not sure what you're trying to say quoting this 6month old post. but, free feel to continue to wasting your time talking to a penguin.  Deadlines don't mean anything to him (this particular Core dev who is unhappy about the new 'consensus'). The old quote is context. It illustrates the consistency of his belief that a HF won't happen until certain other problems/technical challenges are met. Also:  Bro  how does that make you feel? |
|
|
|
not sure what you're trying to say quoting this 6month old post. but, free feel to continue to wasting your time talking to a penguin. |
|
|
|
if you insist on blindly following an idle, make sure hes brilliant
 @Adam Do you have a response to this:
Cheapens UTXO creation, cheapens on-chain data, dis-incentivises cleanup. Perhaps more importantly dis-incentivises user protecting features like multisig or other forms of smart contracts. Prevents making use of the full capacity available.
Other compromises under consideration such as with respect to deployment timelines preclude making other changes that should be in the next hard fork but which require more engineering work or review.make note of anyone loudly expressing frustration with this agreement and actively trying to stop it
its likely they are stupid.
FFS
no. problem? |
|
|
|
|
make note of anyone loudly expressing frustration with this agreement and actively trying to stop it
its likely they are stupid.
FFS
|
|
|
|
if you insist on blindly following an idle, make sure hes brilliant evoorhees I'm watching with great interest this news today of the roundtable consensus: https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff#.a7nd0m1c5This is a good opportunity for people to start coming together around this compromise, which probably appears imperfect to everyone, and yet should be at least partially appealing to anyone interested in the community moving past this civil war, and working as a team again. I understand the consensus announcement is not truly consensus; it is signed by some important parties, but not everyone. I would strongly encourage Core to add the following (however properly worded) to their formal roadmap document, and make a public announcement about the same: The code for the hard-fork will therefore be available by July 2016. If there is strong community support, the hard-fork activation will likely happen around July 2017. We're close... And let's please keep the discussion civil, we must at least endeavor to that. Edit: this is not intended to come across as an "immediate demand," but rather a humble suggestion which I hope Core is already planning to do reasonably soon. |
|
|
|
billyjoeallen is high on fiat. ( oh wait he shorted not sold  ) maybe he is right. friedenbach already stood against the HF-consensus. maxwell is known to be a diva, he could join him and prolong this little nerd-fight. 4MB is an awesome deal, i can't wait to see how poeple react to some diva refusing this agreement, while proposing a much worst proposal. another proposal will need to be trailered to a specific group to gain any support over this 4MB proposal, at which point it becomes obvious they are not looking for consensus but merely like to make noise. beside its not like we haven't heard his objections 100X before. let him repeat himself one more time, with feeling! i dont mind. Some diva in particular? https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46s2qz/core_please_endorse_news_with_formal_addition_to/d07pqcm?context=3Who's Maaku7? who cares? everyone is too concerned with what everyone else thinks... |
|
|
|
 we are trending. |
|
|
|
billyjoeallen is high on fiat. ( oh wait he shorted not sold ) maybe he is right. friedenbach already stood against the HF-consensus. maxwell is known to be a diva, he could join him and prolong this little nerd-fight. 4MB is an awesome deal, i can't wait to see how poeple react to some diva refusing this agreement, while proposing a much worst proposal. another proposal will need to be trailered to a specific group to gain any support over this 4MB proposal, at which point it becomes obvious they are not looking for consensus but merely like to make noise. beside its not like we haven't heard his objections 100X before. let him repeat himself one more time, with feeling! i dont mind. |
|
|
|
billyjoeallen is high on fiat. ( oh wait he shorted not sold ) |
|
|
|
Let's look at Adam's poll: 79 percent support the compromise. Totally too small of a samples size, but just for shits and giggles, let's assume that is representative. 75% is NOT consensus, but 79% is?
on bitcointalk poll 60% = consensus 60% is a pass, we can't expect everyone to understand the question, and answer it correctly. ( i kid... sorta ) ok that was a lame answer here a better thought out one.. poeple hitting that "no" option are most likely just not entirely clear as to what the options are, and had they been at the meetingS, discussing and arguing face to face with all the knowledge we expect our leaders to possess, they would have actually agreed. we can call it consensus when the top 1% most informed all agree i guess. it's really crazy to expect everyone to be 100% well informed & have given the question the appropriate amount of thought. ... you are an enemy of bitcoin.
 and then there this guy 80% approval ! wowzers this is it. |
|
|
|
Waiting for the addition of the block increase to the official Core roadmap, and once confirmed my Classic node will switch back to Core.
Good luck with that wait. The way things are looking, currently, maybe 1 year from now, at the very soonest? i'd imagine they would add it to the road map within a week? bitcoiners are so distrustful, i wonder why that is ?  Maybe we are talking about two different things? From my reading, if they are saying that they are implementing seg wit first, and then they will work on planning to increase the blockchain with some tests of such plans beginning to take place 3 months after seg wit (summer of 2016), therefore, no real need to commit to any actual increase for 6 more months (after testing it out blah, blah, blah). All of this sounds good to me, and really shouldn't be that big of a deal, no? Don't we need to test things out before actually implementing? And seg wit is going to provide some interesting and potentially unanticipated developments that need to be considered in light of any additional future changes, no? Even though the current consensus roadmap is not considerably concrete, it sounds pretty decent, reasonable and really good for bitcoin on both a technical and political level, under the current circumstances, no? sure but all this should be on the Roadmap https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1349965.0just to clarify. implementation = the code implementing = writing the code Oh thanks a lot. Now you have given me another thread to read. I'm not sure if I can handle it.  It seems that I was using the terms implementing and implementation differently from you, and for me both terms are the same - and it would depend upon context to choose which is used: one is a verb and the other is a noun. My understanding of seg wit is that the code has largely been written.. it is currently being tested and will be implemented released after the testing (anticipated in April).... I mean implemented means it is available to be able to run in reality rather than merely as a test.. blah blah blah. as a programer the miss use of implement stands out to me. let's overlook the irony of me giving grammar advice  |
|
|
|
Let's look at Adam's poll: 79 percent support the compromise. Totally too small of a samples size, but just for shits and giggles, let's assume that is representative. 75% is NOT consensus, but 79% is?
on bitcointalk poll 60% = consensus 60% is a pass, we can't expect everyone to understand the question, and answer it correctly. ( i kid... sorta ) |
|
|
|
Waiting for the addition of the block increase to the official Core roadmap, and once confirmed my Classic node will switch back to Core.
Good luck with that wait. The way things are looking, currently, maybe 1 year from now, at the very soonest? i'd imagine they would add it to the road map within a week? bitcoiners are so distrustful, i wonder why that is ? Maybe we are talking about two different things? From my reading, if they are saying that they are implementing seg wit first, and then they will work on planning to increase the blockchain with some tests of such plans beginning to take place 3 months after seg wit (summer of 2016), therefore, no real need to commit to any actual increase for 6 more months (after testing it out blah, blah, blah). All of this sounds good to me, and really shouldn't be that big of a deal, no? Don't we need to test things out before actually implementing? And seg wit is going to provide some interesting and potentially unanticipated developments that need to be considered in light of any additional future changes, no? Even though the current consensus roadmap is not considerably concrete, it sounds pretty decent, reasonable and really good for bitcoin on both a technical and political level, under the current circumstances, no? sure but all this should be on the Roadmap https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1349965.0just to clarify. implementation = the code implementing = writing the code |
|
|
|
" I am relatively happy with the consensus reached today. "
I'm happy with more money in my pocket, if consensus = less fear and higher prices, then I'm happy
that works. you can disagree but welcome it at the same time. |
|
|
|
Waiting for the addition of the block increase to the official Core roadmap, and once confirmed my Classic node will switch back to Core.
Good luck with that wait. The way things are looking, currently, maybe 1 year from now, at the very soonest? i'd imagine they would add it to the road map within a week? bitcoiners are so distrustful, i wonder why that is ? |
|
|
|
...
Few people decide the future of 'Bitcoin'.... really decentralized , right ?
An unregulated currency money, created by & for people united by their unwavering faith in greed being a virtue? What could possibly go wrong??? That's proof of stake, silly. Proof of work is serious business, dontcha know? There's a Russian book about NEP (1920s, after the revolution -- corrupt Soviet privatization program), and, just like today, there were shell corporations which served as facades for whatever_was_really_making_money. Anyhow, in this book they ran a firm called "Horns & Hooves," which had nothing to do with horns or hooves. In the back room, there were two barrels, a length of hose, and a hired boy. The boy's job was to put a full barrel up on the table, connect it with the length of a hose to the empty barrel below, and let the water gravity-siphon into the empty barrel. Once that was done, he simply moved the full barrel onto the table, the [now] empty one to the floor, and repeat the process ad infinitum. Work. If you are VButerin I will literally shit myself. Met him, had no idea what he was talking about, left. i met him too, unbelievably bright kid... |
|
|
|
who voted no? I haven't checked to verify, but I'd guess MP and the rest of La Serenissima will have their say. Anyone who thinks a hard fork will not be contentious just isn't paying attention. am i the only one that thinks it won't be contentious? Am I the only one who thinks it will? you are the 1% |
|
|
|
big blockers didnt get much, but we have entered the slippery slope poeple 10MB isn't very far off  |
|
|
|
who voted no? I haven't checked to verify, but I'd guess MP and the rest of La Serenissima will have their say. Anyone who thinks a hard fork will not be contentious just isn't paying attention. am i the only one that thinks it won't be contentious? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
