Just have a look at this  HAHAHA https://archive.is/gqHB8They managed to be simultaneously delusional and desperate in the same post. Another eXTreme achievement.  Oh, and Poe's Law is hitting even among their ranks. Can't tell satire any more. I can understand that feeling just fine, mind. this is seriously funny, but off-the-reservation-batshite-crazy at the same time ... worse yet it provoked me into looking at r.bitcoinxt for the first time and my eye-balls feel dirty now  ... glorifying dear leader benny diktator hearn with his picture on top is more than a little creepy, just sayin guys. So now I'm thinking, let the max_block_size float up to any unlimited size. But have a limit on how fast it can rise that makes practical sense, a rate limiter of some sort so it can grow as fast the network grows but not so fast that an attacker could game it over the medium/short term to force smaller users off the network with unrealistic hardware upgrade requirements. Ultimately though have an infinite limit to max block size in the long term, as Mike Hearn says. marcus_of_augustus - April 10, 2013, 07:56:02 AM https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=157141.msg1791022#msg1791022That was from 10 April 2013. I wouldn't change much in that quote with new information since then, (you left out much that still has relevance, especially the concluding sentence, in your haste to spin your twisted angle in italicised bolded glory). The biggest new information since then is how Gavin and Mike chose to wantonly split the community in a blatant political power grab with all their "meta" governance BS, Conspiracy BS. |
|
|
|
Just have a look at this HAHAHA https://archive.is/gqHB8They managed to be simultaneously delusional and desperate in the same post. Another eXTreme achievement. Oh, and Poe's Law is hitting even among their ranks. Can't tell satire any more. I can understand that feeling just fine, mind. this is seriously funny, but off-the-reservation-batshite-crazy at the same time ... worse yet it provoked me into looking at r.bitcoinxt for the first time and my eye-balls feel dirty now ... glorifying dear leader benny diktator hearn with his picture on top is more than a little creepy, just sayin guys. marcus_of_augustus - April 10, 2013, 07:56:02 AM https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=157141.msg1791022#msg1791022 |
|
|
|
-snip-
We do not not need to trust any group of developers with the future of Bitcoin, Bitcoin is trust less, if anyone introduces code we do not agree with we can always choose not to adopt it.
Having a laugh != personal attack. You might want to revisit that definition. What you said is true though. Nobody likes Hearn, Nobody is listening to you and your ad hominem laughter, but many listen to Mike. |
|
|
|
Just have a look at this HAHAHA https://archive.is/gqHB8They managed to be simultaneously delusional and desperate in the same post. Another eXTreme achievement. It's probably the same person that helps Peter Rtroll write his papers. There was a time when one could actually discuss with them, but now it is just getting silly. Such ad hominem threads like this one will never convince a majority in the bitcoin community. Your 'strategy' won't work. |
|
|
|
|
Do you think that the core devs will eventually be able to find a consensus at least among themselves and present one BIP for scaling Bitcoin instead of several? And if yes, when?
|
|
|
|
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? XT is not more totalitarian then Core, they are equally dictatorial in their decision making process, at least XT can admit to this reality. 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. Exactly. There is choice now. That's the reason why the Politbüro and their top down cheerleading Enthusiasts are hyperventilating like crazy. Delicious. |
|
|
|
To say the block reward is market-set is beyond idiotic. There is no effective market mechanism doing that, by design. The protocol does. The block reward is set by the protocol which is decided on by the free market, the market is incentivized not to change the block reward, this is why and how Bitcoin works. The argument goes like this: since the free market of peers dictates what code determines consensus then it should follow that any parameter within Bitcoin is a subset of a "free market" decision. Agreed. So 1MB it is, says the free-market! Agreed, until the free market decides that it wants to increase the blocksize, the incentive to do so will align more as the blocks continue to grow. Since rendering transactions unreliable and increasing the cost of transactions is not necessarily in the best interests of the network as a whole. Exactly. |
|
|
|
The fact is that Core has not increased the blocksize and they have no plan in place to do so either. What you are saying does not change this reality. What kind of fact is that? Even if they thought so, they aren't allowed to change their mind? Very weird thinking. The fact is that right now Core will not increase the blocksize and they have not publicly stated their definitive plans to do so. It is strange that you find it so difficult to acknowledge this fact. More disgusting lies  Shame on you. Please enlighten me and show where the Core development team has officially stated that they will definitely increase the blocksize. Has the Code been written and implemented? What is the date for increasing the blocksize and by how much will it be increased? I would presume this code is already active in the latest version of Core then? Show me evidence of this, I am waiting? I presume you are unable to provide evidence to the contrary, so please refrain from unjustly calling me a liar then, thank you.  Now will you please fork off Even BIP101 is within the Bitcoin improvement proposal scheme, that does not mean it will be implemented however. The fact is that none of the BIP proposals that intend to increase the blocksize have been implemented by Core and no definitive plans have been made by Core to implement any of these proposals in the future. Since Wladimir does have the final say in terms of what gets implemented into Core regardless of what anyone else thinks. So please refrain from calling me a liar, since even if I am wrong, if I am sincere I am not a liar. Calling me a liar implies that you know my intention and motivation which you do not, so please stop, since you are only making yourself look foolish by resorting to such attacks. They are not able to realize their self-destruction with this kind of 'discussion'. As if notorious name calling ever could convince the community. |
|
|
|
...
The inflation rate is already governed by the market. The market is entirely happy with the 25 BTC block rewards. I also strongly suspect that the market will reduce the block reward to 12.5 BTC at the scheduled halving next summer.
not the market you dummy.. the protocol. the very same that you cant change with your stupid gif. The market defines the protocol. One small dev team is not the market. lel nope. try again. im done explaining such basics to you idiot. It's the economy, stupid. It's not your Politbüro. |
|
|
|
I dunno; ask the hundreds of people who up-voted it before it was deleted.
You mean either one of these two: 1) Hundreds of shill accounts up-voting; 2) Deluding the average Joe with false charts. Which one is it? Ah, an elitist who believes his opinion is worth more than that of hundreds average Joes. |
|
|
|
...
The inflation rate is already governed by the market. The market is entirely happy with the 25 BTC block rewards. I also strongly suspect that the market will reduce the block reward to 12.5 BTC at the scheduled halving next summer.
not the market you dummy.. the protocol. the very same that you cant change with your stupid gif. The market defines the protocol. One small dev team is not the market. |
|
|
|
The XT supporters make their true intentions clear: I think what your missing is that the only consensus that matters is that formed by the longest persistent chain. If the longest chain includes blocks larger than 1 MB, well that is just Bitcoin's consensus system doing what it's supposed to do. If--in the distant future--there was some important reason to maintain a small perpetual inflation rate, then the longest chain would probably include some small perpetual inflation.
THE REST OF MY QUOTE: But these sorts of events are not to be feared--they are what allows Bitcoin to adapt to challenges as they arise. They would not result in bitcoins having no value as some fear, but are what prevents Bitcoin from losing its value in the face of obstacles.
This is what the Bitcoin experiment is all about! If we can't trust the market to make good decisions for the health of Bitcoin--and if we really do need people like Greg and Adam making those decisions for us--then Bitcoin has already failed.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3siyff/theymos_asked_for_a_reason_to_propose_any_block/cwxuv81press it! Why? Because the idea that Bitcoin is ultimately controlled by the market is too dangerous? If you truly believe so why not advocate to have the limit removed already?? The inflation rate is already governed by the market. The market is entirely happy with the 25 BTC block rewards. I also strongly suspect that the market will reduce the block reward to 12.5 BTC at the scheduled halving next summer. Ah, he suppressed the rest of the quote. Surprise! |
|
|
|
The XT supporters make their true intentions clear: I think what your missing is that the only consensus that matters is that formed by the longest persistent chain. If the longest chain includes blocks larger than 1 MB, well that is just Bitcoin's consensus system doing what it's supposed to do. If--in the distant future--there was some important reason to maintain a small perpetual inflation rate, then the longest chain would probably include some small perpetual inflation. No, that makes the true opinion clear: the longest persistent chain is the valid chain, whether a minority of self declared saviors likes it or not. |
|
|
|
Enough of those gifs. I've seen them all.
I'm not posting only for your benefit. A lot of people haven't seen them. For example, this one was banned (twice) from /r/bitcoin: Won't you get off us you fucking psycho. The mad house is over there : https://bitco.in/forum/A small blocker who is loosing control. Over and over again. It's really great how you are exposing yourself all the time in this ad hominem thread. Great job! |
|
|
|
Increasing the block size != support for XT. I (e.g.) have nothing against a reasonable increase. On the other hand, I'd be gathering support to reject Bitcoin in general, should XT take over.
Why does XT have to "take over"? Why can't we decentralize development and embrace multiple protocol implementations?   Isn't reporting the same inane nonsense all the time a bannable offence around here? You have posted the same exact thing countless times ever since the run up to Montreal, and your reponse to criticism is posting the same thing again. Do you have a mental illness? I heard you are in the medical field, get checked. As if you are not reporting your same ad hominem nonsense all the time. |
|
|
|
Wow, 200 followers! Compared to 26'000 Bitcoiners who follow Roger Ver.
A true small blocker!
What is this? A popularity contest  Currencies are a popularity contest. Bitcoin is not very popular until today compared to the US$. But the times, they are a changin. That will also be true for dev decentralization. You've got choice. Whether you like it or not. |
|
|
|
lmao.  Wow, 200 followers! Compared to 26'000 Bitcoiners who follow Roger Ver. A true small blocker! but butt butthole?! Quality before quantity.
 Yes. Much quality and much quantity is better than no quality and no quantitiy. |
|
|
|
lmao. Wow, 200 followers! Compared to 26'000 Bitcoiners who follow Roger Ver. A true small blocker! |
|
|
|
besides, hardly 5000 subscribers and 100 active users over there at r/btc is NOT "bitcoin community" also: -snip- what a joke of a community.. What do you expect from a Bitcoin community where LiteCoinGuy is a global moderator. Much better than applauding and cheerleading the censoring 'moderators'. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
