|
GA did help with things in previous years. much like certain leaders of the past. but their voice today does not create code that activates today.
we have seen politicians get bought out and publicise certain corporate leanings and sides in the past.
just because they were leaders on date X does not mean we have to believe them on date Y nor does it mean they have power on date Z
we can uniquely praise their Date X activity. and find offence in date Y and not be bothered or not find it important or do find it important about Z
all as separate opinions of the same person.
there was even controversy abut date W. where some think core was defacto god group. and anything outside core is traitor group not belonging to bitcoin.
where other people think bitcoin should not have a god group. but instead a diverse network of multiple teams where no one is god. and instead just byzantine generals that should al be able to propose features and find unity over features the community find usefulness in which the byzantine generals all then contribute towards providing code for in their own brands.. and not some opposition fight about who should be thrown off the network first
where by W is treated separate to X, Y Z but overall people can have thoughts that W is leaning one way or y leans the other or z is neutral
i dont think GA and CSW were buddies. it was a business deal (money changed hands)
|
|
|
|
the developers involved in a certain softening of consensus are not random volunteers they were sponsored by a corporation. to activate certain features by november 2017. due to contracts that were funded and needed to be met. yes they are human. but there are certain trolls on this forum, who always try to escape learning and researching or looking at the evidence.. defending devs where by treating them as idols that deserve "god mode" access to bitcoin (allowing their god mode but then when things go wrong blaming everyone but their gods) also having a silly mindset where no one should scrutinise, review, veto bad stuff, critique such activity.. when the real truth is devs should be reviewed critiqued and scrutinised as thats how bitcoin has worked 2009-2016 independant review, and for security critique and scrutiny over what gets activated. and only allowing ot to be activated if there was majority of nodes ready to validate any ew rule.. was the way it was.. until "backward compatibility "softening of consensus" became activated as for the stuff you say i am not sourcing.. its an easy enough search hundreds of topics. heck even block blockdata and bips and code is available but just one preview where people that did have the silly defend a god narrative shown a little incling of research and realising things were not as things were stated before.. well that can be found in winfdurys own recent post history. (even he needs to re read his own posts i think) a quick 30 seconds search here is a topic where a few people bacame slightly more enlightened https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5433973.msg61601928#msg61601928 |
|
|
|
|
you really have not learned anything have you
it was core that said nodes dont need to upgrade and be full nodes(that was THEIR point) they even branded it "backard compatible" meaning that nodes did not need to upgrade to retain full node (full validation, full archiving status)
but nice try shifting the blame .. you failed.. but nice try.. i give you an E for effort
and an F for fail. but you atleast still have time to get your grades up
core devs themselves admitted they softened the consensus rules
they admitted it years ago
they admit they become a central point of failure
also asics do no write code or be involved in any tx data.. try to learn what mining equipment does do..
learn where the code does come from.
heck.. strange thing was even in recent months you were also showing signs of seeing how things actually happened where it was not a UASF but a economic node+MAHF in june/july 2017.. to then allow the DEV code of softening consensus for august
(remember that pretty little chart of the blue and red lines of UNNATURAL growth to thresholds.)
yes the immutible blockchain has that data. so its something i cant even edit. you might want to rely on that data rather than some private tribe message you you get from buddies about stories their clan have told each other
as for the june-july economic node and MAHF flags. guess where those flags came from.. again an asic didnt come up with that idea. nor did that idea come from a mining pool owner. it again came from DEVS deciding on flag numbers and proposals those flags represent. and what becomes mandated if flags are triggered(code).
do you know how laughable it is you pretend to idolise and defend the devs in regards to certain topics when they have already admitted things your trying to deny now. even when a couple months ago you were showing that the events did happen how i said
probably again best to stick with the version of events that can be proved with block data. not your social tribes campfire stories
you might have learned this if you researched factual data, and months later retained that information and not be playing amnesia like a madhatter group always does.. and then revert back sources for your latest opinions coming from social drama buddy narratives AGAIN, who were also defending the wrong things all along
but lets just watch you waste another few years finding excuses not to learn and instead just repeat the debunked narratives of many years ago.. (i did warn you and give you plenty of attempts to learn.. so dont blame me for being the messenger)
|
|
|
|
There have been some changes that try to make the bitcoin network process transactions faster and also to harden it from threats.
Most of the changes that have been made are restricted to full nodes and wallets, neither of which are things that you have to worry about.
Some more efficient address formats have been introduced as well. The old ones of course still work.
there have also been some changes that soften it to threats aswell allowing new tx formats in without majority consensus of nodes ready to fully validate(as node readyness to fully validate WAS the old way of new format/feature activations which has now been softened to no longer require node majority readyness). nodes now have the "neither of which are things you have to worry about" because they have softened the role of nodes.. just so that devs and dev idolisers can blame miners. yet the softness is the blame of devs.. as is any bug they introduce.. as it is all code changes. because devs write the code. not asics |
|
|
|
It means nothing if you ask me since it is already too late. It's not like he needed that much time to figure it out! It takes a second to know if someone is lying when they can't provide any kind of proof not this many years. I don't buy the NDA thing either since he could have not-say he is Satoshi in first place!
Something definitely shady is going on behind the scene between Andresen and Wright and in my opinion the only reason why Gavin went back on his words is the fallout between them, possibly Craig scammed him or refused to pay the money he promised Gavin after his support or something similar.
The only important question we should ask is "what was the benefit of supporting a clear scammer in 2016 and what is the benefit in going back on his words today?
Was it money? Position? Government pressure? Something else?
YES IT WAS MONEY AND YES GA GOT PAID IN 2016 EVERYONE KNOWS HE GOT PAID IN 2016 TO VISIT CSW and in pretty much all NDA's its a lump sum at the NDA signing day. not a ongoing payment for life most NDA have a time limit/expiry included. this does not mean paying periodically until expiry. this is a "here take some cash in 2016. now shut up for X years or we will want that money back + X MULTIPLE ontop as penalty" type of deal thats how NDA's work in short. yes GA got paid to go to the UK in 2016 and say whatever the contract wants him to say.. or not say there was obviously more then one NDA as there is the pre-flight NDA(spring 2016) where he could not speak of having a meetup until an arranged date later in year. and another contract about what he should and could say at a certain date and he had to stick to such limitations as thats how standard NDA's/contracts work |
|
|
|
|
over a centuries we have seen a few passings of the batten
we had the roman, ottoman, british then american empire. to mane a few
we also seen the IMF dominate in recent century but now we are seeing the echos of things like the WEF and BIS lean more to central america euro rather than north america
the BIS is becoming more powerful and eco-political than the IMF was
il be interested in seeing how central banks move to more of a BIS policy maker than the IMF in 2025
|
|
|
|
as for if GA even actually truly believed in the CSW crap...
i personally think it was a 'payment for speech' contract. he was paid to say he believed it and paid to not say it was a lie/fake..
obviously even a non techie guy can see that the games CSW was playing in 2016 were not believable so i dont think GA was fooled.. but paid off, sounds more likely
I know every human being has a price, but it sounds hard to believe that someone who worked very close with Satoshi and also helped with the development of BTC was paid to say that Faketoshi was the real Satoshi even when he knew he wasn't. Gavin also gave out BTC to people for free, i know it was in the early days, but he would have so much of it even now; i don't think a payment for speech is most likely. back in those early days)(2010-11-12) GA said he didnt want to be lead maintainer for ever and was thinking he may give it 5 years before retiring and such which also kinda lined up to the events where by it was about time for him to fall on the sword and take a payday exit. you find that many people when they want to retire early give up their reputation in the role they sat in for a good exit pay or a back hander from a side gig, politicians do it all the time thats why i think common sense and logic leans more to a back hander pay day/golden retirement handshake as his farewell party exit gift.. more so than believing/being duped |
|
|
|
|
claiming that devs are fiduciary rather than code project managers has other implications
core devs need to have that fine line where they develop and maintain the code but they dont assign accounts, register customers, offer refunds or interest or compensation or mediate financial dispute nor offer finance advice
much like bill gates didnt offer financial advice when he made the first version of excel/access even though excel was then used to log financial data and customer accounts
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure how I can quickly check if there's a "BS-txid" in those blocks, do you have a link?
at first i thought.. google can help you in like 12 seconds.. then i thought if loyce hasnt found a good source in years then maybe google is not good for him so i done a 12 second google for you and again thinking maybe just throwing numbers at you would just get you reacting (usual social club way) of trying to find fault to ignore the context and not think.. so i thought how would social drama queens prefer to be educated about tx size in the mempool and blocks. and so i found the perfect representation even you might be able to see.. so https://txstreet.com/v/btcnotice how big the southpark characters are waiting for the bus the bigger they are the bigger the tx weight.. click on the character to get tx details you can then put the txid into this to see if it has a ordinal https://ordinals.com/inscription/<txid here> have a nice day |
|
|
|
NDA's are a contract not a visit to a surgeon to stitch your mouth NDA's come with conditions: compensation (payment for agreement/ payment to say certain things/not say other things) punishment(usually financial threat if breached) they can come with deadlines/expiry seeing as CSW done a NDA in the uk https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/non-disclosure-agreements/non-disclosure-agreements#what-to-considerusually NDA last 3-5 years(but its defined by whatever term is signed for in the contract) so again logic is if GA is now talking. it must have been under 7 years as for if GA even actually truly believed in the CSW crap... i personally think it was a 'payment for speech' contract. he was paid to say he believed it and paid to not say it was a lie/fake.. obviously even a non techie guy can see that the games CSW was playing in 2016 were not believable so i dont think GA was fooled.. but paid off, sounds more likely |
|
|
|
@loyce if you want to be some grammar nitpick and 'oh look lets raise awareness that someone on a forum was typing too fast and didnt care about minor details of an example demo... .. but then ignore an ACTUAL friggen CODE BUG in the bitcoin network that actually affects many peoples utility of bitcoin.. well you play ignorant pedanticism you try to down play real bugs but waste more time on being a pedantic grammar knitpick.. .. it shows more about your failings than mine.. as for the point of the context.. its not about the 4mb. its about how useful is it.. emphasis useful 4mb. EG is the space being used wisely. those memes are DEAD weight they have no value. they have instead caused other transactions to be delayed and now other people to pay more to try to outbid such dead weight i find it funny how your clubhouse have for years have said you dont want to see "coffee amount" in the blockchain but happy to see 300k-4mb memes to me that 4mb space should be used FOR LEAN PAYMENT TRANSACTIONS because.. yep bitcoin is about payments not memes with an average lean tx being ~250bytes meaning 4000 for 1mb meaning 16000 for 4mb that could have been 16,000 peoples wages or goods purchases. not a single persons MSpaint doodle or at the average expectation of 2000tx. could have been 8000tx and no its not "just one" or just "once" meme. there are hundreds of them. thus it needs to stop before it becomes more memes per day/week (causing congestions and fee wars) as for your "just once" before this saga.. blocks struggled to get to 1.5mb but average blocks had ~2000tx so lets just give a few examples of blocks over 3mb lets just see if there was a healthy 2x tx count (4000tx) https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/775287 3.35mb 893tx https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/775286 3.88mb 230tx https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/775285 3.16mb 1083tx https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/775283 3.41mb 756tx and thats just in the last 4 hours!!.. and you say "just once" (pfft) as if bitcoin has only seen one meme ever |
|
|
|
i know and i have. but thats not the point or what i am on about(not that one(pre-visit NDA)).. There is of course the possibility of a second, still confidential, NDA existing.
exactly and thats the point from the stories said between GA and CSW GA signed something before getting on plane GA signed something at the visit before CSW got "assistant to buy a fresh laptop" and like any good lawyer HR firm would ask. to have another thing signed after event to re-enforce the previous contracts I of course agree that everyone with any sense is already in complete agreement that Andresen was fooled by CSW. But this statement may be relevant to any upcoming CSW trials, where he relies heavily on witness testimony, since he is unable to provide any hard evidence of any sort, cryptographic or otherwise.
CSW now relies on the ayres buddy witness .. you know the one "i trust CSW because i spoke with his mom" |
|
|
|
|
GA signed some NDA's before and during the visit with CSW. some he disclosed publicly but..
the logical explanation(my opinion)
.. i believe that GA had some other NDA he did not disclose. which put him into silence for X years, which has possibly expired allowing him to now say more
either way no one trusts CSW. the only fangirls he has are BRIBED/sponsored/blackmailed/contracted into saying positive stuff. even the ones that tweet saying they trust him dont. but they toe their party bus line for greed or fear of loss of income.. not trust
|
|
|
|
|
biometric security is not a flaw of technology. its the flaw of biology
if you want to use fingerprints. .. hope you dont get your thumbs messed up with scars later in life
if you want to use retinal scans. .. hope you dont get your eyes messed up with cataracts or other eye diseases later in life
many sophisticated tech dont just take 1 scan 10 years ago and compare it to todays biology. they do instead take a scan and then with each next read/scan compare the two to a high probability of a match, to gain access and then use said new scan as the comparer for the next. thus updating, incase of change of biology, to reduce the variances of life/biological changes over time which can cause access lock-outs
but beware, some greedy people that can access to steal your funds via some bio scan. can go old-school and just take your thumb. or threaten you to get your eye scanned..
(yea people are murdered for alot less)
greed and scumbags are a flaw of biology. and no code can change that
|
|
|
|
a block of 3.955mb(facepalm) with only 63 transactions(facepalm) where 1 is taking up 3.915mb of space(facepalm)
yet another example of how core devs have really sh*t the bed on this one and failed the community in soo many ways I'm not sure what you want Bitcoin Core devs to do about this. Miners have always been able to fill blocks with as much spam as they can fit in, and the assumption is that most miners won't do it, because they earn more if they include paying transactions. And most miners indeed prefer making money over spamming the blockchain. even in a lean system of such using legacy tx, would be trying to charge 1sat/byte minimum which would fill a block for 4000000sats (0.04btc($902))
yet the way that this spammy thing has been allowed they can fill a block for 1sat/1kb
minimum which would fill a block for 400000sats (0.004btc($90.2)) Your math is way off. a. code is not AI(self coding/expanding) nor does an ASIC make the code.. nor do the hundreds of thousands(of full nodes). DEVS do if you thing its miners fault.. its not . its the code DEBS RELEASE that allow thing to be soft thus not in a ruleset devs can solve it by making hard rules like limiting bytes per witness.. dont be part of the madhatter crew song sheet echoing out that its the users or miners fault and devs are innocent. its the devs that write the code and bitcoin relies on code. and since 2017 core have had defacto soft access to add what they like, while treating any other brand that wants to as opposition/traitor devs (but it was funny to see you do the usual dev defence game. (blaming everyone else apart from devs) .. b. as for my math. yes i made a typing mistake on the valuation conversion.. awww. petty knitpick seems a shame(more so shameful) that you are quick to point out my bug of insignificance to the community(my sat to $ quick demo).. but want to hide away from pointing out core devs very significant bug that does affect the community(code bug of code THEY created) are you really that bias (by being be a core dev suck up) and not want to have them treated as non-gods? they are human. they make mistakes. and they should be critiqued and scrutinised about bugs THEY CAUSE |
|
|
|
If any entity is part of Bitcoin community and join with financial incentives, they will no have any single reason to support such idea to roll back the Bitcoin blockchain, Taproot or anything else.
Rolling back a consensus rule change doesn't necessarily need rolling back blocks specially when months have gone by and it requires thousands of blocks to be rolled back. Not that it would happen but something like that would be like disabling the soft fork by removing the extra rules. So in case of Taproot all the Taproot outputs become anyone-can-spend. i agree it doesnt need a chain re-org orphan event of weeks-months just needs to make the softened consensus rules hard and structured again Taproot promised lean witness utility. so a simple fix. make taproot only allowed 80byte witness i find it funny how legacy cant have lengthy signatures(old name for witness) but new features have been softened to allow it. when it is these new features that promised they wouldnt bloat the blocks with excessive witness data a simple hardening of the rules does not mean removing old data. it just means not letting the bloat continue in future and far far easier to implement |
|
|
|
|
bitcoin was made by someone(post latest millennium) who patched lots of idea's together(from prior-to-millennium idea's) along with his own(post-millennium) idea's
but this does not mean "bitcoin" was a 60 year project
just like a car was not a 6000 year project started by the somarians making the first wheel
tesla motors electric car was not a project started in 4000BC
someone after this latest millennium (less than 23 years ago) had the idea of bringing different technologies together to make a tesla car
yes its good to know all the different idea's origins that were patched together.
but lets not go that step further (like certain people want to) to make out that bitcoin was not invented in 2009 by "satoshi" just to rebrand it to a different 'creator' by highlighting one of those patches is patented by some other person previously
EG certain groups would happily also pretend tesla was not elons invention but some somarian in the iron age who was the true(in rebrand fashion) "iron man" of electric vehicles
|
|
|
|
greg doesnt actually care much its the usual certain group of drama queens that cried to him years ago and he snapped where i was the main critiquer and scrutiniser thus causing most controversy that triggered the trolls more than greg. thus he thought easiest way to nip it in the bud was to pander to the cry babies and shut them up by shutting me up (and that win for them has energised and powered them since thinking they have power) yea the group that keep quoting about the "greg banned you" were the ones that pushed for it to happen in the first place. so they are quoting their own actions as confirmation bias. but pretending its third party independent source proof. now its just over zealous achow that is mod heavy because he is a stiff fangirl of a certain clan.. funny thing is greg comes on the forum alot but doesnt delete my posts, but when achow is online he deletes posts.. not due to any insults in a post nor inaccuracies but if it mentions certain topic of a subnetwork in any critiqued/scrutinised way (basically a non kiss assly Pro- positive manner of snake oily sales pitch). its gone achowe is also going power crazy on github in recent weeks wanting to add more moderation hierarchy to clense out those opposing cores roadmap (again not independent moderators.. but them moderating, to moderate out independent minds.) so i dont expect things to change any time soon in that regard as long as kiss-assy self promoting echo chambers of centralised group is tolerated more than independent minds of research, review, scrutiny and critique.. it wont change notice the lack of critique/opposition speak about ordinals in the tech discussion. the category should be seeing lots of posts about how core messed up or atleast asking for fixes.. .. but instead silence and alot of "lets see what happens, lets not make a rash move to stop it" stuff things are getting worse, not better |
|
|
|
|
the most the blockchain can grow per year is 210gb
which is 4mb per block for ~52500 blocks per year
however previous to this year blocks were averaging 1.2mb which was ~63gb a year
2016 was 1mb which was 52.5gb
as for fee's
for the spam data.
becasue its sat in the "weight area" it is not treated the same as normal bytes so it gets a discount, plus due to other cludgy stuff they can pay 1sat per virtual kb and be alot cheaper.
thus instead of having a system of 4mb blockspace for payment where fitting say 4tx per kb of payment means a lean 1mb being 4000tx meaning 4mb being 16,000tx
even in a lean system of such using legacy tx, would be trying to charge 1sat/byte minimum which would fill a block for 4000000sats (0.04btc($902))
yet the way that this spammy thing has been allowed they can fill a block for 1sat/1kb
minimum which would fill a block for 4000sats (0.00004btc($0.902))
|
|
|
|
i still laugh facepalm and nod in disagreement at how they promoted taproot as a "solution" to cut down on weight of meaningless data.. yet. it has produced the opposite result a block of 3.955mb(facepalm) with only 63 transactions(facepalm) where 1 is taking up 3.915mb of space(facepalm) yet another example of how core devs have really sh*t the bed on this one and failed the community in soo many ways |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
