Yes, otherwise Xapo would not prefer Switzerland, the most direct democracy. That's always producing better results than feudalist/elitist/sociopath ruled territories. OK, let's add geography and politics to the list of things about which Zarathustra knows very little. Switzerland is a confederacy, not a direct democracy. The have multiple sub-jurisdictions and ultimate power resides in the heavily armed populace of the cantons. That's all to deal with the fact that majority rule doesn't scale beyond groups of ~100 people (because we can't remember more names/faces and tragedy of the commons + negative marginal returns ensue when we try). Zar, please say less and listen more, because your colossal ignorance is an embarrassment to the forum, your fail-teachers, and your fail-parents. Ridiculous. 1. I live in Switzerland 2. I spoke twice on that podium in Glarus to the people, until the officials forked me away from the podium 3. Appenzell was the last canton that gave the woman the right to vote 4. Switzerland is the most direct democracy on the planet and that's the reason why companies like Xapo move to this country: The results are better than in elitist/feudalist ruled countries. Imagine the disaster if people like you, the headbuck, the brg444, the popescu and alikes would rule that country.... |
|
|
|
Yes, otherwise Xapo would not prefer Switzerland, the most direct democracy. That's always producing better results than feudalist/elitist/sociopath ruled territories. |
|
|
|
I guess Blockthestream Corp. and its cheerleaders will be marginalized (decentralized).
and you gavinistas gov pigs will be centralized? lmao.  The several big blockians and the 'Bitcoin unlimited' people will be decentralized as well. But together they are a majority to raise the limit. |
|
|
|
|
I guess Blockthestream Corp. and its cheerleaders will be marginalized (decentralized).
|
|
|
|
edit edit: hahah dat troll at the end: "dont block the stream people.. dont block the stream" XD
The stream blockers (marxist kids@core) won't be able to block the stream. You'll get big blocks next year. |
|
|
|
it would not make sense to use the worst possible examples as our baseline.
That baseline doesn't make sense if your goal is to optimize tx per second. But why bother, when Visa/Paypal/Square can do that already very well. OTOH, if you GAF about survivability of the diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient network, you plan for the worst (and hope for the best). Gavin wants to plan according to some rosy vision of the future, where the economy is all fine and dandy thanks to Helicopter Ben printing endless FunBux. I want Bitcoin to survive World War Three (working subtitle 'Requiem for the Petrodollar'). That's not going to happen if Bitcoin lives in first strike targets like Google.mil datacenters. World War Three? Are you dreaming? Einstein knew a long time ago that a World War Three would be the last one. World War Three is a perpetual state of war. Much of the world is already there and has been for some time. Well put. A worldwide cold war fought with weapons of financial destruction. Bitcoin needs to survive the current 'Cold War 2' perpetual state of war fought with weapons of financial destruction. And then it needs to survive WW3, which is entirely possible. Einstein's anti-nuke hippie-dippie scare tactic blather about WW4 being fought with sticks and stones is just asinine objectively pro-Marxist counterfactual surrender-monkey BS. Nuclear Winter was the Global Warming (popular bogyman) of his day... We're not going to blanket the earth with mushroom clouds (it's too big and that would cost a fortune  ). Ridiculous. As soon as the power grids collapse together with the financial system, the 'nuclear winter' will be around the corner. 500 reactors and fuel pools will blow out its inventory. |
|
|
|
winner is not clear on this one yet. plus number of votes are way too low.
BIP000 is clearly the winner. Small blockers should laugh at blocked streams as long as they can. It's their last year. |
|
|
|
"will of the market" != "most of us" Why? Because resources are distributed by Pareto power law, not imaginary one-mouth-one-cow Rawlsian social justice. All of your considerations of spherical blockchains fail to account for the fact Bitcoin's economic majority is composed of a very small number of very rich, very smart, and very stubborn individuals. They don't GAF how Reddit wants to redesign their coin for the greater glory of populism (and Goldman Sachs). I'm not surprised you lacked to the class to resist trolling the scaling workshop. Don't be shocked when you don't get invited to speak at the next one.  The area under the line represents lulz proportional to the degree of Peter R's failure to convince anyone important that XT/101 was a good idea. So funny. They are still fighting their proxy war against XT while they are realising that the market will raise the limit. Are you not tired fucking this strawman ? Are you not tired to spam the threads with 50 and more 'posts' a day? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=251751;sa=showPosts;start=0 |
|
|
|
it would not make sense to use the worst possible examples as our baseline.
That baseline doesn't make sense if your goal is to optimize tx per second. But why bother, when Visa/Paypal/Square can do that already very well. OTOH, if you GAF about survivability of the diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient network, you plan for the worst (and hope for the best). Gavin wants to plan according to some rosy vision of the future, where the economy is all fine and dandy thanks to Helicopter Ben printing endless FunBux. I want Bitcoin to survive World War Three (working subtitle 'Requiem for the Petrodollar'). That's not going to happen if Bitcoin lives in first strike targets like Google.mil datacenters. World War Three? Are you dreaming? Einstein knew a long time ago that a World War Three would be the last one. |
|
|
|
he means that's its meaningless because bitcoin1.0 does not allow your voice to be heard just by polling like bitcoin2.0 does:
-snip-
if you can hang on for only 1 month longer, then you will be able to actually vote on your hard forks, and the devs will be bound to do as the poll results state!
Stop promoting this nonsense. There is no Bitcoin 2.0. That is a marketing scam. A voting mechanism that incorporates all users will never happen as users are easily manipulated. Are you going to let random people decide the faith of a multi-billion dollar industry? I think not. You incorporate experts into the equation. BS. In Switzerland all 'users' decide the faith of a multi-billion dollar economy/politics. That's the reason why Switzerland performs better than their feudalist competitors. |
|
|
|
"will of the market" != "most of us" Why? Because resources are distributed by Pareto power law, not imaginary one-mouth-one-cow Rawlsian social justice. All of your considerations of spherical blockchains fail to account for the fact Bitcoin's economic majority is composed of a very small number of very rich, very smart, and very stubborn individuals. They don't GAF how Reddit wants to redesign their coin for the greater glory of populism (and Goldman Sachs). I'm not surprised you lacked to the class to resist trolling the scaling workshop. Don't be shocked when you don't get invited to speak at the next one. The area under the line represents lulz proportional to the degree of Peter R's failure to convince anyone important that XT/101 was a good idea.  So funny. They are still fighting their proxy war against XT while they are realising that the market will raise the limit. |
|
|
|
The problem with Peter's paper is quite simple: it ignores reality. It is quite representative of traditional economist failures trying to paint real world issues in a vacuum relying on a bunch of spherical cows. btg444 I'm very much of the opposite opinion of pretty much everything you posted in the last Week or so. In this case also: I found Peters presentation pretty thought provoking. One NEEDS to undestand that this is at first a hypothesis which needs to be empirically tested, but its actually marvelous to try to develop models and maybe later test them instead of just screaming "centralization" and we all go under.... EDIT: and P.S. i find your way how you conduct yourself in this forum pretty annoying. Just because theymos gave you 1 free ticket to the "Show" (vor which no one else applied) doesn't at all mean you are somewhat of larger importance. After theymos gave you the ticket, how conducted yourself in the forum, i felt ashamed what a poor low life your are that is now feeling so important and you would be totally O.K. with censoring peoples opinions. You are beeing really aggressive to people that have a different opinion, putting people all the time in boxes, and fostering a hostile atmosphere. You scream a lot "liar, liar" and in the end it turns out you didn't understand something right... And your thoughts about that the blockchain belongs to the 1% and the rest can go cry as much as they want i found pretty disgusting to be honest. That is totally not the spirit of bitcoin maybe you can join Fox news with your attitude... you would fit in there... He seems to believe that he can win the community with his ad hominems. Ridiculous that such dividers philosophize about consensus. Since he is more and more alone with his 'arguments', the community is suffering a spam attack of 50 or more of his 'posts'. |
|
|
|
LaudaM against LaudaM:
"Yet with a flawed paper you've managed to gather a group of 'followers' around here."
"Honestly I do not have time to asses your paper, nor am I that interested in it (in general)."
Makes not much sense to discuss with people like that.
Anything else you would like to add to this personal attack? I didn't review his paper, others did. I never said that I would not discuss it based on the opinions/reviews of others. With (in general) I mean papers related to the fee market. I do not have time to read that. If you are not going to contribute properly, do not contribute at all. Anyone who does this next will be permanently ignored as well. I shall not waste my time with such people. Instead of "Peter Todd is wrong because of XXX" you go for "let's attack Lauda because of XYZ". This bring us back to: The level of hostile emotional appeal and logical fallacy in this thread is astounding.
Update: The said user was put on ignore because of zero value posts, attacks and trolling. The zero value posts of the sad user LaudaM: "Yet with a flawed paper you've managed to gather a group of 'followers' around here." "Honestly I do not have time to asses your paper, nor am I that interested in it (in general)." |
|
|
|
With less than 10% of the nodes and zero mined blocks recently what happens now that BitcoinXT (GVC) is for all practical purposes dead?
What of Gavin and Mike?
Gavin A. goes Peter R.; Bitcoin unlimited: "In my heart of hearts, I think everything would be just fine if the block limit was completely eliminated. I think actually nothing bad would happen."He can't have said this after this weekend's conference. If he did then he's even more of a clown than I thought. When I compare him with you, then I know who's the clown. |
|
|
|
With less than 10% of the nodes and zero mined blocks recently what happens now that BitcoinXT (GVC) is for all practical purposes dead?
What of Gavin and Mike?
Gavin A. goes Peter R.; Bitcoin unlimited: "In my heart of hearts, I think everything would be just fine if the block limit was completely eliminated. I think actually nothing bad would happen." |
|
|
|
LaudaM against LaudaM:
"Yet with a flawed paper you've managed to gather a group of 'followers' around here."
"Honestly I do not have time to asses your paper, nor am I that interested in it (in general)."
Makes not much sense to discuss with people like that.
Anything else you would like to add to this personal attack? No, that says enough. |
|
|
|
...They complained about non existent censorship...
In your opinion, has there been censorship at /r/bitcoin or here? There might have been censorship at /r/bitcoin. There has not been any censorship here. Threads were getting moved, not deleted, neither did anyone get punished for constructive posts about XT. Let me say this one more time: This is a privately owned forum. If you don't like it then you're free to start your own (as XT supporters did). Regardless, this is completely off topic. Let's get back to your paper. Peter Todd (source = reddit): this paper is fatally flawed and at best rehashes what we already know happens in the "spherical cow" case, without making it clear that it refers to a completely unrealistic setup. It'd be interested to know who actually wrote it - "Peter R" is obviously a pseudonym and the paper goes into sufficient detail that it makes you wonder why the author didn't see the flaws in it.
You'd be wise to run future work past experts in the field prior to publishing widely if you dislike heated controversy.
Yet with a flawed paper you've managed to gather a group of 'followers' around here. That is interesting. LaudaM against LaudaM: "Yet with a flawed paper you've managed to gather a group of 'followers' around here." "Honestly I do not have time to asses your paper, nor am I that interested in it (in general)." Makes not much sense to discuss with people like that. |
|
|
|
The free market wants bigger blocks and stay ON chain. Stop standing on its way. Bigger blocks =! centralisation because the market has an incentive to run full nodes at low cost. The free market will come up with these kind of device so you can continue to run a nodes for cheap https://bitseed.org/The small blockistans have no real argument apart overblown fear of centralisation simply because they don't trust that the free market will come up with capacity solutions. I'm wondering whether it is even possible for Bitcoin to enforce a rule that goes against the will of the market. I strongly suspect the answer is "no." (...) If the market wants to be at Q*, but the production quota is forcing it to be at Qmax, what can a group do to continue to enforce the production quota against the will of the market? How can the invisible hand be restrained? Yes, either the Politburo (core) is capable to steer the Bitcoin market - or the Bitcoin market is capable to kill the Politburo (the tragedy of the core) if they refuse to listen to the market. I still bet on the market. |
|
|
|
Brg444, I'm not sure I got to meet you! Did we meet?
We didn't and I'm sorry to say I had no interest in doing so. Some might be oblivious to your character and your sly ways but I know better. It just wouldn't be honest for me to pretend there could exist some cordiality between us and act like nothing. The "block the stream" trolling pretty much sealed the deal for me in that sense. You might've gotten a few laughs out of it but I thought that was of very bad taste. I'm sorry I don't think we can be friends  Well I'm sorry to hear that. Best of luck to you in your future.
I really wish you two would have met and found some common ground. Here we have two people who were front row, in person, live action at the workshop that this thread is about, and instead of hearing your stories of who you met, what you saw, and if you think it was a productive with respect to the block size debate at large, we have to endure a bickering back and forth about hurt egos.  Well, I think it has something more to do with Peter R being a skilled and serial manipulator of basic facts, in order to bring about a corporate takeover of the Bitcoin network. I don't like him either, for those reasons. No, you are one of them. I don't like you and brg444 for those reasons. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
