progress on blocksize increases." We are here to enjoy ourselves by making fun of you and ensure your Gavinista narrative stays dead. Memes are very effective for that purpose. The sillier, and thus funnier, and thus more memorable, the better. In Dawkin's meme theory, that corresponds to fitness. Your 'Bitcoin is dying Because Core' meme is dead, because it was less fit than our 'XT is rubbish' meme. You are so outmatched here it's not even funny; you don't even understand the nature of the battles in which you desire to fight. That's why Team XT is getting rekt like Ronda Rousey. You should have touched gloves, Mikey.  You are losing. You already gave up fighting against big blocks. Your proxy war against your hate objects (who are the trigger of big blocks coming) is the best evidence. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg13034374;topicseen#msg13034374https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12955016;topicseen#msg12955016https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg13034875#msg13034875Seek professional help. Do it! |
|
|
|
Silly arguments by meme carry no weight. Samson Mow, BTCC's chief operating officer, said: "BlockPriority is a unique and innovative service available exclusively to BTCC users. It's also a means of mitigating potential impact to our customers from the lack of progress on blocksize increases." We are here to enjoy ourselves by making fun of you and ensure your Gavinista narrative stays dead. Memes are very effective for that purpose. The sillier, and thus funnier, and thus more memorable, the better. In Dawkin's meme theory, that corresponds to fitness. Your 'Bitcoin is dying Because Core' meme is dead, because it was less fit than our 'XT is rubbish' meme. You are so outmatched here it's not even funny; you don't even understand the nature of the battles in which you desire to fight. That's why Team XT is getting rekt like Ronda Rousey. You should have touched gloves, Mikey. You are losing. You already gave up fighting against big blocks. Your proxy war against your hate objects (who are the trigger of big blocks coming) is the best evidence. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg13034374;topicseen#msg13034374https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12955016;topicseen#msg12955016https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg13034875#msg13034875Next year, despite you'll realize that the devs were forced to remove the cap, you nevertheless will claim victory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikssfUhAlgg |
|
|
|
No, xapo did it before. Those are the market players who will enforce big blocks next year. Zero chance for the steam blocking trolls.
Do you enjoy sucking up to the bankers? Are these the leaders you trust Bitcoin with? Larry Summers, Citibank & Visa? Your signature is sucking up to the bankers. Hal Finny is sucking up to the bankers? According to brg's logic yes. |
|
|
|
Oh yeah, the whole "you're just not ready" excuse  Just put him on ignore like me and you will be better off. XT is a failed takeover of Bitcoin. Everyone should accept its fate by now. XT. LOL. You proxy warriors are so funny. As if it is about XT. Gavin and Mike are the main trigger that the community will raise the limit soonish. If you'll claim victory next year after you'll have been forced to follow the new limit is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
The BTTC event will force What? Miners have taken payments for prioritizing transactions for eons. MTGox was doing the same thing in _2011_ (it gave hosting to eligius in exchange for prioritizing transactions). F2Pool apparently has an API that you can pay access too. Google 'gmaxwell out of band fees' and you can find lots of posts where I'm schooling people about this possibility (and actuality)-- including pushing for fee estimator designs that don't get confused by it. There is nothing all that interesting about it, in this case: In Bitcoin, a fee is pretty much a fee regardless of its paid in or out of band. We even have a supported, documented, and maintained facility in Bitcoin Core for doing this, and have for years, written by the same people you seem to expect to be surprised by it: (...) That it's surprising to /you/ only shows you weren't paying attention. Todd is surprised/concerned. I'm not. |
|
|
|
No, xapo did it before. Those are the market players who will enforce big blocks next year. Zero chance for the steam blocking trolls.
Do you enjoy sucking up to the bankers? Are these the leaders you trust Bitcoin with? Larry Summers, Citibank & Visa? Your signature is sucking up to the bankers. |
|
|
|
In any case-- I suggest you stop thinking in terms of finding ways to "force" people to do things; it's unbecoming.
You are free to suggest whatever you want. The market will force the centralized dev team to raise the limit. That is my prediction. If you decide to prolong the stalemate ("which is the preferred outcome of bitcoin core" according to your cheerleader iCEBREAKER, the ad hominem warrior), your influence will be marginalized. The market will not be forced to follow the devs of one company any longer. The tide is turning. |
|
|
|
Their Big Lie is that Bitcoin was created to replace commercial banking, not central banking (as if the Genesis Text was about $2 ATM fees instead of TBTF bailouts).
Brilliant observation, thank you. It is indeed. I personally care not one iota about replacing ATM's. The debt-based monetary system which currently animates the entire economic state of my country is what I care about. More specifically, the inherent life expectancy of such systems and their typical failure modes, and what it may mean to me. Even more specifically, what evolves out of such an implosion. It is worth note that almost without exception the efforts that Hearn and Andresen have focused on are to facilitate to enlistment of people who's interest does not go beyond the ATM/VISA/PayPal aspect of the Bitcoin monetary system. I attribute this to a strategy which recognizes that these participants are a distinct liability to the defensibility of the ecosystem. The demands that 'the masses' make will open many chinks in the armor. Actually 'chinks' is an understatement. The effect would be that of a sufficiently large torpedo detonated under the keel mid-ship. I do believe that this 'enlist the masses' focus has been strategic, and is for the ultimate purpose of destroying the Bitcoin solution in it's initial form. At least in Hearn's case. Gavin may at one point have been legitimately convinced that ballooning the userbase was a viable defense however naive that may be, and also that bending over backward to placate the existing political power structures so that they will be nice to us made sense. I don't believe that that is a sustainable argument any more if it ever was, and Gavin must certainly know this. heh, and now coinbase goldman sachs is issuing bitcoin 'debit' cards... clearly the innovation of teh century! No, xapo did it before. Those are the market players who will enforce big blocks next year. Zero chance for the stream blocking trolls. |
|
|
|
RBF also mitigates BTTC's impact.  petertoddyou can (ab)use this service to zeroconf double-spend merchants by first creating a low-fee transaction paying a BTCC wallet address, followed by double-spending that transaction with one paying the merchant. BTCC will mine tx1 even after tx2 is created, yet all other miners will mine tx2. (and may not even see tx1) Similarly, tx1 is unlikely to be propagated widely if at all, so the merchant probably won't even see it and won't know they're being doublespent.
RBF and CPFP both make fee bumping fairly easy, which makes this kind of service a lot less useful - I'm far more concerned about other centralization pressures than this one.  Is there a life beyond war for you frontists? Every second 'post' with war and blood pictures. How sick is that? Bitcoin is not a playground for warriors and socialist collectivists (Front National statists). |
|
|
|
As for El Todd's new stragety, it is to exploit the crap out of BTCC if they start to be shitlords. Heh, so rekt. You should have learned from the XT debacle and CLTV/RBF triumphs to always bet on El Todd.  They are finished. BIP101 triggered the turning tide. The BTTC event will force core to raise the limit even more soonish than intended until yesterday. BTCC is a non-event, but cling to your latest FUD narrative if it helps soothe the sting of your crushing defeat by Team Core. You Gavinistas have a thing for celebrating victory before the battle has started. How did that work out for XT and BIP101? Your ridiculous XT-proxy war is the best sign that the Bitcoin 'community' will leave your ridiculous 1MB cap behind next year. Nobody cares about your XT phobia. It is irrelevant how the devs are forced to implement big blocks. Relevant is that they are. |
|
|
|
Sorry, but Frap.doc's rump forum doesn't display on my browser correctly. No, I can't try a different one. As for El Todd's new stragety, it is to exploit the crap out of BTCC if they start to be shitlords. Heh, so rekt. You should have learned from the XT debacle and CLTV/RBF triumphs to always bet on El Todd. They are finished. BIP101 triggered the turning tide. The BTTC event will force core to raise the limit even more soonish than intended until yesterday. |
|
|
|
What are you even talking about? Block size has nothing to do with the ability to discriminate transactions.
Yeah, so it's a very unlucky case that BTCC has come up with this "new service" exactly at this time that we have the problem that blocks are becoming full. Au contraire, for those of us looking forward to the results of Bitcoin's ongoing experiment with fee markets, BTCC's plans are a natural turn of events, and we are lucky to have the antifragile system presented with this (potential) adversity ASAP. 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). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_variableThe control variable (or scientific constant) in scientific experimentation is the experimental element which is constant and unchanged throughout the course of the investigation. The control variable strongly influences experimental results, and it is held constant during the experiment in order to test the relative relationship of the dependent and independent variables. The control variable itself is not of primary interest to the experimenter. 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. Please accept that you will *NEVER* get socioeconomic consensus for wanton changes to those key, non-negotiable aspects of the social contract, especially when you use fear to push your calls for defections. Ridiculous. You know very well that the temporary anti-spam cap has not been implemented to enforce fees by blocking the txs stream. |
|
|
|
The miniblockists are finally quiet: Nothing left to say since Hearn has RageQuit Yes, that's all you still can say, given the new development on 'poor designed' miniblock centralization. CONFIRMED: The Gavinista dead-ender zero-percenter attempts to spin every new development into FUD and Bitcoin Obituaries are now so old as to be clichéd. XT  Todd. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg13029224#msg13029224 |
|
|
|
I don't understand why you think this is a problem. The incentives are still there. BTCC has to reject other transactions with fees in order to include their transactions, so it will cost them money to do this.
Exactly. The Gavinista dead-ender zero-percenter attempts to spin every new development into FUD and Bitcoin Obituaries are now so old as to be clichéd. It means now pools can start colluding negotiating with exchanges to priorities their transactions regardless of the fees. It once again encourage centralization competition of pools and discourage bootstraps a fee market.
FTFY. So many errors in such a small space, like a 5th grader trying to do calculus despite not understanding what most of the symbols mean. For someone who cares a lot about censorship resistance you sure have no problems about driving transactions exclusively into the hands of big centralized payment processors acquiring mining pools. Oh the irony. Bitcoin is by design a settlement network designed to replace or make honest central banks and gold markets, not a high volume payment system designed to replace commercial banks, plastic, cash, and Starbucks gift cards. Payments should be handled off-chain, though payment channels like Lightning, or via alt chain. LOL. It would be handled off-bitcoin, e.g. on your monero-chain, if the community would be stupid enough to listen to those jokes. But I guess it won't. |
|
|
|
I don't understand why you think this is a problem. The incentives are still there. BTCC has to reject other transactions with fees in order to include their transactions, so it will cost them money to do this.
Exactly. The Gavinista dead-ender zero-percenter attempts to spin every new development into FUD and Bitcoin Obituaries are now so old as to be clichéd. You mean that FUDster, who is very concerned, right? https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/667722504631259141Greetings to the judean-socialist peoples Front National (JSPFN). You are so funny. |
|
|
|
The miniblockists are finally quiet: Nothing left to say since Hearn has RageQuit Yes, that's all you still can say, given the new development on 'poorly designed' miniblock centralization. |
|
|
|
Don't see where the problem is. Regular users needing prioritized transactions can simply pay higher fee. It means now pool can start colluding with exchanges to priorities their transactions regardless of the fees. It once again encourage centralization of pools and discourage a fee market. The Todd seems to be surprised about the centralization effects of the 1 MB joke: https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-113#post-4035 |
|
|
|
Bitcoin should not have any leadership, which is why the development needs to become more distributed.
This is why we require consensus within Core. That's distributed enough. Consensus with Blockstream core is distributed enough. Joke of the year. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
