Yeah, my crystal ball says he will never make such a statement publicly since
that would expose his true intention. Go tweet Jihan and have him prove me
wrong by saying he supports "Ext Blocks with ASICBoost patched". He already
admitted he would not want to do that since it hurts the patent holders. So you
are wasting everyone's time with your strawman.
Sure, call your own previous prediction a straw man and make a new one that's the complete opposite, that's one way to back track, I am sure no one would notice the screeching noise. My prediction was that if this whole issue was true, Jihan would no longer be able to accept a patched Ext Blocks. Anyone can go back and look at the context of my statement.I never said, "Jihan will make a public statement to the community announcing he will no longer accept the patch Ext Block proposal". That is the strawman you are now portraying and I am referring to. But hey, thanks for not addressing my 10 paragraph response and changing the subject like you always do. Your "Kill Switch" against me was lacking. But that's ok, here is my response to your part 2 Kill Switch, which I assume you will ignore as well. |
|
|
|
10 paragraphs of crying.
LOL like I said, I like your endless bullshit energy. I don't think you understand, once you get caught bullshitting like this what you say no longer matters. Come on bro, put some effort in it. Whats wrong, your employer won't pay you anymore to engage with me? Don't worry, you can do it on your off time. Where is the news on Jihan dropping support on Ext Block anyway?
Can we have an ETA on that, Mr. Jihan expert?
Yeah, my crystal ball says he will never make such a statement publicly since that would expose his true intention. Go tweet Jihan and have him prove me wrong by saying he supports "Ext Blocks with ASICBoost patched". He already admitted he would not want to do that since it hurts the patent holders. So you are wasting everyone's time with your strawman. |
|
|
|
you guys are getting into a pissing match over stupid details
of who said what to this argument and that argument
which was in reference to something else that was said
about an aspect of something that isn't even central
to the scaling debate anyway.
It's like 4th generation "dont give a fuck".
...
If you notice Jonald, Alex.BTC bumped up the thread with his "Kill Switch" posts that are intended to outmaneuver me into such a position that I would be defeated indefinitely or something. I should respond to such a thing at least. So don't lump me into this mess. I only wanted to correct the record and Alex.BTC went crazy and started flailing all over and just attacks personally. As proof, and like sprinkles on a cake, in his most recent posting has now accused me of being Greg Maxwell. Lol. Come on, this is good stuff. Next Alex.BTC is going to accuse me of being his alt and manufacturing this whole debate to confuse people. Then I will accuse him of being Craig Wright. Or maybe I will accuse myself of that. Lol. Fun times. |
|
|
|
Part 1 - AgentofCoin's delusions.AgentofCoin's delusional began right from the start, so let's go back to the beginning, when he tried to bullshit jonald_fyookball with his own delusion on page 1. You are assuming that when the miners signed the HK agreement,
they already knew what the final SegWit implementation would be.
The reality is that they did not perform their due diligence until after
SegWit was released. When the miners signed the "agreement" they
signed a promise based on a design that was still being worked out.
It is very likely that when ASICBoost Miners learned that the
coinbase is altered in SegWit, they would never follow through with
the full terms of the HK "agreement".
ASICBoost Miners, in theory, can never support new coinbase
references. The issue is not SegWit, it is the Coinbase data.
1. Jihan supported before understanding the final SegWit Implementation code.
After learning the Coinbase references are used, he would obviously retract that support.
Notice how:1. AgentofCoin defines a new reality right from the get go. 2. AgentofCoin then began to describe that delusion: When the miners signed the HK agreement, they had no idea ASICBoost wouldn't work. Miners would never support SegWit if there is a 'new coinbase reference' ('new coinbase reference' is AgentofCoin's way of discribing the 'witness root hash', the thing in the coinbase that makes ASICBoost useless.) 3. AgentofCoin also claimed Jihan only pulled support from SegWit after he realized ASICBoost would not work on SegWit. In short, AgentofCoin is claiming miners would not agree to any proposal that makes ASICBoost useless. Note that this argument is what AgentofCoin insisted to the end, it is the main argument that all his other delusion/sub-argument/prophecies/personal-attacks are base on, if this is proven false, at least 80% of the bullshit he posted after is also false. Now let's do a reality check:1. The 'Hong Kong Agreement' was signed on 21st Feb 2016. ( Source). 2. The 12th Jan 2016 version of BIP-141 (SegWit), is already incompatible with ASICBoost, because the coinbase has something call the 'witness root hash'. Quote BIP-141:'The new commitment in coinbase transaction is a hash of the witness root hash' ( Link). 3. This is further clarified on the 24th Jan 2016 'Clarify txid and wtxid' update of BIP-141 (SegWit), in which it stated the 'witness root hash' contains a list of 'wtxid', when witness is not used, wtxid value is the same as normal txid. So, the 'witness root hash' contains a list of transaction id, this is what makes ASICBoost incompatible. 4. I repeat: SegWit has been factually proven to be incompatible with ASICBoost since 24th Jan 2016. (So is Ext Block, because it is base on BIP-141 aka SegWit) 5. Miners had almost a month to find out that ASICBoost wouldn't work with SegWit, before the signing of the agreement. 6. Miners continued to support SegWit long after the agreement was signed. 7. The one thing that made ASICBoost useless, the 'witness root hash', was already defined in 24th Jan 2016, 28 days before the signing of the agreement. The 'witness root hash' hasn't changed much since. 8. Jihan, as one of the agreement's signatory, had plenty of time to learn that ASICBoost wouldn't work on SegWit. 9. Remember, AgentofCoin is a guy who kept arguing over Jihan could learn about SegWit changes in 1hr or 2hr, so 28 days should be plenty for Jihan to learn that SegWit wouldn't work for ASICBoost. What your fatal flaw in your reasoning is that your timeline of events does not expound upon anything other than what the community already knows. My original comment to Jonald was pointing out that Jonald was taking the situation at face value. You yourself have done so as well. You do not attempt to understand why things occurred as they did. You use what superficially did occur, as evidence of miners individual innocence and good faith. That is an incorrect connection and cannot be found in your outline. What you are accusing me of, is exactly what you are now doing. What your current argument really is, is that “since a person came to the police station and willingly gave some information about a murder, that person must not be the murderer”. That is your whole argument in its simplest form and does not prove that the person who willingly went to the police station is NOT the murderer. Your timeline has lots of points and time aspects, but has no deductions or actual analysis to fit your final belief. You wanted to attack my passing statement to Jonald so strongly that you were blinded to the fact that your explanation doesn’t disprove what my opinion was intended to convey. You nitpicked my wording to Jonald, which in the past you accused me of doing incorrectly. You are a big hypocritical mess. My statement to Jonald was intended to point out that he was assuming good faith of some miners during the HK meeting and that was his only basis of belief. I concluded that Antpool likely did not do their due diligence, because then why would they willingly sign an agreement that broke their chip’s advantage? But, it
is possible they did do their due diligence, as you are arguing here, but then that conclusion is that they went to the HK meeting knowing this important detail,
never telling other miners or devs about this detail, signing a document to use a
protocol change that damages this detail, and now you want the community to
believe that they always intended to follow through with the agreement and
disband future use of detail, only because they say they would have? If we take your belief that they did know it breaks their ASICBoost aspect why would they sign that agreement? They create hundreds, maybe thousands of chips that contain that design for the purpose of current or future use. You want to community to believe they did that to waste money and they were willing to take that as a financial loss with the SegWit activation and future. That is naďve. Either Antpool is dumb or you are. When I commented to Jonald, I assumed AntPool was negligent, now due to your timeline, I think they were intentionally deceptive. That is what you missed in your outline and glossed over. You never came to any possible answers. You whole posting is designed to make me look like a “bullshitter”, but yet you never prove my point wrong, just my phraseology. Ultimately, your simplistic belief makes no sense over all. So the true motive and answer is still missing and that is what the HK agreement/ASICBoost/SegWit current debate is all about. It’s about trying to understand what may be the deeper issues here. Not the superficial that you outline and any person can do. Your kill switch so far is lacking in the kill part. If anything it adds to my argument because you unwilling or willing omitted elaborations or discussion into the inconsistencies. So lets now talk about what you like to talk about: conspiracies. So here is an interesting one that came from your superficial timeline. Without your timeline, I would not have been able to articulate this, thank you. Please explain where I am wrong in this as well: If we assume you are correct about Antpool knowing SegWit broke their ASICBoost, how could they look like they agree to use SegWit in the future when they do not actually want to, and prevent any agreement from being fully fulfilled so they can claimed the devs did not uphold their part of the agreement later? The only way I can think of right now is to place a clause in the agreement that could have never been performed or implemented because it is so contentious in the community. And what clause was in the agreement that the devs stated they couldn’t do, but the miners kept pushing the issue for inclusion? The 2MB hardfork clause. The ASICBoost miners used the 2MB hardfork clause as a mechanism to dissolve the HK agreement at a later date, knowing full well it could never have been done. In addition, Antpool would hold out many months after that fact, when other miners were already calling fail, because they wanted to cover their true motives of ASICboost. They waited so long after the deadline because they wanted to portray themselves as you are now doing, as a victim of the big bad devs. So you are doing their dirty work by helping protect their conspiracy from the beginning. You are a part of their plan to dissolve the HK agreement thus freeing them from needing to use SegWit. That is why your timeline does not expand on any issues or deductions and jumps to an incorrect conclusion that AntPool wanted SegWit and would have always used it, even though it voided their patents. So, if my conspiracy conclusion is right, you are either a moron or working for obfuscation, which I stated to Jonald on page 1. You can never prove your stand point of this issue from what you provided. If anything, it shows problems and inconsistencies with Antpool’s overall argument. 'witness root hash''witness root hash' is what makes ASICBoost meaningless, this is common knowledge to those familiar with the basics of SegWit and ASICBoost. A quote from the Dev & Tech forum mod will prove this: Re: just out of curiousity, why would segwit impact asicboost
This is due to the witness root hash which must be included in the coinbase transaction.
So now we know that:1. AgentofCoin is delusional or dishonest. 2. AgentofCoin likes to make statements that are simply not true. 3. AgentofCoin likes to argue with people using his delusion/dishonesty. 4. AgentofCoin likes to pretend to understand how miners think. 5. AgentofCoin likes to think he knows more than the miners. 6. AgentofCoin does not have the basic knowledge required to talk about ASICBoost and SegWit. 7. AgentofCoin likes to describe his delusion/lies in more details that are completely made up, instead of keep quiet when he doesn't understand what is being discussed. 8. AgentofCoin is the kind of guy that'll bullshit to the end unless you utterly expose him, even then, he might still continue his bullshit. We also know that:At least 80% of AgentofCoin's argument is this thread is now proved to be false, because AgentofCoin based those arguments on: 1. Miners would not have known that SegWit was incompatible with ASICBoost when they signed the agreement. 2. Miners would not support any proposal that support ASICBoost. When you stack one bullshit on top of another, all people need to do is crack open the first one, and the entire bullshit structure falls apart like a house of cards. Now we've established AgentofCoin is a delusional lying retard who likes to talk shit. Let's move onto part 2 and talk about his 'prophecies'. Wonderful. Your attacks on me once again make you look like a horse’s ass. Nothing you stated prior proved you right. All that you did was say you think miners had one month to test on SegWit and I said I didn’t think they did yet. Wow wee you are a genius. How many days did it take you to write this crap again? Your whole argument to prove me wrong is based on one of my comments to Jonald taken to an extreme that I never argued as an absolute and then you apply it to every comment I made after the fact, like a robot. Because you say or believe something doesn’t make it so. Too bad for you, your simple mind is stuck in your self created box. Hey everyone, look Alex.BTC got me because I said miners didn’t do their due diligence. Onh no, he says they did, So I’m wrong about everything I ever said about numerous and separate issues. Oh no.. Please Alex.BTC, if this was part 1 of the “Kill Switch” I really hope Part 2 is better. Your whole argument against me is based on a single sentence with phraseology you don’t like. Meanwhile I crafted a conspiracy theory from your timeline that is more likely then AntPool agreeing to willing break their chips and patents. You try so hard to cover the miners asses you might as well kiss them instead. |
|
|
|
Since AgentofCoin made a lot of bullshit arguments and personal attacks base on a bunch of predictions.
I gave it a few more days so AgentofCoin have more time to solidify his 'false prophet' status.
My arguments are more valid than any of yours. Mine attempt to explain the situations rationally, whether they are correct or not. Also, I admit being wrong if I think I was wrong. Majority of yours are conspiracy and paranoia, and must always be correct since your ego seems invested. You have never admitted to being wrong once and have constantly deflected onto new issues with claims of trying to bait, trap, and outmaneuver me. This is a blatant sign that you don't care about anything other than you ego, which is boring. Ego is major league boring and usually leads to self destruction. This overall conversation has become boring since it is not about specific Bitcoin related issues anymore. You have devolved this discussion now into a more base level. Your following statements shows how low you are willing to go to prove me wrong in any way possible. I can sit here with a straight face because I believe it.
So not only am I dealing with a dishonest Blockstream shill, I am actually also dealing with a classic low information low IQ INFP. INFP are very strong in emotion and imagination, but very weak in handling logic, facts and structure. They think facts and logic should bend to imagination, not the other way around. When they debate, they think it's a race of out-imagining the other guy, they also think if they can describe their imagination in detail, the other guy should agree, even if their delusion is base on complete bullshit. Sometimes INFP knows they are bullshitting, but they're hoping by describing the bullshit in great detail, others will be distracted and won't be able to catch up. I like to toy with shills and trolls that have an attitude. So AgentofCoin, I am going to completely and utterly expose your strategy, and point out exactly where you tried to bullshit people. If you've just tuned in and this is the first time you read AgentofCoin's post, keep in mind AgentofCoin is a classic INFP so his tactic would be 1. Create a false reality in his head. 2. Describe the false reality in detail to confuse and distract you. AgentofCoin, the reason you keep doubting the fact that I baited you all along was because this is probably the first time you've met people like us. This is great! I'm really proud of you now. You are working too hard on a noob who only arrived in Late 2013 and has admitted on numerous occasions that I have no programming, higher end computer knowledge, or knowledge in most of the fields that Bitcoin encompasses in general. You are wasting your time in a monumental way, but it is enjoyable because I like to see how far you will go in efforts to discredit or attack someone who has admitted to being fallible and not fully knowledgeable. It is like you are blind, deaf, and dumb and marching forward into the fire. Nothing matters to you, except yourself. There is an aspect of delusion and madness that is normally worrisome in person, yet fascinating when at a safe distance. This is one of those enjoyable moments for me. All of your current comments are entirely not necessary if your original facts were indeed correct. Remember when I outlined each of your six factual points and why I though they were not facts? Oh how far you have fallen. None of your current statements have anything to do with that. So I must assume you have now acquiesced that those facts were not facts and thus on this new topic. The fact that you are attacking me in such a manner now must mean that for some reason I am a threat to you (or likely your ego), which is sad for two reasons; (1) you are accusing me of being a "classic low information low IQ INFP", yet you were arguing with me about conspiracies and non-facts and attempting to argue that they were indeed facts or truths, which are usually done by those who have "low information low IQ", and (2) according to the standard, I would be aligned to the "INTP" scale, though unlike you, admit it is overall worthless since personality types are irrelevant in most real world cases and are usually combinations of all and not a strict adherence to one. You using "personality types" which are subjective and less science, are a cop out argument that weak debaters need to resort to. By saying my words are capable of blinding people's ability to understand the truth is remarkable. Either you are saying the majority of people are stupid and can not think for themselves and have agreed with me already (yet there are not any other comments in this thread other than us), or you are saying you are stupid and somehow when I talked plainly, it was confusing to you. In addition, since you are attempting to pigeonholed me into a box of classification, I will take that as a badge of honor since you have now resorted to attributing an incorrect caricature of myself in order to preserve your own identity and beliefs. In my world, that is a great success and failure. It is a success since you have now done more harm to yourself and understating than I could have ever done intentionally, and a failure, since if you listened to my words prior, you would not have needed to go down this road since I was being sincere and plain. You willingly went down this road of escalation and self destruction, because in reality you had no other recourse. People like us like challenges, but we play the players, not the game, because we like to understand how things work.
Once we got the facts and logic straight, we know when people are lying, that doesn't concern us.
We are more interested in what you are, how you work and why you do what you do, more than what you actually say.
We see talent in people, we are always looking for new talents and new challenges.
When you present yourself as a challenge,
we treat everything like chess, we place baits, we set traps.
By the time you wiggle out of one there is another one waiting.
We toy with our opponents like a cat toy with a mouse.
From the way they react, we analyze their strengths and weaknesses.
Map out their logic, understand their patterns, absorb all their tactics for future use.
Once we lose interest, we press the kill switch that was created right at the start.
I am losing interest, so here is the kill switch you never saw coming.
Remember, you asked for this when you mentioned my name in page 1. I never asked for you.
Yes, you have discovered my major weakness. Talking in the first person plural gets me hot. You figured it out! I have become moderately aroused and look forward to reading the kill switch. I will respond after I have fully absorbed your kill switch posts. |
|
|
|
Hello, sent 2 days ago 0.3 BTC , and now i got this error on blockchain :
Transaction rejected by our node. Reason: Transaction was previously accepted but has been pruned from our database.
WTF is this?
BTC did not returned to my wallet
Possible doublespend, too low of a fee, or something else. Try pasting your transaction Id different blockexplorers and see if they all rejected it. https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/explorerhttps://live.blockcypher.com/in other explorers shows as unconfirmed, does that mean it will be confirmed soon ? It is hard to tell, maybe within the next 8 blocks or more. But if the fee is very low, it will likely not confirm anytime that soon. Since you said you have already waited 2 days, if in another 24 hours it is not confirmed with a block, it will likely "return" back to your wallet for you to try again. Can you advise what fee you paid and what the total tx size is? transaction fee : 0.0001 transaction fee sat/byte 44.25 Yes, the problem looks like the fee was too low. Should be around 101 for priority based on current levels. Few days again likely was a little higher, maybe 121 to 161. You can use this site for future reference: cointape.comThis can help estimate what you should pay for certain levels or for priority. If you are lucky and there are no new bitcoin txs, maybe get into a block after the next 6 blocks, but very unlikely. Either way in 24 hours or less your coins should "return". |
|
|
|
Hello, sent 2 days ago 0.3 BTC , and now i got this error on blockchain :
Transaction rejected by our node. Reason: Transaction was previously accepted but has been pruned from our database.
WTF is this?
BTC did not returned to my wallet
Possible doublespend, too low of a fee, or something else. Try pasting your transaction Id different blockexplorers and see if they all rejected it. https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/explorerhttps://live.blockcypher.com/in other explorers shows as unconfirmed, does that mean it will be confirmed soon ? It is hard to tell, maybe within the next 8 blocks or more. But if the fee is very low, it will likely not confirm anytime that soon. Since you said you have already waited 2 days, if in another 24 hours it is not confirmed with a block, it will likely "return" back to your wallet for you to try again. Can you advise what fee you paid and what the total tx size is? |
|
|
|
Hello, sent 2 days ago 0.3 BTC , and now i got this error on blockchain :
Transaction rejected by our node. Reason: Transaction was previously accepted but has been pruned from our database.
WTF is this?
BTC did not returned to my wallet
Possible doublespend, too low of a fee, or something else. Try pasting your transaction Id different blockexplorers and see if they all rejected it. https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/explorerhttps://live.blockcypher.com/ |
|
|
|
I am fairly certain that blockchain.info wallet uses an HD system that generates new addresses each time an address receives funds... https://support.blockchain.com/hc/en-us/articles/210353663-Why-is-my-bitcoin-address-changing-OP, you might want to check your transaction history in blockchain.info wallet to see what address you actually "received" the funds to... also, you can find all your addresses here: Settings -> Addresses -> Click 'Manage' next to "My Bitcoin Wallet/Default" -> Click 'Show' next to "Used Addresses" -> Click 'OK' on the warning dialog. ... It is a good suggestion for the OP to check his HD wallet's addresses, but is unlikely to be the issue. If the OP provided the "received address" to the ponzi site, it would send to the address provided and not the next blockchain.info address generated in the OP's wallet. The ponzi site wouldn't know all of the OP's addresses unless the OP provided his XPub key. It is very likely that the poniz is reporting withdrawal transactions that are all fake and all controlled by the ponzi itself. |
|
|
|
But the two transactions you gave is different from what you gave 1K5W9LQw387fcJdfE8bS1dypJRLmuVkEnK pl Yes, bl4nkcode is correct. The two separate Transaction IDs do not show any deposits tx that correspond to your receiving address. I assume you are saying the first tx ID has a different receiving address than 1K5W9LQw387fcJdfE8bS1dypJRLmuVkEnK, correct? |
|
|
|
Actually i have invested in one site and they are saying that it is paid but it almost 7-8 hours now and it didn't reach my wallet
The Transaction ID you provided shows the sending address sending bitcoin to two different addresses. If neither of those addresses is your receiving address that you told to them to send to, then they did not send you any bitcoins. ...
Is theirs a way to trace it if i provide my receiving address...??
Providing your "receiving address" will show nothing unless you have received some bitcoins before. If you provide your "receiving address" to this thread, we can look at it and see all your transactions, but if there is nothing within the address, there is nothing to trace. Plus, tracing doesn't really do much in general. We would only be troubleshooting. |
|
|
|
Because Segwit effs up the block architecture at such a low level...
The incompatiblity is by no means unique to segwit, the vast majority of proposed protocol improvements run into exactly the same issue. Commited UTXO, Commited Address index, Commited Bloom filters, Fraud proofs, -- just to name a few more. So what you meant to say was that covert asicboost 'effs' up the block architecture. I don't think Hanke and Lerner went back in time to break Segwit... ...so I'll meet you halfway - "Segwit and other scaling proposals retroactively break patented asicboost technology". No, you are purposefully ignoring the elephant in the room. The following should be your statement:" "Segwit and other currently unknown future protocol
proposals, upgrades, and additions retroactively breaks patented asicboost technology". The conclusion is then either certain upgrade paths to the protocol is always wrong or patented ASICBoost is wrong going forward, and as someone who I believe supports expansion and not stagnation, you would agree that PoW should be performed without "shortcuts". If you disagree then lets all agree that ASICBoost use has malformed Bitcoin from a PoW system to a "Proof of Some Work" system and gimps developers abilities in future proposals/answers. |
|
|
|
Theymos added Achow now, which I think is appropriate.
lol you think achowe is unbiased? also a mod should only be moderating language/scams/virus risks. no tech knowledge needed. moderating message based on tech is censoring out tech. Well, as for being unbiased, it doesn't matter. Moderators have a right to their opinion too as long as they don't abuse their mod powers to prevent your opinion. If you are not breaking any rules or anything and they maliciously delete your posts or etc, then you should message Theymos or a higher mod with that evidence. Whether anything will be done is unknown to me, but I think as long as a mod doesn't step over certain lines, it should be fine. But I do think Mods for the Development and Technical Sections need people who are knowledgeable in such, since if I was a mod there and you started talking computer programming nonsense that didn't actually mean anything, I wouldn't know the difference. You wouldn't put an Spanish only speaker as the mod for the Korean sub-boards, right? Lol. That is why I think Dev and Tech boards need fluent mods. But remember Franky, I'm a noob with no power, so... I'm
only telling you what I would do, if I could.
my comments to you were not in any way about thinking you had power. its more about correcting your rhetoric so that you dont just turn into a blockstream puppet on a string. but i am glad you are actually open minded enough to not just be spoon fed by the blockstreamists Yes. I want what is fair. I don't want imbalance in the Bitcoin network or the community. Some problems are inevitable, such as the blocksize debate because there is two separate ideologies vying for the single chain and future, but that doesn't mean we should feed into the things that exacerbate some problems. If fair accommodations could be made in some situations, they should be done. It is better to do those to appease unhappy parties, than to inflame issues that can spiral out of control and create future unknown problems. |
|
|
|
Yes, SegWit did get merged because the Core Devs agreed that is was worthy of
inclusion, but that doesn't mean it will be accepted, that is the community's choice.
That is what the miner's didn't understand at the HK meeting. The fact that SegWit
isn't already part of the protocol shows that the Core Devs during the HK meeting
were trying to be honest and reasonable. Devs are not all powerful. They can create
and propose, but if other devs, exchanges, miners, and users don't want that feature
it will not become the standard. In my opinion 2MB hardfork is more contentious in the
community than a SegWit softfork, but that is just my opinion. The expectations during
LOL that's a new low even for you. Like you're just going to sit there with a straight face and ignore the fact that SegWit is stuck in the mud because Blockstream/Core thought they could fuck over both miners and nodes at the same time. Blockstream ignored nodes and went softfork because they thought they got miners in their pockets, even though they already fucked them over with the 1MB, that's how arrogant Blockstream/Core were, that's what fucked them. I can sit here with a straight face because I believe it. If I didn't then I would be arguing for the opposite position. Your interpretation of events are too simplistic to be reality. If it was then the reality is boring and people didn't try hard enough to do as you claim. If it really was a conspiracy, you wouldn't ever see it coming. SegWit was set to 95% miner Consensus which is very high. They did this because they understood it needs to be a high threshold for multiple different issues and for overall network safety. The fact that they placed it that high, shows they are not just ramming it in. SegWit softfork was a compromise of the two separate issues, tps increase and retaining decentralization. If it doesn't go forward, it is because the community is not ready for it or because certain miners are purposefully blocking it for their own self interests that are not consistent with the interests of the community. Core Developers didn't think they had miners in the pockets, they thought miners were rational people who wanted security with value increase in the network. They didn't think certain miners would risk the destruction of the network for simple 2MB. That is illogical, and thus why people now think ASICBoost makes more sense. 2MB bring no where near the amount of profit as ASICBoost 100 million USD extra profit does. If the miners are truly innocent, they are dumb for playing right into the conspirators' hands. All they have to do it denounce ASICBoost and accept the patch. Then they will eliminate their enemies, yet they do not. This is because they are not innocent, but likely caught red handed. The miners are acting like bad politicians now. Miners should make public statements as to their positions on a patch. Their silence on this specific issue is telling and only fuels the communities doubts of them. They are their own worse enemies. They do not seek correction, they double down. That is why this is ridiculous because I'll let the experts prove me right or wrong.
But you were the one who was arguing there were no "facts". Which is backwards.
Either you are protecting Bitmain and Antpool, or you are just backwards here.
I am saying you talk a lot of shit but there were never anything to back it up. After I bated you I now know for sure you're the kind of troll that looks into every detail trying to win an argument. But you just couldn't find any evidence to support your claims, that's why you had to play dumb all the time. By the way, how does it actually feel to have to talk like a dumb fuck all the time, knowing everything that comes out of your mouth is bullshit and everyone else can see through it? If I have to do that I'd probably quit within a week. Every comment you say has some personal attack against me. That's a sign of a weak argument and a bullshit artist. Looking into every detail is what people are supposed to do. The fact that you consider that a negative aspect is bizarre to me. You are so simplistic that your current statements contradict what it means to have critical thinking and understanding. In addition, your statements about me playing dumb: Where am I playing dumb? Has it occurred to your little brain that I don't know everything, unlike how you conduct yourself, and thus there are gaps in my full knowledge? I guess not since you are determined to define me as a troll or something, so that your prior incorrect arguments could be salvaged to be true to the ignorant reader. Your arguments only convey to those readers that you don't really care about Bitcoin and the overall community, only your own interests and those of your employers. BTW, you just admitted that you are a paid shiller/troller, from your "I'd quite in a week" if you had to "play the dumb fuck routine" comment. As I said before, no one can pay enough to deal with you, I just do it to correct the record. To any reader (which is not likely anymore) they can see I have not make any crazy claims. My only major claim was to "wait till there is a proper investigation" before claiming there is no ASICBoost issue here. But for some unknown reason, that is a threat or seen as inappropriate to you and others, which only fuels that movement due to the defensive nature you take. I looked online at twitter timezones and Githubs and according to my simple research,
twitter shows the time based on your timezone and GitHub is based on EDT. This means
that Jihan tweeted 1 hour and 21 minutes after chjj edited the Ext block code no matter
where you are in the world. That is all I was pointing out.
Everything you are writing now is irrelevant to your original posting to me. You claimed
that Jihan tweeted BEFORE chjj changed it as a blockstream conspiracy, when in fact, it
was the other way, which either means it is a Jihan conspiracy or just "coincidence".
I baited you, the edit was the bait, BIP-141 was the net, you still don't get it? You're now trying to wiggle around by using the idiotic assumption that Jihan only learned about Extension Block the last minute and voiced its support immediately. That is, by making the assumption that the whole time since March, Jihan never learned about what Extension block was until the moment before he voiced his support. But the bait was Extension Block had always been immune to ASICBoost. The github edit would throw you off because you're the kind of shill that play dumb and repeat bullshits, but secretly you're actually looking at all possible details for a rebuttal. That's how I exposed you as a paid shill. You know exactly what bullshit you're talking about, you're intentionally talking like a dumb fuck all the time, because that's your job. You don't have the technical understanding of BIP-141, that's why you fell for the edit. That is the long con you fell for, I gave you a detail you'd bite on, but once you bite on it, you're already inside the net. The idea that a business man like Jihan wouldn't look over Extension Block at least a few times and think over it for a few days before voicing his support, is hilarious. You've mistaken Jihan for some Blockstream troll where everything they say online is decided at the last minute, base on whatever they could see at the time. Lol. I think this rant of yours is one of the better ones so far. First, you told me you set a trap, then I "wiggled out" of it by proving your argument wrong, and instead of admitting that and moving on, now you are saying you had a secondary trap within the first trap, like this is the movie "Inception" or something, lol. Now you can only explain your failures by saying I'm acting dumb and repeating bullshits when in actuality all I did was showed your original conspiracy theory was based on incorrect timeline information. You were wrong and now creating a misdirection. This is a clear tactic not of someone with good faith. You just keep doubling downing on falsehoods after falsehoods, and also with attacks on myself to cover your own weak original argument. This is somewhat enjoyable because people like you and hwat you are doing is proving to the community there are either a paid shill campaign occurring or just a malicious intelligence agent causing confusion. You have changed your original argument and can't admit that because you are a weak child who needs to cover their flaws like a child who mistakenly shat their pants. Grow up and admit that your Ext Block GitHub Conspiracy was proven wrong by one sentence from me. Don't change the subject to how what a wonderful and rational businessman Jihan is and how he thinks and what he did or did not do. You don't know jack shit about Jihan and if you did its only because you are Jihan himself, or he pays you and tells you how to proceed. I don't know the patent laws in China, but in the West a patent doesn't only protect the
selling of the idea in product form, but also prevents you from construction and use. If for
example, Bitmain did patent ASICBoost and had the full rights to it, no one else in the
world is technically allowed to build, use, or sell a chip that uses the same configuration
without a license from Bitmain, otherwise that is patent theft. Maybe some will or could
do it, but bitmain could attempt to find them liable and get damages from that company.
For other miners not to be found liable, they need to create a new ASICBoost configuration
that is different from Bitmain's version and no miners are going to invest in R&D for that now,
IMO. Either Jihan opens up the rights to all parties for free or we need to patch the protocol.
Or its possible there could be a wind-down agreement where Jihan can use it for the next 3
years as long as he halves the usage every 1 year, in agreement to accept SegWit unpatched
now. Then in 3 years we patch ASICboost and have SegWit. Of course, Jihan might like that,
but bigblockers will not since they never get their blocksize increase. But it is just an idea for
fun for negotiation purposes. Maybe something along these lines could be negotiated.
Irrelevant, putting patent in product helps win patent lawsuits, it's that simple. The funny thing about you trolls is you guys keep assuming Jihan is the only guy on the planet who can build ASIC chips that use ASICBoost. Patent doesn't stop any nameless mining farm from building their own ASICBoost rigs, ASICBoost existed for years, anyone could have been using it for years. That's why this ASICBoost bullshit is just another obvious distraction. If Blockstream/Core don't like ASICBoost, they should just change the fucking code. No, your statement is incorrect, Patents are not to win but as a claim of ownership and deterrent. If you willing violate the patent owner's rights or just unaware of them, you are equally liable. Ignorance of the law is not a defense. You are ignoring whole aspects of patent law and its different purposes, just to make your argument reflect better upon ASICBoost patent holders. Patent holders not only created this legal issue, but are also the only ones who can alleviate those legal issues. I stated some patent theory and different possibles such as Jihan freely opening his patent for any miner to use. Instead of agreeing with me, which you should have, you say I'm wrong and think it is irrelevant. Then argue that miners should build their own chips, likely in violation of those patent owners rights and patent laws. That is a joke. Next you are going to argue that those miners should pay license fees to the ASICBoost patent holders, lol. That will never happen not only for legal reasons but also because no non-ASICBoost miner will do the R&D into this now or pay licensees fees. It is easier to patch this exploit and everyone continues as is. Your suggestion overall creates a new paradigm within the Bitcoin Mining community which condones cheating and exploiting the code as a new standard. Now on one hand this is good since it helps discover exploitable aspects in mining that can be used by attacking state actors, but if those discoveries are allowed to be the standard future mining implementation, then that is bad for Bitcoin's future for many different reasons. So it must be patched. If you are fine with that, then we can agree there. I am not pinning everything on ASICBoost. It is just that it is an interesting puzzle piece
the community did not include in their mental equation as to why there is a stalemate.
When you add this ASICBoost element into it, things seem logical again.
It makes more sense that Jihan could block SegWit over an ASICBoost patch more than
truely wanting bigger blocks. Miners do not want bigger blocks. In the past, it took the Core
devs forever to get the miners to raise their soft caps. Weeks would go by and the miners
weren't paying attention. I think certain miners wanting bigger blocks now, is a myth.
Yeah, let's all just act like a bunch of dumb fuck again and just ignore the fact so many people is ditching SegWit because they are pissed at Blockstream/Core. Let's all repeat ASICBoost in every paragraph and make accusations like a bunch of completely uninformed retards. For the record, majority of the economies support SegWit and already implemented the code into their systems. Majority of Exchanges and wallets are all waiting for the activation. So, the only people who currently are "ditching" SegWit are the large miners who are holding it hostage for certain "unknown" reasons. They want the community to think it is over a 2MB HK Agreement which is too simplistic to take seriously. No normal person can believe that. No one should listen to me.
This is the first time I am agreeing with you. That's too bad because if you paid attention, you wouldn't have wasted your time trying to fight someone who is probably one of the few real people in the community who stands by Bitcoin for reasons that go beyond the lowly animalistic reasons. I think bitcoin will have future importance that your brain has not anticipated yet. Bitcoin wasn't made for this century. There is a higher purpose than just as a simple payment processor. That was trap you fell into. |
|
|
|
?? blockstream devs have no control ?? https://github.com/bitcoin/bipsPeople wishing to submit BIPs, first should propose their idea or document to the mailing list. After discussion they should email Luke Dashjr < luke_bipeditor@dashjr.org>. After copy-editing and acceptance, it will be published here. hmm who moderates the mailing list https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/bitcoin-dev-moderationozlabs... i wonder... oh look rusty russel so thats LJR and RR of blockstream employment. so whats next. hmm oh the technical discussion category on this forum oh look gmaxwell so thats LJR, RR and GM of blockstream employment. I will look into this further and later, since I don't have time now. But superficially, I would think that if the Core mailing list is "gated" by a core dev who is also a blockstream employee, then another non employed voluntary Core dev should be given equal right to add new commenters to the mailing list to prevent any biased situations or accusations of conflict(s). The same would apply to mailing for BIP issuance. If Gavin was in that position and still working with MIT, I would request that a voluntary Core dev was co-mailer with Gavin. That would be a reasonable accommodation, IMO. It would definitely alleviate a lot of issues and accusations outright. When it comes moderators of Bitcointalk, I don't really care since Theymos owns it and he can appoint anyone he wishes as a moderator. Thought obviously, sections that deal with complex issues like technical and development should be moderated by people who at least understand Bitcoin on a higher level. I think Theymos added Achow now, which I think is appropriate. Personally, as for the Core mailing list and BIP procedures, there should be some adjustments and accommodations made, based on my simple understanding and what you outlined. But remember Franky, I'm a noob with no power, so... I'm only telling you what I would do, if I could. |
|
|
|
So
thus, "now that Ext Block has been patched Jihan will not support it". It was not
intended to be read as you are reading it. I guess I should have said "Jihan CAN not
support it".
Thanks. Gotcha. Yeah , you made it sound that you were saying Jihan publicly stated that he already changed his mind, which is not the case. We can agree to disagree on HK. to me its just more evidence Core is full of BS. If Jihan publicly stated/tweeted that he is now against "Patched Ext Blocks", it would be obvious to the community why, and it would hurt his credibility with big blockers, IMO. But I would like to add that the fact that he hasn't tweeted "I love Patched Ext Blocks", could also be equally as telling. If I was Jihan and truly innocent and being set up, I would agree to using "Patched Ext Blocks" and tweet that and shove it up my enemies asses. Since he has not it makes me wonder, since it would be to his advantage, IMO. Which then adds to my increasing belief that Jihan may truly be against SegWit because it hurts an ASICBoost future that he has already invested load of money into. As for the HK agreement, we can agree to disagree. I wasn't there and I really don't know what was going on. All I know is that the whole community was watching that event and ultimately no one was going to be happy, since the situation is too complex for a spur of the moment written napkin agreement. |
|
|
|
The fact was that agreement
was not bound to Maxwell nor to any other Core dev other than to who signed that
document. All signatory developers were not granted any authority to make future
development decisions by the Core dev group.
Then wtf was the point of the meeting? Just a few dev hanging around stroking each other's dicks? There was a huge blocksize debate at the time, pressure was on Core to increase the blocksize limit, Blockstream/Core fucked everyone over by pretending to support 2MB block increase. If nothing was agreed upon, then there would have been another meeting for the blocksize issue, but nope, Blockstream/Core played everyone, now nobody trust anything they say. I really don't understand why they went. I thought it was just to talk things over. To explain their viewpoints and future goals/plans. Not to place anything in writing. A few Core devs and Back of Blockstream do not have authority over the other Core devs. I think it was a gigantic misunderstanding because of different issues. It seems to me that the miners were attempting to pull a fast one. They were trying
to get a handful of people to decide the future of the Bitcoin Network. During that
meeting, all invited parties told the miners they had no actual authority and the
miners got mad because they are ignorant as to how the Bitcoin development
community actually works. They thought they could dictate the future.
Now you're just shilling for Blockstream/Core. The fact is the exact opposite. Blockstream/Core is still fucking everyone over by keeping blocksize at 1MB. SegWit gets merged by Core without a word (and still have less support than BU). Blocksize increase pull request instantly get closed by Blockstream co-founder on Github. I'm not shilling, that is my recollection at the time. Yes, SegWit did get merged because the Core Devs agreed that is was worthy of inclusion, but that doesn't mean it will be accepted, that is the community's choice. That is what the miner's didn't understand at the HK meeting. The fact that SegWit isn't already part of the protocol shows that the Core Devs during the HK meeting were trying to be honest and reasonable. Devs are not all powerful. They can create and propose, but if other devs, exchanges, miners, and users don't want that feature it will not become the standard. In my opinion 2MB hardfork is more contentious in the community than a SegWit softfork, but that is just my opinion. The expectations during the HK meeting was way too high. And yes, some BIPs about direct blocksize increases have been closed, but because the plan is for optimizations first. The issue isn't about "trying to stop anything beyond 1MB", since the whole community knows we will need to raise it eventually. A few small minority of small blockers are "1MB 4EVAs!", but the rest of us want new ideas and optimizations to the protocol that can increase TPS before we simply change the blocklimit with a hardfork. It was always about optimizations and security, then onchain scaling. Bigblockers, like you I presume, want that in reverse, which smallblockers think compromises security. We, as a community, should request optimizations of the blockspace, before we increase that space. If we can just bump it up all the time, there is no incentive to develop new ideas and concepts to improve the protocol. SegWit may or may not be accepted as the standard one day, but I accept that may be the reality and that should prove to you I am not a shill for Core or Blockstream. I only want a decentralized and secure Bitcoin. Though, I do support the current Core road map. Why begin accusing me of being a paid troll or shill? The fact is you are the noob
who copies and pastes from other forums and websites and literally checks off
talking points as you go. Half the time your points have nothing to do with our
original conversation. Normal people do not resort to calling people shills or trolls.
But you do that to hide the fact that you likely are one. Like I said in my original
post to Jonald, you are just here to “perpetuate the obfuscations”. But, if you are
not a paid shill or troll then you are prone to paranoid delusions.
That's the problem with you trolls, you spending too much time on personal attacks and too little on facts. I just don't like watching people going around making idiotic statements with zero proof then act like they are some kind of know-it-all authority on the future. If you have a theory, post it as a theory, don't state it as a matter of fact, then go for bullshit gymnastics and personal attacks when someone ask you for proof. The "facts" you listed at the time, was a combination of your opinions and issues that haven't been fully understood yet. Your argument to me is like: Alex.BTC: "FACT: Humans will never find aliens in the universe!" AgentofCoin: "That is not a fact, that is yet to be determined." Alex.BTC: "Oh yeah?! Then prove it! Find me an alien now!" AgentofCoin: "What? I'm not even an astronomer or astronaut." Alex.BTC: "You troll! See! I hate you trolls. You need to prove it now!" That is why this is ridiculous because I'll let the experts prove me right or wrong. But you were the one who was arguing there were no "facts". Which is backwards. Either you are protecting Bitmain and Antpool, or you are just backwards here. I disagree with your analysis and conclusion.
In fact, it seems to have a major flaw.
According to my simple research chjj changed Ext Blocks code 1 hour and
21 minutes before Jihan commented that he loved Ext blocks. So, if that is true,
that means Jihan likely got chjj to change the code and not Blockstream or
Maxwell.
So, you wrote a lot, and that is nice, but your time stamps do not match the
proper time line. If your conspiracy was to be correct then chjj should have
changed AFTER Jihan’s twitter posting, not BEFORE as he did.
This would also explain tany other issues and contradictions on the GitHub in
a reasonable way. In this case, chjj issued pull after Maxwell’s email to the
Core Devs could be seen as a “cover my ass” pull request. Either way, Jihan
twitter commented after the chjj change was made.
So as a non-technical person who hasn't gone deep into the details yet,
I think you are overall wrong due to timeline error.
I think I have shown simply that Jihan tweeted his love for Ext Block after chjj
change its code. Your facts were not complete and you jumped to conclusions.
If you play with timezones I am sure you can pull out different numbers. But that is just more of the same nitpicking on trivial bullshit. At the end of the day you just don't know what the exact time was when Jihan learned about Extension Block, and the exact time when he decided to support it, it could have been hours it could have been days. ... I looked online at twitter timezones and Githubs and according to my simple research, twitter shows the time based on your timezone and GitHub is based on EDT. This means that Jihan tweeted 1 hour and 21 minutes after chjj edited the Ext block code no matter where you are in the world. That is all I was pointing out. Everything you are writing now is irrelevant to your original posting to me. You claimed that Jihan tweeted BEFORE chjj changed it as a blockstream conspiracy, when in fact, it was the other way, which either means it is a Jihan conspiracy or just "coincidence". This ASICBoost distraction is just a total bullshit, regardless of what Jihan did, if the code allow this shortcut, then any miners can build their own ASIC to use that shortcut, Jihan's patent only forbids others from selling it in China, not forbidding miners from building their own, so fix the damn code instead of blaming other people.
I don't know the patent laws in China, but in the West a patent doesn't only protect the selling of the idea in product form, but also prevents you from construction and use. If for example, Bitmain did patent ASICBoost and had the full rights to it, no one else in the world is technically allowed to build, use, or sell a chip that uses the same configuration without a license from Bitmain, otherwise that is patent theft. Maybe some will or could do it, but bitmain could attempt to find them liable and get damages from that company. For other miners not to be found liable, they need to create a new ASICBoost configuration that is different from Bitmain's version and no miners are going to invest in R&D for that now, IMO. Either Jihan opens up the rights to all parties for free or we need to patch the protocol. Or its possible there could be a wind-down agreement where Jihan can use it for the next 3 years as long as he halves the usage every 1 year, in agreement to accept SegWit unpatched now. Then in 3 years we patch ASICboost and have SegWit. Of course, Jihan might like that, but bigblockers will not since they never get their blocksize increase. But it is just an idea for fun for negotiation purposes. Maybe something along these lines could be negotiated. The blocksize increase is not the true issue since Jihan doesn’t even really care
about that either. He cares more about the potential loss of profits if ASICBoost
is restricted from the network. He basically said so in the Bitmain published
statement. He only cares about his patents while drapes himself in how he
doesn't want to harm the Bitcoin community, yet that is what he has been doing.
People who think that Jihan is a true believer of the blocksize increase is naďve
at best and a paid shill at worst. You have been used by a Chinese businessman
who thought he would use the blocksize issue as a pawn, including its adherents.
The very people Satoshi created the Bitcoin system to control, you are advocating
we should trust. The only thing you should trust is that they will try to find the
next block over their competitor.
The blocksize increase is the true issue, it has been for over a year, because it affects everyone's bottom line. It is ignorant for you to use tunnel vision and pin everything on ASICBoost when Jihan will also profit from a blocksize increase, there are many things in play here. It doesn't matter who Jihan is, I expect him to do everything he can for his business, and right now he's speaking the truth and he's openly opposing BlockStream, and his words make sense, that's good enough for me. That's what I don't like about you trolls, the blocksize limit is fucking up the network right now, it's already happening, and instead just acknowledging it, you idiots circle jerk around the issue then keep pointing fingers at someone else. Blockstream/Core is clearly the culprit here. I am not pinning everything on ASICBoost. It is just that it is an interesting puzzle piece the community did not include in their mental equation as to why there is a stalemate. When you add this ASICBoost element into it, things seem logical again. It makes more sense that Jihan could block SegWit over an ASICBoost patch more than truely wanting bigger blocks. Miners do not want bigger blocks. In the past, it took the Core devs forever to get the miners to raise their soft caps. Weeks would go by and the miners weren't paying attention. I think certain miners wanting bigger blocks now, is a myth. Thinking that 1MB temporary cap is killing the network, is a large oversimplification of the issues at hand. We need to balance the scaling with security over time. If we don't we could both lose everything. We are trying to preserve the network and you wish to expand it in a blind risk with fingers crossed that it works out and doesn't kill the golden goose. I do not think Satoshi was all knowing. He was wrong sometimes and a piece of proof of that was that Satoshi added the 1MB limit after Hal explained the logic of it. Satoshi changed his mind sometimes and that is what must be kept in our minds as we go forward. If we expand the blocksize, we can not do it on the logic of Satoshi from 2010, but data and knowledge of 2017. You twisted my words. So you are either not reading properly or doing it
intentionally. You are stating there is no evidence. Have you already looked into
this subject? Maybe you should publish your report on your findings, since you
claim there are no patterns or anything of any interest. I’m sure that would be
an interesting read, as much as your prior analysis ont chjj and the ext block
github was, Lol. You cited a "fact" that was based on only 3 months of data,
when the technology in question is over 2 years old.
You lack of imagination is remarkable.
You said Jihan have already used ASICBoost in production. I asked you for proof. You went for personal attack. I out trolled you back. Now you want a report? What are you even on about? You made the accusation. I haven't seen any evidence. So I asked you for them. You talked shit. So I dug a little, I found data that went against your claim. So I showed that data to you, and asked you for evidence for your accusations again. You tried to act like a smart ass, knowing full well you had nothing. And instead of just man up and admit that. You started 'lol'ing at the data I found. It's like you have no idea how stupid you actually look. And the funny part is you actually think people can't see through this shit. Like at this point any of your insults actually do anything. What's with the smartass teenager act anyway? Obviously you're not a teenager, who the fuck is going to respect some loud mouth finger pointing dumb fuck who can only ever talk shit. No one should listen to me. I'm not here to get followers or something. I came to learn and talk. We are talking now because we disagree about things. You have provided no facts or data for anything you have stated prior, only opinion. You want me, a noob, to analysis Antpool's block data in the blockchain and I don't even know how to parse that data automatically with python code and all that. There are more qualified members of this community who can do all forms of data mining and also interpret that data correctly. If you want me to cite some info from the community already I will: - Antpool's stratum has code for covert and overt ASICBoost implementedhttps://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/63yo27/some_circumstantial_evidence_supporting_the_claim/dfy5o65/ - Electrum Wallet dev(s) says AntPool blocks/txs consistent with ASICBoosthttps://twitter.com/ElectrumWallet/status/849974808259559425 - Four AntPool blocks that have the same Coinbase string data.https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/63yo27/some_circumstantial_evidence_supporting_the_claim/dfydbca/Those are just three different issues (I didn't include stuff about empty blocks). Now, I will assume that you will say these people are biased or not trustworthy because they are from Bitcoin reddit or they support Core or Blockstream and that is fine, but once again I will advise you to be patient and eventually someone who is independent and scientific will have pulled all the data and analyze it, and will conclusively determine whether there is anything or there is nothing there. By you arguing that it is my sole responsibility is ridiculous. That is like telling the person who calls 911 to prove that there is an emergency before they will send the police or ambulance. There are people who are experts who are working on this issue and analyzing it right now. The Bitcoin world doesn't fall only on my shoulders, but all of ours. Those who are capable will rise and help the community to determine the truth. You were the one who was prejudging the situation by telling people the facts were that there is no evidence. I only said to you, that is currently still being determined. Your the one who needs to prove that your original "facts" were facts, which I disproved in my prior posting and determined to be 1 fact out of your 6 possible facts. I want an investigation and you want no investigation. The question is, as a Bitcoiner, why don't you want to know the result of an investigation? Maybe you will be proven right. Why are you against that? That is the problem here. You don't seek truths. |
|
|
|
If you acknowledge that it was just a gentlemen’s agreement between individuals
(and not representatives of Core with decision authority, which is impossible and a
oxymoron in a voluntary open-source community), why are you arguing about it?
It seems to me that the miners were attempting to pull a fast one. They were trying
to get a handful of people to decide the future of the Bitcoin Network. During that
meeting, all invited parties told the miners they had no actual authority and the
miners got mad because they are ignorant as to how the Bitcoin development
community actually works. They thought they could dictate the future.
Blockstream has no authority over the Core development. Maxwell and other
employees of Blockstream are Core developers, but they are separate entities.
If you think Blockstream breached, sue them. If you think Maxwell, as an employee
of Blockstream was a bad boy, ask Back to fire him. Ultimately, it is worthless since
all parties who signed the “agreement” had no power nor authority to guarantee or
implement a 2MB hardfork. That is the community's decision. Not any of theres.
You might consider the reason why you think there is a “Blockstream Circus” is
because you don’t really understand the full development system. If you or the
miners would have had your way, Bitcoin would have a dictator or CEO, it seems.
I love Bitcoin and the liberty it grants, you only love to control and strangle it
agent... by you pretending Gmax is not the chief tech officer (boss) of development by you pretending luke does not moderate bips(along with gmax) by you pretending they are as powerless as a highschool janitor.. is you failing to understand. many many many people have had dynamic proposals rejected even at mailing list level(blockstream moderated) and at bip level(blockstream moderated) and then even when just grabbing core code and independently adding tweaks and asking the core devs to help out. again blockstream devs REKT that too by saying "its not core, its an alt". core are not independent. they are follow the leader of 10 paid devs and 100 unpaid interns staying loyal in hopes of getting a job with blockstream the HK agreement was where people who CAN CODE and CAN direct their employees were invited to write code... if the HK agreement thought open community effort was possible then .... oh wait, that was tried and REKT.. so the HK agreement wanted the guys that could code to get core to open its gates and do something to be on the same playing field as other diverse nodes. but luke JR, etc just wanted to act like unskilled janitors/floor cleaners, just turning up for a free lunch before returning to mop and wax the floor, because gmax didnt want to go that route. i find it funny that one day you praise blockstream devs as kings that own bitcoin and deserve control. then the next day, pretend they are just floor sweeping janitors and there is no control. so. either man up and be ok with diversity and decentralisation (true independence). or man up and admit your preference of core dominance and control in a centralised one codebase dependant group Franky, we have talked on many occasions and we both understand that we believe Bitcoin should go in different directions, but we both respect each other and know that we both want what is best for Bitcoin. We are not paid shills who are trying to make a mess, we both want to learn and discuss, even if we fight sometimes. With that in mind, I disagree with you only because I don't think it is right to make agreements with miners or exchanges or whatever, unless it is brought to the whole development team and all agree or disagree and those devs then form a working document publicly for the miners to sign at a personal event maybe. I think it is important also for community response prior to writing that document. In this case that did happened, a few Core devs and Back from Blockstream went and they wrote something up to try to make everyone happy. But the problem is that no one could ever be happy here, since it wasn't organized and done properly from the beginning. The scaling issue is too big for a few devs in a small room. You are arguing that the truth is that certain Core devs and Blockstream actually control the whole Bitcoin development process and that they are purposefully restricting and denying possible proposals that do not fit into the "Blockstream" frame work or plan. I personally do not believe the "conspiracy theory" and think the reality is that Core devs as a whole have agreed on a certain path and any opposition to that path is seen as wasting peoples time since they have determined that slow and steady is the path. Respectfully Franky, I do not believe in the theory that the development process is a scam and is fully controlled by a small handful. That would mean that if those people wanted to scale to the moon tomorrow, then the others would follow. I don't believe that. I think those other devs have their own opinions and would then disagree unless they were given some new data or facts. You know that I admit when I am wrong and I don't claim to know more than I do. I truly tell you now, in my heart, I don't believe it is the way that you think it is. But if you must force me to take a stand, I will stand with Core since I sincerely believe they want Bitcoin to remain a decentralized network. I think bitcoin's greatest threat is governmental regulation first. You know that, because I say that all the time. My concern is whether Bitcoin will be able to survive to get to 50 years from now. My concern centers on its future use in a more restrictive and oppressive world. Once again we disagree Franky, but it is ok, because one day I believe a solution will be found that will make us both happy, possibly reunite the tribes, and we can move on to the next problem we will need to face in the future, which I think will be related to adding more fungability into network. |
|
|
|
Ext Blocks only recently patched it to prevent ASICBoost use, and since then, Jihan will
no longer support that Ext Block proposal.
Very interesting... do you have a source? He does, it's a sphere, it's made of glass, it's on the floor of his toilet and it has wet brown stains on it. not sure i get the joke. But seriously, AgentofCoin...regardless of the fact that this is a distraction from the scaling debate, you made an interesting/important claim here about Jihan...so I would like to know where you got that from. Surely, you didn't just make this up? He can't answer you, AgentofCoin likes to use his secret crystal ball instead of facts. My crystal ball is saying that Alex.BTC will need to get a real job soon because his shill work isn't paying the bills. Soon he is going to have to scam the members in the Digital Good section. Hey Alex.BTC make sure you address my points in my most recent response since you are accustomed to taking snippets that never address the actual issues. Thanks buddy. Looking forward to reading your word salad and tap dancing later.  I don't necessarily share Alex's conclusion you're a "paid shill" although you are clearly biased in your politics as evidenced by your signature (nothing necessarily wrong with that). 2) But I also would like to say that I agree with Alex that your position on HK is just word play... Lets keep it real here. You don't think Greg and Adam talk to each other almost every day? Of course, they acted as a united front, made, and broke the agreement. The fact that it was a non-binding agreement is irrelevant to demonstrating their lack of compromise and obstructionism. Please stop making excuses for this; it just makes you look bad. Pick your battles. 3) Also, you didn't answer my question about where you came up with this claim about Jihan back peddling on Extensionblocks. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here. I hope you didn't just make up a lie, that would make you look really bad. 1) When I give my opinions and comments I try to be fair, but I have made it public that I support a decentralized validator node network at the expense of on-chain scaling now. I think in a few more years we can go to 3MB on-chain. If I come off as biased, I will admit that in that specific issue at the time, if you wish, I am not unreasonable. I can not be truly full non biased, that would not be human. On most issues I try to be unbiased, but on issues like blocksize debate, that is not possible since that is about two polar opposite ideologies. 2) Jonald, as for the HK agreement, I am not making an excuse. You need to understand that from my perspective, the agreement was induced and not how we conduct ourselves in this community. Individual Core members can not go and meet with other people to form an agreement on future implementations. That is wrong for those Core members to do. There were wrong, they should have walked out. You need all Core members to sign off and even if you could do that, that doesn't mean the community will accept those changes. That is what the miners did not understand and what you are missing here. Everyone was wrong. The HK agreement was wrong before it was written. Core Devs have no right o do that. It was an error at the time and will likely never happen again. 3) Jihan stated that he like Extension Blocks. At the time he made the comment, Ext block was not patched yet. After the shit hit the fan, Poon agreed to patch it and did supposedly. When I originally made that comment, it was made in that context. So thus, "now that Ext Block has been patched Jihan will not support it". It was not intended to be read as you are reading it. I guess I should have said "Jihan CAN not support it". In Bitmain's public statement about the ASICBoost issue, they argue against Maxwell's proposed patch and argues that everyone should use ASICBoost (which Jihan owns the rights to on his chips). If he is willing to still use the now patched Ext blocks, he should go on the record and state such, since he originally stated he "Loves Ext Blocks", he can easily tweet "I love the new patched Ext Blocks". Many issues would be resolved then. It doesn't prove that he won't back down later, but it would be a powerful gesture, in general, IMO. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
