And you Gavinistas enabled them with your greedy, impatient, simpleminded 'zomg just change 1mb to 8mb and then moon' nonsense and ungrateful, toxic 'zomg szabo/back/thermos >> worse than hitler' social engineering.
Yeah, that was completely one-sided and not even remotely the same thing as your toxic 'zomg gavin/mike >> worse than hitler' social engineering.  Pretty sure there's been quite enough of that from both sides. Now it's time to cut that shit out and discuss proposals on technical merit and not the personalities involved. Less character assassinations all round, please. They destroyed $1 billion of our market cap.
All by themselves, huh? And you weren't doing anything at all that might encourage just the slightest hint of uncertainty in the markets? Early this summer, Frap.doc was telling us Bitcoin was coiling for a rally. Then XT happened, and the price went to shit.... ... when it became apparent that the blockstream trojans are still able to torpedo bitcoins progress. |
|
|
|
 Cartoons and graphics sometimes say more than thousand words. Today I found the truth table in the cyberspace.   How's that "truth" of community support for BIP101 working out for you? Oh wait, not a single BIP101 block was ever mined. After the tremendous noise/drama/chaos over XT, all Team Gavin got were some spoofed blocks (and cartoons). Meanwhile most of the hashing power supports the unfinished BIP100 as a giant FUCK YOU to BIP101.  BIP101 was the trigger that lead to the broad discussion to leave the small blockers (small brains) behind. Gavin/Hearn will win the game against the evil people (NotXTers, DDoSers, censors and other low lifes) even if it won't be BIP101. We'll have big blocks next year. Gmax: "We can't increase the block size limit because they'll be too many orphans." http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-9#post-285 |
|
|
|
Bitcoin currently has a serious long term fundamental problem; namely the 1 MB blocksize limit that prevents any meaningful growth of the Bitcoin network. The upside potential is actually capped at close to the current transaction rate by the protocol while there remains a very significant downside risk. The risk vs return ratio is makes very little sense at current prices. Until the blocksize issue is resolved in a manner that allows for the Bitcoin network to grow, I remain a bear.
TIL transaction growth = Bitcoin growth Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, Bitcoin has more appeal than just as a payment network? We're now sitting pretty at an average of 350kb blocks, where is this demand for growth you speak of? Well you can either use past data to predict the future and identify trends and be prepared in advance, thus averting a disaster or you can remain ignorant until you get hit by the train by which time the problem will already be a major issue. Yes. Tenfold txs increase Spring 12 - Spring 13 (halving between). The small blocks of the small blockers (blockstreamers) will prevent that to repeat. |
|
|
|
yes. its clearly the right forum for such questions..lol Yes. An Elliott Forum is the right forum for Elliott questions. |
|
|
|
If you ignore the customer, your business will fail. {Even if the customer is wrong}
Yes. A majority of the customers wants to lift the block size limit. If the producer fails to deliver, he will be forked/forced out of the game. That's what's happening. Slowly but steady. |
|
|
|
“Now I am going to accuse you of strawmanning, and it's bizarre: you are strawmanning your own statements as opposed to mine. What you present in the above post is not what you tried to assert originally.” All I tried to assert originally is this:
That this white paper does not prove anything in terms of the question of whether it is intrinsically wrong to fork away from the Core developer team.
And that if Core does take to long to implement a block size increase within a reasonable amount of time, that Bitfury would most likely change their tune on this issue eventually anyway.
Yes.
"To me, it's only a matter of whether we get a big rise soon-ish because Core implements bigger blocks, or a gigantic rise later-ish because Bitcoin dev becomes decentralized away from Core."Zangelbert Bingledack, Yesterday at 2:06 AM http://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-is-awesome.17/#post-177 Keep that bs over there. The concern trolling about Bitcoin development is nothing but XT fans looking for another fight to lose. The small blockers will be the losers: Gmax: "We can't increase the block size limit because they'll be too many orphans." The cognitive dissonance is strong amongst the Frap.Doc followers  To be quite honest, aside from Mike & Gavin who obviously have no more legitimacy or future at all in this community, we will all come out of this as winners. Open Competition will always have a future in an open environment. The censors and the followers on their slime trail will be the losers, since Bitcoin is not a currency for pseudo-libertarians. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1166867.msg12305293#msg12305293 |
|
|
|
“Now I am going to accuse you of strawmanning, and it's bizarre: you are strawmanning your own statements as opposed to mine. What you present in the above post is not what you tried to assert originally.” All I tried to assert originally is this:
That this white paper does not prove anything in terms of the question of whether it is intrinsically wrong to fork away from the Core developer team.
And that if Core does take to long to implement a block size increase within a reasonable amount of time, that Bitfury would most likely change their tune on this issue eventually anyway.
Yes.
"To me, it's only a matter of whether we get a big rise soon-ish because Core implements bigger blocks, or a gigantic rise later-ish because Bitcoin dev becomes decentralized away from Core."Zangelbert Bingledack, Yesterday at 2:06 AM http://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-is-awesome.17/#post-177 Keep that bs over there. The concern trolling about Bitcoin development is nothing but XT fans looking for another fight to lose. The small blockers will be the losers: Gmax: "We can't increase the block size limit because they'll be too many orphans." |
|
|
|
I am TRYING to keep an open mind.
The thing is, 5 core guys couldn't agree on how and when to raise
the block size, but now we're going to have a couple of workshops
where the global user base is invited, and somehow the best solutions are going
to emerge and we are all going to agree on the best course of action?
Again, trying to be optimistic and I like the transparency
but I don't understand how this is going to work.
Seriously, they must think bitcoin industry leaders are children. They stonewall any blocksize increase proposal, and held us hostage. Now they gave us 2 fcking workshops, like we would magically come to an agreement by meeting in person. Whats the point of communication online then. I guess they dont give a shit about those signatures from all the largest bitcoin service providers..... The delaying tactics prevent txs increase prolongs delaying tactics prevent txs increase prolongs delaying tactics ... Awesome strategy by the small blockers. |
|
|
|
“Now I am going to accuse you of strawmanning, and it's bizarre: you are strawmanning your own statements as opposed to mine. What you present in the above post is not what you tried to assert originally.” All I tried to assert originally is this:
That this white paper does not prove anything in terms of the question of whether it is intrinsically wrong to fork away from the Core developer team.
And that if Core does take to long to implement a block size increase within a reasonable amount of time, that Bitfury would most likely change their tune on this issue eventually anyway.
Yes.
"To me, it's only a matter of whether we get a big rise soon-ish because Core implements bigger blocks, or a gigantic rise later-ish because Bitcoin dev becomes decentralized away from Core."Zangelbert Bingledack, Yesterday at 2:06 AM http://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-is-awesome.17/#post-177 |
|
|
|
lol because this peter r does somehow qualify to post in the dev mailing list.. what are your bitcoin contribution? who are you? plz stop wasting the core devs precious time, spilling your egomaniac shitful fud everywhere. Well, I've made zero code contributions to Bitcoin Core. -stupid self talking crap- There, now move along. From all the people in this forum you are probably the least interesting. Indeed. |
|
|
|
These "bitcoin is a democracy" people scare me. Is there a way we can get them to go away?
Yes, happy slaves (masochists) are dead scared when they get a vote. |
|
|
|
Authoritarians (blockstreamers and their cheerleaders) hate competition. They love rulers and imperatives:
"We don't need democracy!"
"GTFO" (brg444)
I suppose that is why they open source their work? Doh!
And they hate Switzerland. (tvbcof)
Actually, I mostly dislike nationalists who have a blind eye to any problems that their nation has and constantly hammer on one perceived positive which, as likely as not, exists mostly in name only. Just like 'democracy' in the U.S. for all intents and purposes. I am neither a nationalist nor a globalist. I postulate anarchism. But I know also that direct democracy is not as bad as the indirect version. |
|
|
|
How do you propose different sets of developers working on their own implementation decide on a consensus code?
It would play out as a more efficient version of what's happening between XT and Core today. Imagine that there are 5 competing implementations, Authoritarians (blockstreamers and their cheerleaders) hate competition. They love rulers and imperatives: "We don't need democracy!" "GTFO" (brg444) And they hate Switzerland. (tvbcof) q.e.d. To separate the wheat from the chaff (to fork that mentality away from bitcoin) will be essential. |
|
|
|
Oh yeah! That's why Switzerland failed: Having more idiots "vote" on what should go into the consensus politics, instead of a gang of professionals who decide.
The Swiss get to vote on whether to be subjects of Brussels or vassals of the U.S. and not much more from the looks of things. Peg you currency to the EU? OK (for a while at least.) Absorb whatever foreigners Brussels tells you to? OK. Cough up confidential customer bank records to the U.S.? OK. Pathetic. Pathetic. German Citizens can not decide whether to be a member of the EU or not. Swiss Citizens can. They also decide to rise the taxes or not. US Citizens can not. If they want to vote against doing bank business in the USA, they can. Those are the reasons why Xapo fled to Switzerland. |
|
|
|
we basically agree but I still don't see any reason why it needs to remain "centralized" so for that reason I don't think you've invalidated what Peter R had to say.
You don't understand why the consensus critical code that EVERY single node in the network needs to run cannot be modified at will by all sorts of different implementations!?!?! I don't know what to tell you....  think harder? You do understand the implications if certain nodes do not agree on the rules ? What you are saying is true, obviously. The advantage of several implementations is that rule changes are done more 'democratically'. Contrast this to the current debate where the 'core' doesn't want to raise the blocksize limit right now but others do, and those that do are forced to implement code from Mike Hearn, who not everyone trusts. We don't need democracy! Please stop trying to stick its failures to Bitcoin as well. We need expert consensus on secure and properly vetted code. Having more idiots "vote" on what should go into the consensus code doesn't help with the process. Oh yeah! That's why Switzerland failed: Having more idiots "vote" on what should go into the consensus politics, instead of a gang of professionals who decide. |
|
|
|
This is interesting. While XT was winning, the attacks were mostly directed towards Hearn and Gavin (until this "censorship" incident occured). Now after XT is being completely ignored by the miners and the industry, Completely ignored by the industry??? |
|
|
|
Could you possibly be any more melodramatic? "Had to relocate" makes it sound like Frap.doc was chased out (with only the clothes on his back) by violent men bearing assault rifles and German Shepards. Frap.doc was welcome to continue his XT cheerleader thread in the proper altcoin sub. But that wasn't good enough for him; he demanded it remain in place on the main board. So it was locked, because there is no 'Frap.doc exemption' to the rules against altcoin shilling in the Bitcoin forum. Forum Statistics
Discussions: 22
Messages: 148
Members: 70 LOL, so much for Frap.doc's blather about network effects, Metcalfe's Law, and how altcoins are all doooomed because they dare defect from BTC's longstanding all-powerful majority. Serves him right! Cypherdoc's new Gold thread: 2818 views iCEBREAKER's Szabo Thread: 370 views LOL, so much about network effects |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
Time for Schadenfreude Theater,
