Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. [NooNooPol]

[tvbcof]

Cypherdoc added a new poll concerning the upcoming XT fork to his epic gold thread some time ago.  Since then a lot of information has come out and it seems that some people are getting cold feet about certain things and certain parties.

Unfortunately cypherdoc didn't see fit to make allow people to change their vote it seems.  I'm just curious to see how things look now.  Fire up them sock-puppets boys!

---

Update:  Cypherdoc changed his poll so I'll do likewise.  Standing as of Sat Jun 20 17:09:53 PDT 2015:

Question:    Will you support Gavin's recent block size hard fork proposal of 20MB by March 1, 2016?
yes    31 (66%)
no    16 (34%)

Total Voters: 47

Cypherdoc, true to totalitarian propagandist form, neglected again to make his poll updatable for those who finally wade through the deceit.

[1715058862]

1715058862

[1715058862]

1715058862

[1715058862]

1715058862

[1715058862]

1715058862

[Xialla]

voted for yes. I just believe him, maybe even more than I should..and chinese farms? ohh

Chief Coders: Implement the following draconian changes.
Miners: We no like, so we will fork.
Chief Coders: Your call! Implement, and we all win; Fork, and we all lose.
Miners: You're fuckin' lucky we're ONLY in this for the money, damning any ideals.
Chief Coders: Nice, miners. Here's a bone.

[TPTB_need_war]

Fire up them sock-puppets boys!

Did you set the poll to disallow votes from new members?

I don't see how any poll here can be valid when the "No" side doesn't have the motivation to pad the votes but "Yes" side is playing the "dumb masses are ours" card and will use every means to sway public (sheep) opinion. Remember sheep only see the ass of the other sheep in front of them and follow.

[TPTB_need_war]

I wish you had added an option for "support block size increase but only by consensus BIP". Many of the yes votes are conflated into that.

[tvbcof]

Fire up them sock-puppets boys!

Did you set the poll to disallow votes from new members?
...

Nope.  I didn't even notice it as an option, but I would not have configured it so even if I had.

[Adrian-x]

Bump

[tvbcof]

Bump

Thanks for saving me the effort.

[pereira4]

I would vote yes, but only if we had a guarantee that 1MB would be a real problem by march 2016, otherwise we would just be rushing things for no reason.

[Adrian-x]

Bump

Thanks for saving me the effort.

yes I'm also interested.

[hayabusa911]

And a Yes vote from me! My feet feel nice and toasty... Maybe it's my wool socks in June 

[Amph]

aren't we facing a 8MB now, even chinese would agree on this, so why we should not?

better to rise gradually i guess, then you can automatize it in the client, it was already mentioned

so i'm supporting the 8MB and not the 20

[tvbcof]

Bump for new poll question.

[Alley]

Poll seems biased.

[tvbcof]

Poll seems biased.

Ummm...no shit.

[TPTB_need_war]

Poll seems biased.

Ummm...no shit.

Frustration?

May I suggest a more accurate poll.

Do you support increasing the block size so that larger miners gain an advantage over smaller miners and which will cause relatively larger delays in confirmation for transactions when ever a smaller miner wins a block, especially impacting lower valued transactions which pay a lower transaction fee?

If the other side isn't going to explain all the issues, then why be 100% fair in the way you explain it. The truth is that both smaller and larger blocks will destroy low valued transactions unless centralization is achieved.

[tvbcof]

Poll seems biased.

Ummm...no shit.

Frustration?

Not really.  Mostly having fun.  Sure the phraseology is biased but it is also spot-on accurate.

May I suggest a more accurate poll.

Do you support increasing the block size so that larger miners gain an advantage over smaller miners and which will cause relatively larger delays in confirmation for transactions when ever a smaller miner wins a block, especially impacting lower valued transactions which pay a lower transaction fee?

If the other side isn't going to explain all the issues, then why be 100% fair in the way you explain it. The truth is that both smaller and larger blocks will destroy low valued transactions unless centralization is achieved.

Polls are easy to do.  Go for it.

In fact I don't care a lot about mining.  I care more about transfer nodes than mining.  Indeed, I don't even care that much about nodes specifically either.  A neuron in a biological specimen is not very important.  It's the interrelationship between them that is critical.  The neural net as it were.

Somehow when I first read up on Bitcoin I was under the mis-impression that transfer nodes would also be rewarded.  Not sure how I made that mistake, but I thought I remember finding it again when I looked in probably 2012.  Last I looked it was either completely memory-holed or it was always a figment of my imagination.  Had I not made this mistake I would not have taken the position I did and may have lost interest in Bitcoin completely...so it was a fortuitous mistake!

Probably a successful 'reserve currency' will need to put some focus on making the transmission network as robust as possible and absolutely through analysis and reward of it.  Any successful exchange currencies will probably be centralized which is fine (with me) as long as they have a very robust and decentralized backing store to ride on top of.  I don't think that Bitcoin actually will be able to develop a strong transmission network so Hearn's attempts to crash it are not completely unwelcome to me in some ways.  Some of the methods which will eventually be required to crash it will ultimately make it crystal why a high functioning 'neural net' is of critical importance.

edit: minor

[TPTB_need_war]

Actually the solution you desire to have 100% censorship-free transfer is the same solution that makes the TPS scale to any level.

Your mistake is thinking these are duals, whereas in fact they are the same network design. You just haven't seen that design yet.

Much will change...

...believe me your assumptions are wrong because you haven't seen what you can not see.

[tvbcof]

Actually the solution you desire to have 100% censorship-free transfer is the same solution that makes the TPS scale to any level.

Your mistake is thinking these are duals, whereas in fact they are the same network design. You just haven't seen that design yet.

Much will change...

...believe me your assumptions are wrong because you haven't seen what you can not see.

I'll be impressed if your solution can operate with less than 100% degradation under a situation where all global (and regional) internet infrastructure providers are highly incentivized to attack it to oblivion and do so with vigor.  A related assumption is that the U.S. NSA or a like replacement 'owns the net' and their analytical abilities of traffic down to the individual packet level are very high.

Your (or A) solution does not need to perform in such an extreme environment indefinitely but it must have a realistic potential to hold out for a period of years.

These threats are not at all far fetched to my way of thinking.  A solution which cannot deal with them is simply not very interesting of valuable to me.  If we don't see such an environment it means that mainstream solutions continue to work more or less as they do now, and to me they work just fine.  I'm interested in how to deal with a world in which they do not.

[TPTB_need_war]

I'll be impressed if your solution can operate with less than 100% degradation under a situation where all global (and regional) internet infrastructure providers are highly incentivized to attack it to oblivion and do so with vigor.  A related assumption is that the U.S. NSA or a like replacement 'owns the net' and their analytical abilities of traffic down to the individual packet level are very high.

Your (or A) solution does not need to perform in such an extreme environment indefinitely but it must have a realistic potential to hold out for a period of years.

These threats are not at all far fetched to my way of thinking.  A solution which cannot deal with them is simply not very interesting of valuable to me.  If we don't see such an environment it means that mainstream solutions continue to work more or less as they do now, and to me they work just fine.  I'm interested in how to deal with a world in which they do not.

If you assume that, then just stop now and shoot yourself. Game over. We will sink into a Dark Age and everything will be expropriated.

I assume mankind wants to fight when given the tools to do so.

The system the bastards rely on doesn't run without the knowledge capitalists. We run their system.

If even a few % of us start working on an ecosystem of solutions, they are toast.

They must obscure any takedown as DDoS or hackers, because if they simply filter data on the internet backbones, this will be a clear signal to the hackers that we've entered a war of totalitarianism. If they overtly declare war on hackerdom, they will lose and they know it.

So instead it will be proxy battle.

[tvbcof]

If you assume that, then just stop now and shoot yourself. Game over. We will sink into a Dark Age and everything will be expropriated.

I assume mankind wants to fight when given the tools to do so.

Bingo!

The system the bastards rely on doesn't run without the knowledge capitalists. We run their system.

If even a few % of us start working on an ecosystem of solutions, they are toast.

They must obscure any takedown as DDoS or hackers, because if they simply filter data on the internet backbones, this will be a clear signal to the hackers that we've entered a war of totalitarianism. If they overtly declare war on hackerdom, they will lose and they know it.

So instead it will be proxy battle.