So your point is that people use Satoshi's name and what he said to promote their proposition. That is good and bad at the same time. It is good because (if true) we are sticking to what was envisioned by Satoshi - BUT we should not be limited to that as times change.It is bad because it might be used to promote something that is bad for Bitcoin as a whole. That is why consensus must be reached  I fully agree with that statement, but I just would love to see, somebody saying "Satoshi said this, but he was wrong and this is why". I haven't seen such a statement, yet. That would be a honest thing. But using his name to promote your own vision is just straight propaganda. Another nice example, for what is happening would be "Small gods" from Terry Pratchett €dit: So your point is that people use Satoshi's name and what he said to promote their proposition. My point is not, that they use something Satoshi said, but something he didn't say, but make it sound like, he said something like that. |
|
|
|
Calm down, you're being a fanboy , szabo.best.vwh.net doesn't affect everyone just a very small group. If you are concerned about what szabo is up to why not just follow him on twitter or something?
Not convinced Szabo actually uses his twitter account anymore, that or he had a personality transplant recently. Makes me wonder whether this is somehow connected. I haven't followed Szabo, but I recently looked at his twitter account. I seriously wonder how anybody could think that Szabo is Satoshi besides working on the same technical topic, they don't seem to have much in common. |
|
|
|
With the whole blocksize debate, there is a lot of talk about what Bitcoin is supposed to be. There are often phrases used like "the vision of Bitcoin was" or even "Satoshi's vision was" followed by statements, that have nothing to do, with what Satoshi actually said. That reminded me a lot of Fyodor Dostoevsky short story of "The Grand Inquisitor". http://www.online-literature.com/dostoevsky/2884/and maybe after you read that, you could read the Whitepaper or some of Satoshi's Forum Posts |
|
|
|
If blocking any port shuts down your node, then you are too noob to be running one in the first place.
~BCX~
How does your statement above fit into satoshi's original plan of decentralization that involves the average joe being able to run a bitcoin node on his computer? Your statement only shows that being a noob makes someone unable or unqualified to use Bitcoin essentially. Which is the wrong attitude.  What ever happen to your monero killing attack that is now almost a year late? Lol If you talk about what Satoshi said, than please get it right: The design outlines a lightweight client that does not need the full block chain. In the design PDF it's called Simplified Payment Verification. The lightweight client can send and receive transactions, it just can't generate blocks. It does not need to trust a node to verify payments, it can still verify them itself.
The lightweight client is not implemented yet, but the plan is to implement it when it's needed. For now, everyone just runs a full network node.
I anticipate there will never be more than 100K nodes, probably less. It will reach an equilibrium where it's not worth it for more nodes to join in. The rest will be lightweight clients, which could be millions.
At equilibrium size, many nodes will be server farms with one or two network nodes that feed the rest of the farm over a LAN.
|
|
|
|
Edit: If enough Bitcoin users in the United States file complaints their firewall will become expensive.
Will it? I don't know, how USA law works out most of the time. But will they really pay a penalty or will they just have to remove the firewall, when the damage is already done? |
|
|
|
According to an interview with one of the devs, they planned the workshops BEFORE Gavin broke off, and Gavin knew about the timing of the workshops when he and hearnia launched the spork.
So, why did it take them so long to announce it publicly. Doesn't make much sense, does it? |
|
|
|
Ahm ...
You are aware of IPv6 aren't you? So, yes, a Protocol can also change.
That't the beauty about software: It can adapt to new problems and sometimes you have to make radical changes for that.
Taking that away from Bitcoin doesn't make a lot of sense.
Ahm.. Yeeess.. But thanks, you bring up a nice point that I shall now throw back at ya'..  How long has IPv6 been rolling out ? Years.. ? Now imagine that you couldn't even use it unless 75% of the ENTIRE internet has upgraded to it.. Because that's how Bitcoin works, you can't just have some people upgrade, and use the new-teck, and wait for the others to follow suit. You have to wait until ALMOST ALL OF US have upgraded before you can even START using the new features.. I think 'decades' would be a closer approximation to how long the roll-out would take.. And then of course, you've got those of us who think IPv6 is, to be frank, bollox, and that they should have gone for IPv8 - (you know what I mean, 6 digits isn't enough, they should have gone for 8 and be done with it..) BOOM!.. WAR!!.. (again..) .. As for protocols that should have long since been superseded but just keep on ticking.. how about SMTP / POP3 ? Jesus, I bet their inventors never dreamed they would last this long.. But here they stand. You can't STOP an attempted Hard Fork.. I know.. that's the beauty of it.. and if someone came up with the perfect system, anonymous, fast, global, etc etc, (..looking at you #GMAX..) of course they'll try to push it on Bitcoin, and good luck, but I think the GOAL should be NOT TO HARD FORK. EVER. I still don't see, that we could really avoid having hardforks. I am also not sure, if the examples you brought up, are really that good. A quick look at Wikipedia tells me following: Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) is an Internet standard for electronic mail (email) transmission. First defined by RFC 821 in 1982, it was last updated in 2008 with the Extended SMTP additions by RFC 5321 - which is the protocol in widespread use today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Mail_Transfer_ProtocolBut you are right, that it takes time to get that change pushed to every user and it doesn't get better the more users we have. That's why I just don't get, that "just wait, till we hit the wall, before doing anything about it"-attitude, a lot of people have. Bitcoin just isn't that nerdfest anymore, where all the user read the forums all the times. We are so lucky, that we know about this problem, long before it becomes a real problem. I am pretty sure, there will be other problems in the future, where we will not be that lucky. |
|
|
|
|
Ahm ...
You are aware of IPv6 aren't you? So, yes, a Protocol can also change.
That't the beauty about software: It can adapt to new problems and sometimes you have to make radical changes for that.
Taking that away from Bitcoin doesn't make a lot of sense.
|
|
|
|
Stop talking then
Why? So, you can play again high and mighty by talking down on other people, without even bringing anything into a discussion? You would love that, wouldn't you? |
|
|
|
What the fuck are you even talking about?
I didn't even make any argument other than, that your definition of conspiracy is wrong. Which you admitted. So, please tell, which of my arguments did you dissemble?
Not interested in that, told you already. My point was something else, I admitted that other people define it differently and am happy to do so. You're trying to argue about something incredibly petty, and I don't care about the outcome. Here's what I do care about, for the third time: "conspiracy" is NOT defined as "paranoid ramblings of lunatics wearing tinfoil hats" That definition is pernicious to the dialogue that should really be happening about these issues. The issues are serious, and hence that representation is morally irresponsible. Argue that point, because that literally is "what the fuck" I am talking about, as you so eloquently put it. and here, you don't even see that "conspiracy" is NOT defined as "paranoid ramblings of lunatics wearing tinfoil hats" is also just ad hominem. You want to have a dialog about that? Seriously? You call me petty, but all you have brought into this discussion is a wrong definition(which is not the same, as "people define it differently". Dictionaries are there for a reason) and insults. Just look at your own posts, there is nothing else there. So, how could anybody have a serious discussion with you, about the actual topic? |
|
|
|
It would need to be a criminal act to be appropriately labelled as a conspiracy.
Which is wrong by the definition of Wikipedia and Merriam Webster. Can you admit that? I can, and it's not what was concerning me. My point was something altogether different, why are do you keep trying to subvert it? Have you even read your own posts? That was your whole point and then you went on insulting people, like you do a lot in the last few days/weeks. Dissembling arguments is not insulting if the ego of the argument's origin can take it. Yours clearly can't. I suppose making these plain observations is ad hominem also, right? For people like this, everyone arguing against their position is ad homming, until they agree with them and everythings all sunshine and rainbows again  If you or anyone else feels insulted, then I am not in control of that: they/you are. What the fuck are you even talking about? I didn't even make any argument other than, that your definition of conspiracy is wrong. Which you admitted. So, please tell, which of my arguments did you dissemble? and don't you agree, that Are you sober?
is ad hominem? |
|
|
|
It would need to be a criminal act to be appropriately labelled as a conspiracy.
Which is wrong by the definition of Wikipedia and Merriam Webster. Can you admit that? I can, and it's not what was concerning me. My point was something altogether different, why are do you keep trying to subvert it? Have you even read your own posts? That was your whole point and then you went on insulting people, like you do a lot in the last few days/weeks. |
|
|
|
So you completely misused the word according to what you've discovered on Wikipedia. You used it in the "things that paranoid people believe" sense, and that's not morally responsible at all.
So, you don't like Wikipedia, what about Merriam Webster? Um, no issue with either? Are you sober? : a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal
: the act of secretly planning to do something that is harmful or illegal http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracySo, who is misusing words? Who is doing morally irresponsible things? Still you? You're citing definitions that defend my position, i.e: conspiracy != "something you imagined because you're crazy" That was what was intended, and what I objected to. Get a grip. Look, I break it down for you, since you are always just dodging the issue, with ad hominem. You wrote: It would need to be a criminal act to be appropriately labelled as a conspiracy.
Which is wrong by the definition of Wikipedia and Merriam Webster. Can you admit that? |
|
|
|
I can't wait for the day when people can load up their Starbucks app directly using bitcoins. Then people can keep their silly coffee purchases off the blockchain, regardless of whether we have > 1MB blocks or not.
Today to buy coffee using bitcoins still requires 3 steps:
1) BTC -> Starbucks card via CardCash, Gyft, etc.
2) Load app with card number. This can be really annoying for the lazy people of today as it requires typing in over a dozen number into their phones.
3) Use the credits.
Has nobody told them about QR-Codes, yet? Is a multinational company like Starbucks to stupid to use a simple solution? |
|
|
|
It could be a simple case of something needing to be blocked specifically for the DVR and not a big conspiracy as it is being made out to be.
It would need to be a criminal act to be appropriately labelled as a conspiracy. A company like AT&T would be unlikely to put themselves in that position. It doesn't always have to be criminal to be labeled a conspiracy: Conspiracy (civil), an agreement between persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of their legal rights or to gain an unfair advantage
Conspiracy (criminal), an agreement between persons to break the law in the future, in some cases having committed an act to further that agreement
Conspiracy (political), an agreement between persons with the goal of gaining political power or meeting a political objective
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ConspiracyIn any event, the point still stands that it could be something unrelated to AT&T specifically trying to prevent users from running a Bitcoin node. So you completely misused the word according to what you've discovered on Wikipedia. You used it in the "things that paranoid people believe" sense, and that's not morally responsible at all. So, you don't like Wikipedia, what about Merriam Webster? : a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal
: the act of secretly planning to do something that is harmful or illegal http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conspiracySo, who is misusing words? Who is doing morally irresponsible things? |
|
|
|
this is going to fuel alot of publicity for Cyptocurrencies
lol What? can u rephase the question especially the part where im supposed to understand what ur saying Oh, I am sorry. "What?" is short for "What the fuck are you talking about?" u still didnt answer my question The answer to your question is: Yes, I can rephrase my question. |
|
|
|
this is going to fuel alot of publicity for Cyptocurrencies
lol What? can u rephase the question especially the part where im supposed to understand what ur saying Oh, I am sorry. "What?" is short for "What the fuck are you talking about?" |
|
|
|
this is going to fuel alot of publicity for Cyptocurrencies
lol What? |
|
|
|
increasing the block size too much will cause fees to collapse. The author of the BIP I am opposing will tell you the same thing.
You still haven't answered me why. All you do is dodging my question and writing comments without any content. So, this quote also applies to you: In addition, simply saying something doesn't make it true, no matter how many times you repeat it.
It's explained perfectly adequately a short distance back in this thread. I'm not going to do it again just so you can feel like people value your audience. So, I read all your posts in this thread again and you didn't give anything besides a pretty vague theoretical construct, that isn't based on anything(the very point where I entered the discussion). So, I accept, that you are like many other people in here are just not willing to give answer, more likely use ad hominem or trying to look smart by starting some stupid meta discussion without link to the actual topic and that further discussion is pretty much pointless. |
|
|
|
increasing the block size too much will cause fees to collapse. The author of the BIP I am opposing will tell you the same thing.
You still haven't answered me why. All you do is dodging my question and writing comments without any content. So, this quote also applies to you: In addition, simply saying something doesn't make it true, no matter how many times you repeat it.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
