sounds potentially fishy. let's keep an eye on the situation.
"Every post the mods censor, every user they ban, just for disagreeing with the approved perspective, makes us even stronger." (statoshi) |
|
|
|
...
Brg444, I'm not sure I got to meet you! Did we meet? 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 think this little exchange right here is a great indicator of character. Yes. And here: "Lies, lies and lies. You have no shame!" And then? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1170385.msg12329974#msg12329974 |
|
|
|
Also: bigger blocks = more transactions = more users = more nodes = more miners = more security in numbers = higher prices = more transactions… More is better. It's not complicated : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r6udb4LNcwBitcoin has more users and more transactions than ever and the node count is at its lowest since its early days. This is a PEER-TO-PEER network. A peer in the Bitcoin network is a node. MORE USERS = MORE NODES MORE TRANSACTIONS != MORE USERS 58 'posts' today. Why are you fulltime spamming all the threads? |
|
|
|
No, there is no consensus. On which planet do you live?
Consensus of ideas? Who cares -- we will never achieve that. Consensus of the protocol? We already have consensus -- after all, there is only one blockchain. There is only one valid law in my municipality. But there is no consensus. Nuclear communities (Dunbar's Number) only are consensus driven. Societies are always majority driven, since the birth of the tragedy: the birth of the society. The Bitcoiners are going to totally destroy your society and your "laws"https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=470593.0 |
|
|
|
 hitting a nerve here? again: NO VOTES IN BITCOIN. you just have the choice to abide, or leave (just like what gavin did with his XT ph0rk). good for the brain deadz statists. Votes and choice everywhere in the Bitcoin environment. There is VOTE and CHOICE of the forum to go, the implementation to run, the mining pool to join etc. You are the statist. I vote for anarchy. bitcoin is no democracy, bitcoin is decentralized consensus (ie. vote-proof). Consensus! So funny. Who? Gavin and the Popescu? You and me? no, everybody and nobody at the same time  |
|
|
|
hitting a nerve here? again: NO VOTES IN BITCOIN. you just have the choice to abide, or leave (just like what gavin did with his XT ph0rk). good for the brain deadz statists. Votes and choice everywhere in the Bitcoin environment. There is VOTE and CHOICE of the forum to go, the implementation to run, the mining pool to join etc. You are the statist. I vote for anarchy. bitcoin is no democracy, bitcoin is decentralized consensus (ie. vote-proof). Consensus! So funny. Who? Gavin and the Popescu? You and me? |
|
|
|
hitting a nerve here? again: NO VOTES IN BITCOIN. you just have the choice to abide, or leave (just like what gavin did with his XT ph0rk). good for the brain deadz statists. Votes and choice everywhere in the Bitcoin environment. There is VOTE and CHOICE of the forum to go, the implementation to run, the mining pool to join etc. You are the statist. I vote for anarchy. |
|
|
|
Yes, since I live in the most democratic democracy on this planet, I know what democracy is. The majority rules via institutions. That's similar in the Bitcoin-World. There is only one human organisation that is better than democracy: anarchy. But anarchy and consensus is only possible in nuclear communities. They are self-sufficient and don't trade with aliens. So please explain again how are votes distributed in this Bitcoin democracy? How do you determine "majority"? In the same way as in a democracy. Votes are distributed between miners, devs, nodes, merchants, users, bitcointalkers etc. Some have more charisma and influence, some less. there is no votes.  what that over simplified brain dead analogy with your beloved democracy. pathetic statist. Can't you read, pathetic fascist? There is only one human organisation that is better than democracy: anarchy. But anarchy and consensus is only possible in nuclear communities. They are self-sufficient and don't trade with aliens.Bitcoin is human organisation. It is consensus driven. Thank you  No, there is no consensus. On which planet do you live? |
|
|
|
Yes, since I live in the most democratic democracy on this planet, I know what democracy is. The majority rules via institutions. That's similar in the Bitcoin-World. There is only one human organisation that is better than democracy: anarchy. But anarchy and consensus is only possible in nuclear communities. They are self-sufficient and don't trade with aliens. So please explain again how are votes distributed in this Bitcoin democracy? How do you determine "majority"? In the same way as in a democracy. Votes are distributed between miners, devs, nodes, merchants, users, bitcointalkers etc. Some have more charisma and influence, some less. there is no votes. what that over simplified brain dead analogy with your beloved democracy. pathetic statist. Can't you read, pathetic fascist? There is only one human organisation that is better than democracy: anarchy. But anarchy and consensus is only possible in nuclear communities. They are self-sufficient and don't trade with aliens. |
|
|
|
Yes, since I live in the most democratic democracy on this planet, I know what democracy is. The majority rules via institutions. That's similar in the Bitcoin-World. There is only one human organisation that is better than democracy: anarchy. But anarchy and consensus is only possible in nuclear communities. They are self-sufficient and don't trade with aliens. So please explain again how are votes distributed in this Bitcoin democracy? How do you determine "majority"? In the same way as in a democracy. Votes are distributed between miners, devs, nodes, merchants, users, bitcointalkers etc. Some have more charisma and influence, some less. |
|
|
|
Yes, since I live in the most democratic democracy on this planet, I know what democracy is. The majority rules via institutions. That's similar in the Bitcoin-World. There is only one human organisation that is better than democracy: anarchy. But anarchy and consensus is only possible in nuclear communities. They are self-sufficient and don't trade with aliens. |
|
|
|
Well, whoever wanted to split the community the way Gavin and Mike did, DESERVES TO FAIL.
You talk to people if you want changes, you do not introduce parallel BTC.
I concur. What was proposed was more than risky in this case. 75% is nowhere near enough, and trying to take over power does not make it better. This is one of the main reasons for which I have showed my dissatisfaction with XT and both Hearn and Gavin. Still fighting your proxy war, dear iCEMAN?
XT has already won
Oh the irony that you're failing to see here.
Do you also dislike having several political candidates to vote on?
This analogy is wrong. This is not a democracy. It is democracy. Some centralist/authoritarian devs and teir followers think it is centralism/authoritarianism/fascism, but it isn't. |
|
|
|
It is very clear that any commodity can be manipulated with paper. We as a community need to be very careful not to let this happen to Bitcoin, since it is apparently not illegal (yet).
Yes. It's a free market. Do you want to ban future contracts/markets? Future contracts are as old as the market (mesopotamia). |
|
|
|
Not all nodes are miners. Do you even know how Bitcoin works?
YOU brought up spoofed nodes. They can't be spoofs if they mined a block, genius.
Slush brought up spoofed nodes. Slush's FakeXT node spoofs BIP101 support when it mines blocks. XT is dead, and it's never coming back. Does that make you sad and angry? Good.  Still fighting your proxy war, dear iCEMAN? XT has already won
The problem the community was faced with was that an adoption boom could happen at any time, but Core might stall at 1MB and kill it. Creating an alternative implementation and readying it, testing it, familiarizing people with it, and having the debates necessary for people to be comfortable with it - all that would take too long and we'd likely miss that adoption surge.
But now the situation is different. XT is a thing. It's not winning by node count at all, but it doesn't have to, because the market will prefer conservatism until change is the only option. That was the very situation we were worried about: what if change is the only option yet change is blockaded by Blockstream? All XT has to do is be locked and loaded, ready with open arms to take in the longsuffering Core refugees.
XT doesn't need to be an open floodgate; it just needs to be a floodgate ready to be opened at any time. In that it has already succeeded, and Core feels the pressure as shown by the elevating pitch of attacks.
The only question now is, to misquote Mises, "There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of the 1MB dam. The alternative is only whether the relief should come sooner as the result of Core's voluntary abandonment of the antiquated blocksize cap, or later as a final and total loss of centralized control by Core dev."(@Noosterdam) |
|
|
|
so core devs control all the nodes and miners now Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run. This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization. Right. So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias. At least in my opinion. This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it. If Core doesn't scale expect a divorce at some point. Even if it means forking at 50%. I will personally be fine with it. Enjoy your 0.50$ bitcoin then. I wonder which coin will worth 0.50$. The one that scales and is useful or the one that doesn't and is useless? Please advice. If Bitcoin is forked by 50% the trust in cryptocurrency in general will be destroyed. You really are clueless about what a hardfork entails heh? It will be great if those notorious warriors who notoriously call others noobs, n00bs, redditards, idiots and alike, will be finally forked out of the game. The soonisher the better. A consensus with such characters is not possible. |
|
|
|
pps: peter r is one helluva shady character.
Can confirm; hellashady. You like to debate with devs that are well known and identified in the community if not directly criticize them yet there is nothing we know about you. If you really stand for your words, prove your identity, your references, your curriculum vitae and any information that are relevant for taking you seriously. Else you're just a shady "let's kill bitcoin core" anon that words spew (and fancy graphs) should be taken with much caution, if not completely ignored Which they are anyway, besides from that little fools army (probably half faked too - just look at the number of noobs accounts that instantly popped up here and there exclusively shilling for XT in august) you Gavin et al. have managed to brainwash with your mainstream socialist garbage. PS: Can't wait on how you'll elude my question tho: who da friggin fuck are you? You were against Gavin who was the main maintainer of the bitcoin github until recently! You perfectly fit in the category that you just stated. If you stand for your words prove your identity, your references, your curriculum vitae and any information that might be relevant for taking you seriously. Oh wait! You will not do that. Hypocrisy at its best. |
|
|
|
pps: peter r is one helluva shady character.
Can confirm; hellashady. ps: cant wait on how you'll elude my question tho: who da friggin fuck are you? And you? From the STASI? |
|
|
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3k0imx/the_number_of_xt_blocks_in_the_last_1000_is/I thought the support BitcoinXT had was way bigger because of so many people praising it on /r/Bitcoin.
I wanted to help scale bitcoin so I spent about $200 to set up 10 BitcoinXT nodes for a month.
The $200 I spent was almost 1/3 of my bitcoin savings and I regret wasting my money on this. sweet redditard tears. ps: on a side note, as it goes for the internet and forums in general, reddit is infested with NSA-type alter egos, shilling the clueless noobs that still think of it as a place where 'real' opinions are expressed.. but its more of a usg sponsored - mit developed - propaganda tool, and hearn/gavin used it quite purposely.. otoh it wont affect bitcoin if not for only contributing at allowing bitcoin to be more resilient to social BS. pps: peter r is one helluva shady character. The 1MB'ers are downvoted here as well; not only on reddit. Make a poll and you'll realise that you can't win the community with your language. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
