So if I see you as a shill, you're a shill? That's an odd way you have with language.
You're the one who's odd at understanding. I could make up a list of planets in our Solar System that includes Laudaria as the biggest planet. Just because I've created the list, that does not mean that the things on it are true. As far as the subjective list goes, I said it could be created but that it does not mean that people on those list are in fact shills. A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization. Whether or not a person is a shill is an objective matter of fact. There's nothing subjective about it. Dictionary definition: Appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. Interpretation of "shill" is highly personal and subjective. |
|
|
|
...
Excellent post there Veritas, you are clearly highly sophisticated  The part below I find more tricky: I say what people accept as Bitcoin is what Bitcoin is - you reply no, Bitcoin should be governed by node owners, miners, developers, etc
Now you are arguing a straw man, I never said this. Bitcoin is ultimately what the economic majority wants it to be and the economic majority is made up of people. I think that the miners act as a type of proxy for the economic majority in the governance mechanism of Bitcoin, which we now call the consensus mechanism. No straw man. You always say Bitcoin should be governed by 'economic majority', whatever that means. I still don't understand what you define as being 'economic majority'. If it has something to do with what people accept as being Bitcoin, then I don't think the miners act as a type of proxy for them. They only mine what is profitable to mine (price of the coin / forked coin / altcoin vs. quantity and quality of competition for that mined coin). ... ^That. "Economic majority" is a misleading bit jargon, implying that the interests of the miners [always] coincide with the interests of the holders. That the interests of the miners allign with the economic majority or holders is one of the premises that Bitcoin relies on. I would consider Bitcoin to be broken if that was not the case, I might even think that we can fix Bitcoin like Core does if I thought that. Though I still do not think that Bitcoin is fundamentally broken. I still think that it is working as intended and that we should allow the experiment to continue to run its course according to the original vision of its founder and many of its supporters over the years. Not as clear-cut as that. That alignment is *inferred*, and to reach it requires one to make multiple logical leaps. Many possible stumbling blocks, like tragedy of the commons, for instance. |
|
|
|
...
So I could start an "Analysis and list of top small block murderers and rapists" thread and that'll be ok because it's subjective?
... God yes, please do! |
|
|
|
...
Excellent post there Veritas, you are clearly highly sophisticated The part below I find more tricky: I say what people accept as Bitcoin is what Bitcoin is - you reply no, Bitcoin should be governed by node owners, miners, developers, etc
Now you are arguing a straw man, I never said this. Bitcoin is ultimately what the economic majority wants it to be and the economic majority is made up of people. I think that the miners act as a type of proxy for the economic majority in the governance mechanism of Bitcoin, which we now call the consensus mechanism. No straw man. You always say Bitcoin should be governed by 'economic majority', whatever that means. I still don't understand what you define as being 'economic majority'. If it has something to do with what people accept as being Bitcoin, then I don't think the miners act as a type of proxy for them. They only mine what is profitable to mine (price of the coin / forked coin / altcoin vs. quantity and quality of competition for that mined coin). ... ^That. "Economic majority" is a misleading bit of jargon, implying that the interests of the miners [always] coincide with the interests of the holders. |
|
|
|
...
Let's look past the fact that you have no clue what Hegelian dialectics is ...
That's just some cold-blooded shit to say to a motherfucker before he poops a cap in his ass. Shalom! |
|
|
|
...
Or in your business language: We can give away our product for free, said no successful business ever.
... Depends on what you mean by "for free" :- There's Google... |
|
|
|
Streaming to >50 people is an engineering problem too. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/42bdwm/consensus_round_table_meeting_in_miami_going_on/cz962q7 (open the collapsed comment for extra lel) luke-jrLuke Dashjr - Bitcoin Expert: It won't let me without giving Google my phone number... Other guy: Is there something stopping you from registering a google voice number and then giving it to them? luke-jrLuke Dashjr - Bitcoin Expert: Dunno, sounds like a lot of steps/time that would distract me from the actual topic. TL;DR: Expert fails, but not after trying to break TOS & h4xx0r all things. I am a little sympathetic to not wanting to give Google your phone #. (Though they already have mine) ~brinnng!~ -Hello? -Do you have Prince Albert in a can? Then let him out! Hahhaha!!1 -Darn you Google kids! (I actually opted into Google tracking my searches etc., have gmail, google voice etc. accounts linked. Limit questionable stuff to TOR. Actually improved my "browsing experience" (or whatever that's called)) *BTW, you taking any time off before starting the new job? |
|
|
|
Claiming that a higher blocksize limit would *increase* centralization is ludicrous on many levels: both illogical (negatively impacts China, where most hashpower lives), and irrelevant (who cares if it's 9 0r 6 bros, they're all buddies anyhow).
It is not ludicrous at all - in order to verify a block (as a full node) you need to verify every single signature. Those operations are not so cheap (my current laptop is actually unable to even keep up with the blockchain because it is simply not fast enough). So the more signature verification operations that are required (which is what you get with bigger blocks) the more potential nodes you are going to lose (as they will simply be unable to keep up). Is this so hard to understand? Sorry, why should I be concerned about potential non-mining nodes in China again? |
|
|
|
I'm not "blaming" anyone, I'm merely describing the way things are, i.e. centralized.
Claiming that a higher blocksize limit would *increase* centralization is ludicrous on many levels: both illogical (negatively impacts China, where most hashpower lives), and irrelevant (who cares if it's 9 0r 6 bros, they're all buddies anyhow).
Satoshi Nakamoto is here in my living room and he disagrees with you   Then the gentlemen touching my butt is an importer?! He seemed so honest... |
|
|
|
They can, but they don't. What's your point?
Then blame the hashers rather than the pools. As there are far more hashers than there are pools you'd think that the hashers would perhaps care more about decentralising - but if they don't then there isn't much you can do to fix it. I'm not "blaming" anyone, I'm merely describing the way things are, i.e. centralized. Claiming that a higher blocksize limit would *increase* centralization is ludicrous on many levels: both illogical (negatively impacts China, where most hashpower lives), and irrelevant (who cares if it's 9 0r 6 bros, they're all buddies anyhow). |
|
|
|
... increasing block sizes will actually end up centralising the mining more than anything else ...
How is this still a thing, when 9 guys control >90% of the hashpower? If you are talking about pools then you should know that the hashers can change pools at any time. They can, but they don't. What's your point? You also missed a chunk: Also how do people manage to equate "China no longer having a huge advantage because cheap/subsidized power" and "mining centralization"?
In light of most hashpower being in China? |
|
|
|
... increasing block sizes will actually end up centralising the mining more than anything else ...
How is this still a thing, when 9 guys control >90% of the hashpower? Also how do people manage to equate "China no longer having a huge advantage because cheap/subsidized power" and "mining centralization"? In light of most hashpower being in China? |
|
|
|
Evil Evil Core. How dare they develop Bitcoin for 7 years now, without a banker's permission.
Pretty broad interpretation of both "core" and "develop." Wouldn't you rather say "remnants of core who didn't rage-quit" and "did fuck-all for 7 fricking years"? |
|
|
|
... Perhaps something as simple as having an open BIP submission process but force it to be completely anonymous to insure that we are required to study, test and peer review it thoroughly without appeals to authority or a popularity contest which would corrupt the process. ...
But peer review is an appeal to authority. Can anyone be a peer in your peer review process, only the qualified peers, or ...how would that work? |
|
|
|
meh. He is again describing segwit as a scaling solution, when that was never the intention. To rely on a latent side effect as the primary reason to implement it so quickly is simply poor engineering practice. Also, his space saving projections are optimistic. Streaming to >50 people is an engineering problem too. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/42bdwm/consensus_round_table_meeting_in_miami_going_on/cz962q7 (open the collapsed comment for extra lel) luke-jrLuke Dashjr - Bitcoin Expert: It won't let me without giving Google my phone number... Other guy: Is there something stopping you from registering a google voice number and then giving it to them? luke-jrLuke Dashjr - Bitcoin Expert: Dunno, sounds like a lot of steps/time that would distract me from the actual topic. TL;DR: Expert fails, but not after trying to break TOS & h4xx0r all things. |
|
|
|
The more contentious alternatives the better. The HF only triggers at 75% - thats 75% for Classic.
That means that core must now share the remaining 25% with all the other implementations. They will attack each other into oblivion.
Check out the link, comrade. There is no competing over 25% remaining ASICs' with what is being discussed. It is both fascinating and encouraging and we shouldn't worry regardless the outcome. I am at peace with the HF and Classic. Either way, the future is great. Didn't you say some stuff about staying with core for "ideological reasons"?  |
|
|
|
Doesn't the US back every dollar against gold ? or was that a long time ago or i misheard something
Of course not. That's why it's called fiat. "No country currently backs its currency with gold, but many have in the past, including the U.S.; for half a century beginning in 1879, Americans could trade in $20.67 for an ounce of gold. The country effectively abandoned the gold standard in 1933, and completely severed the link between the dollar and gold in 1971."Welcome to 21st century. |
|
|
|
Which point is that? That people will be left stranded because it takes a month to download what amounts to a software update? Either your connection is horribly slow, or I'm forced to assume you're just FUDding.
You're joking right? If you think that everyone is in the position to upgrade or is aware of the current situation then we have no reasons to talk about. Here's a small example and I'll leave it at that: I'm the owner of Lauda Dice, a very good and popular Dice site. Lauda is currently sick and has no idea what's going on in the Bitcoin ecosystem. Hard fork happens before Lauda recovers and leaves his service website broken.
Even deploying soft forks takes time, with hard forks it is much worse. In teh hospital, incommunicado for a month? And your dice site is on autopilot? It runs itself? Frankly, sounds like something I should be reading in Scam Accusations, and laughing my ass off. And no one tells you? Because, presumably, no one uses it? Let's see... An unatended dice site loses a few days' worth of revenues, or I give up on Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System... It's a toughy, I'll grant you that... jk, not tough at all. Pay more attention to your shitty gambling site. Not my fault you're sick/lazy, this isn't some Nanny State commie kindergarten, where everything stops to let the slowest/weakest catch up. Buck up, Bucko. |
|
|
|
the only time there there would be gavincoin and bitcoincore coin as 2 separate distinctive coins. is if they never interact with each others miners.
...
C miners would only be accepted without orphan if A,B accept blocks over 1mb.. causing a consensus upgrade
or if classic nodes only communicated with C miners and ignored other miners who have not upgraded.. causing a fork and altcoin..
those are 2 different outcomes and should not be mis-interpretted as one..
... But of course the Classic miners won't interact with Core miners, isn't that the definition of a hard fork? Classic nodes reject Core blocks, Core nodes reject Classic blocks. |
|
|
|
XT altcoin was much more serious bitcoin take over attempt than this joke named ClasSick.
You seem scared. Those who solely support Core are getting scared. So scared in fact that they're now discussing a change of PoW if Classic hardforks. They are discussing the nuclear option if they don't get their way. Telling. From my recollection, the group threatening the "nuclear option" is not promoting core, but promoting a pure, uncluttered version of bitcoin they have been working on (available here -> http://thebitcoin.foundation ) No need to bring in random nutters to blame for the nuclear option. Luke and Greg talked about this on reddit. Apparently the code is all ready to go.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
