Look at the XT shills defending him there. Maybe he was just going to lunch with his uncle or friend.  I'm expecting similar idiotic excuses here as well. However, they can't downvote your post here. This is fishy behavior at best. Peter troll presenting papers and Hearn trying to become the CEO of Bitcoin; what a time to live in. It's open source, you blockstream shill. |
|
|
|
Blockstream is a private company lol (and Bitcoin Core is now their project), BIP101 isn't (and XT is just an implementation, you can even use Bitcoin Core + BIP101 if you prefer)
Any effort which includes Maxwell, sipa, and Back working together is totally cool with me. Not for me. They don't fight against censorship but against downvoting of their posts. Very bad. |
|
|
|
Do you want to centralize node control over to mining nodes?
Giving node control to miners is not centralization unless you believe miners are centralized. If you believe miners are centralized, then what does it matter if the nodes are also? I do believe mining is a dangerously centralized business which is why the nodes are required to keep this inherent economy of scale in check. Mining centralization can only affect the network to a certain extent. Centralization of governance (full nodes) implies that they get to change the rules as it pleases them. Not a risk I wanna take. Again with politics. Why do you insist that governance has anything to do with Bitcoin? You can change rules on your own miner or node, but you can't force anyone else to change them too. Yes. Some Bitcoiners hate choice. Some of them don't: "I will argue that it is more important that nodes follow the longest chain composed of valid transactions than dogmatically adhere to an arbitrary block size limit. I will end my talk by proposing a simple change for bitcoin software to allow a node operator to express his free choice regarding the size of blocks he is willing to accept while simultaneously ensuring that his node tracks consensus." https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3s525y/the_size_of_blocks_policy_tool_or_emergent/ |
|
|
|
What happened to Garziks proposal of 2mb blocks on 11/11?
The blockstream guys loved it because it helped mainchain scaling ..... NOT. That's not exactly true. Adam even suggested building further on it. https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/641707352123645956The hyperbole (I'm not innocent either) on both sides is not going to be helpful towards us reaching a compromise. If we get well through 2016 and are still stuck at 1MB... then I'll entertain the nefarious motives that have been thrown around. in case you missed it, and since you seem to be the appeal to authority type.. ... I guess Hal Finney was also living this fairytale Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin-backed banks to exist, issuing their own digital cash currency, redeemable for bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.
Bitcoin backed banks will solve these problems. They can work like banks did before nationalization of currency. Different banks can have different policies, some more aggressive, some more conservative. Some would be fractional reserve while others may be 100% Bitcoin backed. Interest rates may vary. Cash from some banks may trade at a discount to that from others.
George Selgin has worked out the theory of competitive free banking in detail, and he argues that such a system would be stable, inflation resistant and self-regulating.
I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash. Most Bitcoin transactions will occur between banks, to settle net transfers. Bitcoin transactions by private individuals will be as rare as... well, as Bitcoin based purchases are today.
Ah, for the Banks. Not my goal. Then I would prefer to scale to several Cryptocoins than to be slaved by banks again. |
|
|
|
Microtransactions, if that's what you're referring to, are not spam, i
Yes, sending $0.10 requires a lot of security and thus must be done on the main chain. The logic is flawless. The amount before which a transaction is classified as spam is subjective. However, if you think that we should bloat the blockchain so that people can transact tiny amounts over the biggest network (computing power) in the world, then think twice. Dont talk nonsence about fees, once more users decide to use Bitcoin than is current 1MB limit, there is no space for everyone to use Bitcoin regardless of high fees! The only alternative for other users is to not use 1MB Bitcoin and use another altcoin/s instead.
Just saying the obvious...
I'm not sure in what world you live in, nor who you're listening to but Bitcoin Core will not stay at 1MB. Yes. They'll find a consensus with Luke Jr. at 0,7 MB. |
|
|
|
I do think we are going to have to raise the limit a bit just due to an increase in usage but not XT size, it just isn't needed and won't be getting the support needed.
The problem is transactions already waiting unnecessary long to be added to the blockchain (and obviously people complaining the first confirmation taking too long) because of the 1MB limit and there is still not consenzus among Bitcoin developers to switch to 2MB immediatelly... This is what makes XT more popular than it should be because it is currently the only already working way to solve the obvious problem. yet another full proof way is to give up some fees.. just sayin.. else of course you are free to fork off. Dont talk nonsence about fees, once more users decide to use Bitcoin than is current 1MB limit, there is no space for everyone to use Bitcoin regardless of high fees! The only alternative for other users is to not use 1MB Bitcoin and use another altcoin/s instead. Just saying the obvious... Some of them really believe that their settlement fairytales come true, and some of them are altcoin shills who are not stupid. |
|
|
|
Yep, mostly uneconomic spam not valuable enough for their sender to include a reasonable fee. Wrong, most txs arn't spam: https://blockchain.info/ |
|
|
|
err.. Bit rich Ciyam, since you started this 'with us against us' thread !?
Funny - as I'm not on any side (am just against the XT shilling and Mike Hearn's approach). It is the XT supporters that are demanding people to "take sides" (and attacking anyone that isn't on theirs but it would be better if the ad-homs were not being used by anyone). It's not the big block supporters who are censoring, banning, DDoSing. Agreed. Banning, censoring and DDoSing is victim mentality. Healthy people would never do such things. |
|
|
|
Please tell me you didn't just linked me to the Bitcoin Unlimited thread, a spherical cow pipedream that's never going to see the light of the day  Who's going to develop it, Peter R & cypherdoc ? The devs. Your unproductive fulltime brabbling here will never result in anything useful but the opposite: You and your alikes are the best enemies of core. You are doing great, together with the mods. Go on! Or do you think Adam should be happy with such 'help'? I'm doing my job supporting Bitcoin, running my node and buying coins. You, on the other hand are promoting contentious forks from incompetent individuals. I wouldn't say that's productive now, would ya? he probably does not even have a full coin... Both of you joined the forum around alltime high price. Must be the reason why you are so angry and notoriously attacking ad hominem. |
|
|
|
Please tell me you didn't just linked me to the Bitcoin Unlimited thread, a spherical cow pipedream that's never going to see the light of the day Who's going to develop it, Peter R & cypherdoc ? The devs. Your unproductive fulltime brabbling here will never result in anything useful but the opposite: You and your alikes are the best enemies of core. You are doing great, together with the mods. Go on! Or do you think Adam should be happy with such 'help'? |
|
|
|
It's not the big block supporters who are censoring, banning, DDoSing.
(again you are a typical XT shill who just pretends that BIP101 is the only bigger block proposal out there) Wrong, I am a typical BU 'shill'. |
|
|
|
err.. Bit rich Ciyam, since you started this 'with us against us' thread !?
Funny - as I'm not on any side (am just against the XT shilling and Mike Hearn's approach). It is the XT supporters that are demanding people to "take sides" (and attacking anyone that isn't on theirs but it would be better if the ad-homs were not being used by anyone). It's not the big block supporters who are censoring, banning, DDoSing. |
|
|
|
edit: and this zarahustra shill is a tiny wheeny piece of lying fucking shit.
Great to know the ad-hominem 'Bitcoiners' on the core side. If you have such friends and cheerleaders you don't need enemies anymore. Hypocrite much? Unfortunately it's true that the blockstream cheerleaders here applauded DDoS attacks against XT Nodes. XT is an attack on Bitcoin. Don't be so surprised if there are collateral damage within the minority XT faction. Blockstream is an attack on Bitcoin development; a take over. That's the reason why development is forking and decentralizing. The mod behavior is also an attack on Bitcoin. That's the reason why the forums are forking and decentralizing: https://www.reddit.com/r/trendingsubreddits/comments/3s0i89/trending_subreddits_for_20151108_rbtc/Sometimes, bad behavior determines good results. |
|
|
|
edit: and this zarahustra shill is a tiny wheeny piece of lying fucking shit.
Great to know the ad-hominem 'Bitcoiners' on the small blockers side. If you have such friends and cheerleaders you don't need enemies anymore. yea thats free fees ad homs, way better than some frappucinos!!  2 years ago when you've been 16 years old, you were such a friendly little boy, writing so many funny things and looking forward to Chrstimas: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=250249.msg3497611#msg3497611Since you are 18, it's the opposite! Not good, headbuck! |
|
|
|
edit: and this zarahustra shill is a tiny wheeny piece of lying fucking shit.
Great to know the ad-hominem 'Bitcoiners' on the core side. If you have such friends and cheerleaders you don't need enemies anymore. Hypocrite much? Unfortunately it's true that the blockstream cheerleaders here applauded DDoS attacks against XT Nodes. |
|
|
|
edit: and this zarahustra shill is a tiny wheeny piece of lying fucking shit.
Great to know the ad-hominem 'Bitcoiners' on the small blockers side. If you have such friends and cheerleaders you don't need enemies anymore. |
|
|
|
Everything that doesn't allow Bitcoin to run nodes on the average Joe's computer is an attack to Bitcoin. We have enough evidence to know that 8MB blocks will be way too much in the coming years too. Im just not sure what Mike Hearn wants with all of this.
The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. Satoshi Nakamoto He also said this: While network nodes can verify transactions for themselves, the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network. One strategy to protect against this would be to accept alerts from network nodes when they detect an invalid block, prompting the user's software to download the full block and alerted transactions to confirm the inconsistency This type of fraud proof, which is necessary to make SPV truly secure, does not currently exist. Your argument to authority is also rather unfortunate given the frankly poor analogy used by Satoshi (NNTP servers vs full nodes) Adam: "2-4-8" You'll get bigger blocks soonish. If blockstream core is not able to reach conensus, they'll be history as a leading group of devs. You sound insecure. Spare us your blockstream obsession you psycho. Adam is forced to push now, which is great. |
|
|
|
Everything that doesn't allow Bitcoin to run nodes on the average Joe's computer is an attack to Bitcoin. We have enough evidence to know that 8MB blocks will be way too much in the coming years too. Im just not sure what Mike Hearn wants with all of this.
The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. Satoshi Nakamoto He also said this: While network nodes can verify transactions for themselves, the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network. One strategy to protect against this would be to accept alerts from network nodes when they detect an invalid block, prompting the user's software to download the full block and alerted transactions to confirm the inconsistency This type of fraud proof, which is necessary to make SPV truly secure, does not currently exist. Your argument to authority is also rather unfortunate given the frankly poor analogy used by Satoshi (NNTP servers vs full nodes) Adam: "2-4-8" You'll get bigger blocks soonish. If blockstream core is not able to reach conensus, they'll be history as a leading group of devs. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
