Can you imagine a campaign of people calling for Amazon and Walmart and so forth to accept gold and fretting about the future of gold if they can't get it accepted?
No, I can't. Alas, Bitcoin is not gold, and is meant to be a payment system, which fits with Amazon and Walmart's interests. |
|
|
|
How about this one:  Still complex. You need to learn how to design a logo to have a quality proposal. |
|
|
|
How about  That's too complex for a logo. |
|
|
|
|
“Sophomoric pedantry”, iCEBREAKER's new catchphrase.
|
|
|
|
Your analogy is invalid because "most people" don't GAF about BTC, much less running a node or the health of the network.
Well, the option DGAF is for people who don't give a fuck, so there's this tautology. Where is this going? If you're not explicitly for the bloat fork, you are against it.
This is a fallacy. Person A doesn't give a fuck about the decision, as long as she can transfer money to her family in the other side of the world. If having a 20 MB block is the way to do it, or if sidechains are implemented at last, she doesn't care. She has NO OPINION on the matter. Whether you are explicitly or implicitly against the fork (IE anti or DGAF) is not logically nor functionally relevant.
While this is technically true, your assumption that people undecided are implicitly against the fork is wrong. In my legal analogy, it's like disputing the non-guilt of the accused just because the jury didn't explicitly vote innocent. You can't equate not-guilty votes with not-not-innocent; that's isn't how it works. Not-guilty verdicts are functionally equivalent to findings of innocent, but we don't ask for innocent verdicts because you can't prove a negative universal, existential negative.
If the jury votes neither guilty nor not guilty, then a verdict can't be made, because there's a “I don't know” in there, and the legal system requires the jury to have a definite answer. I don't know where you come up with this not-not-innocent nonsense. That's why Gavin is wrong to claim DGAF votes for the pro-fork side.
Again, Gavin didn't claim the votes. I did, just to illustrate the ridiculousness that you are trying to do. |
|
|
|
I think it would put us in danger because internet service providers will react if we bloat their network (internet is not only for Bitcoiners) I think they would end applying limits to upload and downloads for sure, and maybe apply QOS.
How many bytes do you think Visa and MasterCard use? I bet it's way more than 1 MB every 10 minutes, and you don't see them being blocked by ISPs (or maybe they do?) |
|
|
|
And you don't get to count the agnostic/DGAF votes as 'anti-anti-fork' as Gavin illogically did.
Gavin didn't. I did, but just to show how ridiculous it is to take them into account in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
They don't have access to passwords, but what about the password hashes? Why not just transfer the hashes to the new system?
|
|
|
|
I've never posted a porn picture.
Depending on who you ask, Peter Griffin licking his boob can be considered porn. |
|
|
|
Thank you for degrading the conversation with your sophomoric pedantry, which is easily mitigated by appeal to the comparably vast wisdom of Yahoo Answers: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110307170939AA7BPmyIt is short hand for a much more logical expression. Which is, "You cannot prove a universal, existential negative." In other words, you cannot prove that some hypothetical does not exist, anywhere in the universe, because that would require that you be able to look everywhere at the same moment. And, of course, if the hypothetical something, in question is claimed to be invisible and undetectable by any means, in principle, it gets even sillier to attempt to disprove that hypothetical's existence. But saying all that, over and over gets really tiring, so most people just shorten it to, "You cannot prove a negative." and go on to do something more productive with their time. You don't get to count agnostic/DGAF votes in the pro-fork column. They are functionally equivalent to anti votes, because all reject (whether actively or passively) Gavin's BloatCoin proposition, and thus affirm (implicitly or explicitly) status quo. This “You cannot prove a negative” thing, as you present it, is the basis of most religions, where there's a claim: “God exists”. You can't prove that God doesn't exist, because, as you say, you don't have information everywhere in the universe to analyze it and show that God is not there. However, if you base all your further work on the assumption that God does actually exist, anything you come up with will be just faith, with nobody being able to prove or disprove what you're claiming. Science doesn't work that way. Now, consider this analogy. People saying that they don't know or don't care about the 20 MB fork is comparable to asking people if they support transitioning to IPv6. Most people would answer “What is IPv6? I've never heard of it”, but that doesn't automatically turn them against IPv6. Why would it? I don't understand your reasoning here. I hope you never serve on a jury. The other jurors would have to put up with your idiotic claims that voting not-guilty affirms guilt, just because they didn't vote 'innocent.'
Wait, what? How do you reach that conclusion based on any of what I have been saying so far? |
|
|
|
What's stopping people from launching this fork already?
Why wait for the opinions of members of some "foundation"?
The code is not ready yet. Gavin is still testing it. |
|
|
|
People squashing Gavin's forward moving ideas. Oh dear, BTC showing early signs of death.
No signs of death here. Those who want to stay behind are more than welcome to. They claim that their 1MB chain will end up superior and yet they keep pleading page after page for us to stick around and not leave them behind. Doesn't sound like they have much confidence in their words. One way or another, the forward momentum will carry on. And twisting logic, such as claiming that people who voted agnostic/DGAF are automatically against the fork. |
|
|
|
Why not ?
Why would I obstruct development efforts that I believe would harm Bitcoin in the long run and invest resources for another fork to win if I wanted to Short? Which brings us back a few posts... to me... the said contracts would make sense only if I believed that these large businesses pushing for the increase would end back on the 1 MB chain. ...still might be missing something though... Let's assume the prices of bitcoin and gavincoin diverge because of the shorting and that you can sell one bitcoin for two gavincoins. If you support the original bitcoin you'll mine on the original chain. Now if you think gavincoin will prevail, it's still more profitable to mine on the original chain, because whatever you mine, it will ultimately yield two gavincoins for every original bitcoin you mine. And obviously, by doing so you're strengthening bitcoin at the expense of gavincoin. The value of a coin attracts mining, which in turns increases the value of this coin against the other. What you are missing it that if the fork is actually made, blocks compatible with the 20 MB fork only will come after 75% of the nodes have announced themselves that they will be ready for the fork. So, either this happens and it's more profitable to mine on the 20 MB chain, or this doesn't happen and nobody will be mining on the 20 MB chain. |
|
|
|
I spent last week talking to some of the largest Bitcoin businesses (much bigger than Paymium/Bitcoin-Central or anything anybody in #bitcoin-assets is involved with), and they all want the maximum block size to increase. If a big business wants something, regardless of what that business is, I tend to want the opposite. Then you are biased and not analyzing the proposals themselves. |
|
|
|
Presumption is negative. Burden of proof falls on the affirmative.
Why? Because if presumption was affirmative, we'd have to prove negatives to rebut it. And you can't prove a negative. QED.
Actually, what you can't do is prove that you can't prove a statement. But this is from Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem. I don't know how this is related to statistics. |
|
|
|
There is no "three-to-one" margin. You don't get to claim agnostic/DGAF as votes to affirm your silly fork, which actually only enjoys 60% support against the negative/status quo default presumption.
His math is correct though, if you have 60% X and 20% Y then you have a 3-to-1 ratio The math is correct, but it's 60% pro and 40% not-pro. So 3:2. Not remotely close to even rough, much less sipa's extremely wide, consensus. I don't know why you assume that agnostic/DGAF should be on the anti side. If I wanted, I could arrange the numbers this way: Anti: 20% Not-anti: 80% It makes as much sense as 60% vs 40%. That is, no sense at all. |
|
|
|
I have a TODO list you could help out with. Although the last time you agreed to help out, Dave, you didn't follow through on your promises (do you remember when you agreed to help with the testnet?).
Am I missing something?Showing 1 changed file with 3 additions and 3 deletions.
|
|
|
|
"I would sell all my Bitcoins if..."
For me the answer is never.
If BTC goes up a lot and makes me very rich, then I will certainly hold on to some part of it. If it falls and goes to 0, I will still hold on to it in the hope that it may recover rather than selling it for little.
No offense, but it seems it just the same as investing in "rocks" You'll never use them. Isn't gold a kind of rock? |
|
|
|
The time to sell is when you don't need to sell, you can buy anything with BTC at that point. Your BTC is just plain currency at this point.  We need to see how many yrs go by to make this happen. So, basically this:  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
