Why Gavin is so desperate about his fork? Is he hiding something?

[iCEBREAKER]

It is pretty simple. Go to wikipedia and search the corresponding article.

Yes, Wikipedia, the indisputable bearer of scientific truth 

As if Wikipedia has any ability to refute the voluminous primary evidence of corruption of science disclosed by the heroic Climategate whistleblower.

As if there is a good explanation for an array called "fudge factor" in code comments which distorts given inputs into a hockey stick.

SebastianJu lacks basic literacy in science (IE fails to understand why you don't change max_blocksize control variable in the middle of Bitcoin's experiment with fee markets, and fails to understand why it is invalid to manipulate climate data until it fits predetermined politicized ManBearPig hypothesis).

He belongs to the pre-Enlightenment world of magical thinking, where his bigger block fetish can work miracles of scaling Bitcoin and the Climate Gods punish wicked mankind for the sins of industrialization.   

Sebastian, go back to your cave you ignorant superstitious caveman.  Or go back to swinging in trees and eating bananas if caves and fire are too much technological progress for your delicate feelings to cope with.   

[1715113821]

1715113821

[1715113821]

1715113821

[SebastianJu]

But even so, wikipedia is a try to decentralize knowledge. If you don't want to use that (Wikipedia) you have to trust other parties, like government or whatever.

That is just about the most stupid thing I've read on this board this month. Congrats.

*lol* So you add a word to my sentence and make it another sentence only so that you can claim that it is now a stupid sentence. Congrats back to you then.

What i meant is that you either trust a decentralized approach of collecting of knowledge or a centralized one like governments, companies or whatever.

[Carlton Banks]

But even so, wikipedia is a try to decentralize knowledge. If you don't want to use that (Wikipedia) you have to trust other parties, like government or whatever.

That is just about the most stupid thing I've read on this board this month. Congrats.

*lol* So you add a word to my sentence and make it another sentence only so that you can claim that it is now a stupid sentence. Congrats back to you then.

What i meant is that you either trust a decentralized approach of collecting of knowledge or a centralized one like governments, companies or whatever.

I think it was more the part where you suggested that trusting government information was a useful alternative to trusting Wikipedia. I can see how you are the sort of person that trusts government information and Wikipedia.


No surprise, then, that you've sided with the corporate/government bootlicking contingent. Team Cypherpunk FTW, I'm afraid, this is the 21st century.

[SebastianJu]

It is pretty simple. Go to wikipedia and search the corresponding article.

Yes, Wikipedia, the indisputable bearer of scientific truth 

As if Wikipedia has any ability to refute the voluminous primary evidence of corruption of science disclosed by the heroic Climategate whistleblower.

As if there is a good explanation for an array called "fudge factor" in code comments which distorts given inputs into a hockey stick.

SebastianJu lacks basic literacy in science (IE fails to understand why you don't change max_blocksize control variable in the middle of Bitcoin's experiment with fee markets, and fails to understand why it is invalid to manipulate climate data until it fits predetermined politicized ManBearPig hypothesis).

He belongs to the pre-Enlightenment world of magical thinking, where his bigger block fetish can work miracles of scaling Bitcoin and the Climate Gods punish wicked mankind for the sins of industrialization.   

Sebastian, go back to your cave you ignorant superstitious caveman.  Or go back to swinging in trees and eating bananas if caves and fire are too much technological progress for your delicate feelings to cope with.   

Well, at this point it sounds stupid to repeat myself. You claim again and again that the max blocksize limit is part of a scientific experiment. Only because it is one for you doesn't mean that it was intended as one. In fact there is no hint at all that it was meant that way. You circumvent that fact by repeating your opinion that this is a scientific test. Sorry, but on that base discussion can't take place. It would be a waste of time with forseeable result... which would be none.

I agree with you, IF this would have been a scientific experiment then you would be fully right. But it isn't and was never. And even when you and a couple of other people believe so, it doesn't change that fact.

I know about these manipulation accusations. The thing is everyone can see that things change already. Yes yes, i know, it's the sun or some natural rhythms... ah... i'm tired of this. I suggested wikipedia because one can easily see at least the common answers to all these claims of falsification and so on.

*lol* At the end you made me laugh again. Ignorant caveman. Well, i think i don't need to explain to yourself what it means when someone, in a discussion, turns to personal attacks instead answering with facts only. Though i like your colorful fantasy, so i prefer to take it with humour.

[brg444]

But even so, wikipedia is a try to decentralize knowledge. If you don't want to use that (Wikipedia) you have to trust other parties, like government or whatever.

That is just about the most stupid thing I've read on this board this month. Congrats.

*lol* So you add a word to my sentence and make it another sentence only so that you can claim that it is now a stupid sentence. Congrats back to you then.

What i meant is that you either trust a decentralized approach of collecting of knowledge or a centralized one like governments, companies or whatever.

This obsession you people have with sticking buzzwords to your statements absent of any relation whatsoever with its content...

Wikipedia, while open-source in theory, is obviously not "decentralized".

Speaking of Wikipedia, this article might be relevant to you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify

[brg444]

But even so, wikipedia is a try to decentralize knowledge. If you don't want to use that (Wikipedia) you have to trust other parties, like government or whatever.

That is just about the most stupid thing I've read on this board this month. Congrats.

*lol* So you add a word to my sentence and make it another sentence only so that you can claim that it is now a stupid sentence. Congrats back to you then.

What i meant is that you either trust a decentralized approach of collecting of knowledge or a centralized one like governments, companies or whatever.

I think it was more the part where you suggested that trusting government information was a useful alternative to trusting Wikipedia. I can see how you are the sort of person that trusts government information and Wikipedia.

Yes. Maybe a Wikipedia article can help him? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

[SebastianJu]

But even so, wikipedia is a try to decentralize knowledge. If you don't want to use that (Wikipedia) you have to trust other parties, like government or whatever.

That is just about the most stupid thing I've read on this board this month. Congrats.

*lol* So you add a word to my sentence and make it another sentence only so that you can claim that it is now a stupid sentence. Congrats back to you then.

What i meant is that you either trust a decentralized approach of collecting of knowledge or a centralized one like governments, companies or whatever.

I think it was more the part where you suggested that trusting government information was a useful alternative to trusting Wikipedia. I can see how you are the sort of person that trusts government information and Wikipedia.


No surprise, then, that you've sided with the corporate/government bootlicking contingent. Team Cypherpunk FTW, I'm afraid, this is the 21st century.

Um, were exactly did you read that from? I did not write that. brg claimed that wikipedia is unreliable and i answered that wikipedia is the equivalent of a decentralized approach of collecting knowledge. If someone doesn't want to use that then he has to trust centralized approaches of knowledge providing. Where you read from that i would prefer the latter sounds a bit strange. I mean you realize that i suggested wikipedia, right?

And it's funny that you claim i side with corporations. Which would that be then? The bitcoin-xt corporation? I never supported it beside the need of bigger blocks. Or are you of the false impression that iam a fan of blockstream maybe? I can assure you that is not the case, be at ease.

[SebastianJu]

But even so, wikipedia is a try to decentralize knowledge. If you don't want to use that (Wikipedia) you have to trust other parties, like government or whatever.

That is just about the most stupid thing I've read on this board this month. Congrats.

*lol* So you add a word to my sentence and make it another sentence only so that you can claim that it is now a stupid sentence. Congrats back to you then.

What i meant is that you either trust a decentralized approach of collecting of knowledge or a centralized one like governments, companies or whatever.

This obsession you people have with sticking buzzwords to your statements absent of any relation whatsoever with its content...

Wikipedia, while open-source in theory, is obviously not "decentralized".

Speaking of Wikipedia, this article might be relevant to you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify

Wikipedia is the try to let everyone take part in collecting and providing knowledge. It's not a company or so that provides it. So wikipedia is obviously way more decentralized then other forms of knowledge providing. I did not state that it is perfect, it is not. But they tried to go in that direction.

[brg444]

Um, were exactly did you read that from? I did not write that. brg claimed that wikipedia is unreliable and i answered that wikipedia is the equivalent of a decentralized approach of collecting knowledge. If someone doesn't want to use that then he has to trust centralized approaches of knowledge providing. Where you read from that i would prefer the latter sounds a bit strange. I mean you realize that i suggested wikipedia, right?

And it's funny that you claim i side with corporations. Which would that be then? The bitcoin-xt corporation? I never supported it beside the need of bigger blocks. Or are you of the false impression that iam a fan of blockstream maybe? I can assure you that is not the case, be at ease.

Seriously...you need to stop with this decentralized vs. centralized nonsense.

So if I don't trust Wikipedia to provide me with their cherry-picked presentation of facts then that means I'm stuck...... reading a book? actual scientific research? use common sense or my own judgment?

To hell with that! Why go to such effort right...? Let's just defer to Wikipedia, they seem to have gathered "consensus".  

[Carlton Banks]

But even so, wikipedia is a try to decentralize knowledge. If you don't want to use that (Wikipedia) you have to trust other parties, like government or whatever.

That is just about the most stupid thing I've read on this board this month. Congrats.

*lol* So you add a word to my sentence and make it another sentence only so that you can claim that it is now a stupid sentence. Congrats back to you then.

What i meant is that you either trust a decentralized approach of collecting of knowledge or a centralized one like governments, companies or whatever.

I think it was more the part where you suggested that trusting government information was a useful alternative to trusting Wikipedia. I can see how you are the sort of person that trusts government information and Wikipedia.


No surprise, then, that you've sided with the corporate/government bootlicking contingent. Team Cypherpunk FTW, I'm afraid, this is the 21st century.

Um, were exactly did you read that from?

In your post. The one I'm replying to. It's the post two before your last, on this page. You wrote it. In English. Presumably with your keyboard. It's up there ^^^

And it's funny that you claim i side with corporations. Which would that be then? The bitcoin-xt corporation? I never supported it beside the need of bigger blocks. Or are you of the false impression that iam a fan of blockstream maybe? I can assure you that is not the case, be at ease.

No, that would be the Goldman Sachs banking corporation, Accenture investment, Accel Partners etc etc. Who were all glove-puppeting Circle, Coinbase, Bitpay et al who were promoting BIP101. So you were/are supporting their startups.

Those corporations. So keep talking.

[mayax]

But even so, wikipedia is a try to decentralize knowledge. If you don't want to use that (Wikipedia) you have to trust other parties, like government or whatever.

That is just about the most stupid thing I've read on this board this month. Congrats.

*lol* So you add a word to my sentence and make it another sentence only so that you can claim that it is now a stupid sentence. Congrats back to you then.

What i meant is that you either trust a decentralized approach of collecting of knowledge or a centralized one like governments, companies or whatever.

I think it was more the part where you suggested that trusting government information was a useful alternative to trusting Wikipedia. I can see how you are the sort of person that trusts government information and Wikipedia.


No surprise, then, that you've sided with the corporate/government bootlicking contingent. Team Cypherpunk FTW, I'm afraid, this is the 21st century.

Um, were exactly did you read that from?

In your post. The one I'm replying to. It's the post two before your last, on this page. You wrote it. In English. Presumably with your keyboard. It's up there ^^^

And it's funny that you claim i side with corporations. Which would that be then? The bitcoin-xt corporation? I never supported it beside the need of bigger blocks. Or are you of the false impression that iam a fan of blockstream maybe? I can assure you that is not the case, be at ease.

No, that would be the Goldman Sachs banking corporation, Accenture investment, Accel Partners etc etc. Who were all glove-puppeting Circle, Coinbase, Bitpay et al who were promoting BIP101. So you were/are supporting their startups.

Those corporations. So keep talking.

great point! I said the same a year ago and nobody believes that

BTC is already centralized. All the BIG exchangers and big BTC media websites are owned by the SAME shareholders! Check yourself.
Coinbase, Bitstamp, BTC China, OKcoin,Bitfinex, Coindesk(media) and few others are back by the same people.

There are so MANY blinded people on this forum.

Nothing is without control. It appears to be so but it is not

[hdbuck]

But even so, wikipedia is a try to decentralize knowledge. If you don't want to use that (Wikipedia) you have to trust other parties, like government or whatever.

That is just about the most stupid thing I've read on this board this month. Congrats.

*lol* So you add a word to my sentence and make it another sentence only so that you can claim that it is now a stupid sentence. Congrats back to you then.

What i meant is that you either trust a decentralized approach of collecting of knowledge or a centralized one like governments, companies or whatever.

I think it was more the part where you suggested that trusting government information was a useful alternative to trusting Wikipedia. I can see how you are the sort of person that trusts government information and Wikipedia.


No surprise, then, that you've sided with the corporate/government bootlicking contingent. Team Cypherpunk FTW, I'm afraid, this is the 21st century.

Um, were exactly did you read that from?

In your post. The one I'm replying to. It's the post two before your last, on this page. You wrote it. In English. Presumably with your keyboard. It's up there ^^^

And it's funny that you claim i side with corporations. Which would that be then? The bitcoin-xt corporation? I never supported it beside the need of bigger blocks. Or are you of the false impression that iam a fan of blockstream maybe? I can assure you that is not the case, be at ease.

No, that would be the Goldman Sachs banking corporation, Accenture investment, Accel Partners etc etc. Who were all glove-puppeting Circle, Coinbase, Bitpay et al who were promoting BIP101. So you were/are supporting their startups.

Those corporations. So keep talking.

great point! I said the same a year ago and nobody believes that

BTC is already centralized. All the BIG exchangers and big BTC media websites are owned by the SAME shareholders! Check yourself.
Coinbase, Bitstamp, BTC China, OKcoin,Bitfinex, Coindesk(media) and few others are back by the same people.

There are so MANY blinded people on this forum.

Nothing is without control. It appears to be so but it is not

Yup: http://dcg.co/network/

[Zarathustra]

It is bad science to prematurely change a control variable like block size before gathering all relevant data (EG what happens when blocks are always full and fee backpressure ensues).

Changing the block size before we know how Bitcoin reacts to full blocks and fee backpressure is as foolish and wasteful as changing (absent a justifying external crisis) the 21e6 emission limit, the 10 minute block target, or the SHA256 proof of work.

Sure... and it is bad science to try to protect the earth from climate change. Because let's first look if we maybe like the climate change.

It's bad science and bad economics to try to protect the earth from "climate change."

You are afraid of ManBearPig, and thus obviously scientifically illiterate, so of course you think changing a control variable in the middle of an experiment is a good idea.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/

Oh right... a climate denier... well i should have awaited. It matches you. And the people moving from places they know will be under water in some years surely can understand you fully. I mean it's not as if the results already can be seen. Well, i won't discuss that. I already lost enough time to discuss that topic with smart guys that follow corporation advertising for cheaper production costs.

The block size limit was never a control variable as it would be in a scientific experiment. It's completely hilarious that you lift that limit in that level. It was always only a precaution against spam. And you now come here and claim it was a long planned scientific experiment for a fee market. *rofl*

"Denier?"

You mean like a holocaust denier?  What a nice cowardly way to commit Godwin-by-proxy.

In science, denial (aka skepticism) is the default position, as the burden of proof is on the hypothesis being tested.

By not understanding that simple concept, you once again demonstrate what scientific illiteracy looks like.

Did you even read the linked Climategate: Why it Matters article?

I guess since your mind is already made up, you don't care the data was massaged and the model literally used a "fudge factor" designed to produce a hockey stick output no matter the inputs.

I've on top of the warming/climate (and related Malthus) controversy for longer than you've been alive; I can stomp you into the ground in any fact-based debate.  No wonder your only available option is to close your mind and say 'Shut up you Nazi, ManBearPig is totally cereal!"

You know nothing about economics, the scientific method, or software engineering.  In other words, you are the perfect candidate to be a useful idiot for Mikey and his puppet masters at Team Goldman.

I like your way of communication. You give me every time a laugh when i read how you attach something to what i said so that it sounds like i wrote something indecent. For example... you making me making misusing the holocaust. Great idea though a little bit inappropriate i think. Well, i forgive you since it shows that you think you can't solve the conversation on a factual level.

Which hypothesis? Only because you claim the blocksize limit was implemented for checking out a hypothesis does not make your statement true. In fact it is utterly wrong. So you can come up with that argument all the time, it doesn't change the fact that you made that argument up. The blocksize limit never was implemented to test a fee market.

Well, i know all these "arguments" against a climate change happening. It is pretty simple. Go to wikipedia and search the corresponding article. Pretty much every of these nonsense claims are dissected there. Well, some people seem to want to believe what they want to believe. Maybe it feels better to "know" that you are part of a small group that really knows what is going on.

Shut up you Nazi... *rofl* you know, i can't get myself to being angry at you with having to laugh so much.

What can we expect from the Front National? Ad hominem and science fiction. That's all.

Nassim Taleb:

Climate Change.

I am hyper-conservative ecologically (meaning super-Green). My position on the climate is to avoid releasing pollutants in the atmosphere, on the basis of ignorance, regardless of current expert opinion.
.............

We have polluted for years, causing much damage to the environment, while the scientists currently making these complicated forecasting models were not sticking their necks out and trying to stop us from building these risks (they resemble those "risk experts" in the economic domain who fight the previous war) --these are the ones now trying to impose the solutions on us. But the skepticism about models that I propose does not lead to the same conclusions as the ones endorsed by anti-environmentalists, pro-market fundamentalists, quite the contrary: we need to be hyper-conservationists ecologically, super-Green, since we do not know what we are harming with now. That's the sound policy under ignorance and epistemic opacity. To those who say "we have no proof that we are harming nature", a sound response is "we have no proof that we are not harming nature either" --the burden of the proof is not on the ecological conservationist, but on someone disrupting an old system.

http://www.blackswanreport.com/blog/2010/01/opacity-3/

[Carlton Banks]

What can we expect from the Front National? Ad hominem and science fiction. That's all.

Nassim Taleb:

Climate Change.

I am hyper-conservative ecologically (meaning super-Green). My position on the climate is to avoid releasing pollutants in the atmosphere, on the basis of ignorance, regardless of current expert opinion.
.............

We have polluted for years, causing much damage to the environment, while the scientists currently making these complicated forecasting models were not sticking their necks out and trying to stop us from building these risks (they resemble those "risk experts" in the economic domain who fight the previous war) --these are the ones now trying to impose the solutions on us. But the skepticism about models that I propose does not lead to the same conclusions as the ones endorsed by anti-environmentalists, pro-market fundamentalists, quite the contrary: we need to be hyper-conservationists ecologically, super-Green, since we do not know what we are harming with now. That's the sound policy under ignorance and epistemic opacity. To those who say "we have no proof that we are harming nature", a sound response is "we have no proof that we are not harming nature either" --the burden of the proof is not on the ecological conservationist, but on someone disrupting an old system.

http://www.blackswanreport.com/blog/2010/01/opacity-3/

But Zara, Taleb is saying that he doesn't believe the climate scientist global warming alarmist nonsense. But, simultaneously, he is also saying that releasing fewer waste exhausts into the atmosphere is a good idea anyway, despite global climate change being bunk. Did you actually read your enlightened come-back quip before you posted it, or did you just search for "superior climate change opinions". 

[Zarathustra]

What can we expect from the Front National? Ad hominem and science fiction. That's all.

Nassim Taleb:

Climate Change.

I am hyper-conservative ecologically (meaning super-Green). My position on the climate is to avoid releasing pollutants in the atmosphere, on the basis of ignorance, regardless of current expert opinion.
.............

We have polluted for years, causing much damage to the environment, while the scientists currently making these complicated forecasting models were not sticking their necks out and trying to stop us from building these risks (they resemble those "risk experts" in the economic domain who fight the previous war) --these are the ones now trying to impose the solutions on us. But the skepticism about models that I propose does not lead to the same conclusions as the ones endorsed by anti-environmentalists, pro-market fundamentalists, quite the contrary: we need to be hyper-conservationists ecologically, super-Green, since we do not know what we are harming with now. That's the sound policy under ignorance and epistemic opacity. To those who say "we have no proof that we are harming nature", a sound response is "we have no proof that we are not harming nature either" --the burden of the proof is not on the ecological conservationist, but on someone disrupting an old system.

http://www.blackswanreport.com/blog/2010/01/opacity-3/

But Zara, Taleb is saying that he doesn't believe the climate scientist global warming alarmist nonsense. But, simultaneously, he is also saying that releasing fewer waste exhausts into the atmosphere is a good idea anyway, despite global climate change being bunk. Did you actually read your enlightened come-back quip before you posted it, or did you just search for "superior climate change opinions". 

No, what he is saying is not the same as what you want him saying.

[Carlton Banks]

Well, people  that actually can read/comprehend what Taleb said may disagree with you. I fully subscribe to the Taleb view of environmental pollution: a plague on both your houses.


The is the usual unimaginative irony from you Zara: like all inexperienced debaters, your only recourse when you know you cannot rebut your adversary's claim, is simply to turn the claim back on the adversary. And it doesn't seem to matter to you how implausible that is!

i.e. "that's not me that's you. You're that, not me"

This is how very young children/teenagers handle unresolved arguments, not mature adults.   

[Zarathustra]

Well, people  that actually can read/comprehend what Taleb said may disagree with you. I fully subscribe to the Taleb view of environmental pollution: a plague on both your houses.


The is the usual unimaginative irony from you Zara: like all inexperienced debaters, your only recourse when you know you cannot rebut your adversary's claim, is simply to turn the claim back on the adversary. And it doesn't seem to matter to you how implausible that is!

i.e. "that's not me that's you. You're that, not me"

This is how very young children/teenagers handle unresolved arguments, not mature adults.  

Ad hominem again. But it's pretty clear that you've been lying again. He doesn't say global climate change being bunk. He essentially says that we do not know how the old system will be disrupted, since it is not possible to model it exactly.

To claim that the climate of the athmosphere won't change when we change its components, is the greatest Bullshit ever. That's something for the truthers, the cheerleaders of the Front National and alikes.

[Carlton Banks]

Ad hominem again.

Except that my assessment of how you conduct your arguments just so happens to be true.

But it's pretty clear that you've been lying again. He doesn't say global climate change being bunk. He essentially says that we do not know how the old system will be disrupted, since it is not possible to model it exactly.

To claim that the climate of the athmosphere won't change when we change its components, is the greatest Bullshit ever. That's something for the truthers, the cheerleaders of the Front National and alikes.

Who made that claim? Not me. Taleb says the arguments of both sides are bunk, that was his point. And so what your point is supposed to be, who knows?

You're so desperate to pick holes where none exist, try improving the water-fast properties of your own arguments to begin with, it's a necessary pre-condition to being able to take part meaningfully.

[Zarathustra]

Ad hominem again.

Except that my assessment of how you conduct your arguments just so happens to be true.

But it's pretty clear that you've been lying again. He doesn't say global climate change being bunk. He essentially says that we do not know how the old system will be disrupted, since it is not possible to model it exactly.

To claim that the climate of the athmosphere won't change when we change its components, is the greatest Bullshit ever. That's something for the truthers, the cheerleaders of the Front National and alikes.

Who made that claim? Not me. Taleb says the arguments of both sides are bunk, that was his point. And so what your point is supposed to be, who knows?

You claim that he is also saying that releasing fewer waste exhausts into the atmosphere is a good idea anyway, despite global climate change being bunk.

That's an outright lie. Taleb would never say global climate change being bunk. He is not an idiot.

[Carlton Banks]

That's an outright lie. Taleb would never say global climate change being bunk. He is not an idiot.

No it isn't, I was paraphrasing. "Bunk" is an exaggeration, he said something closer to "unknowable".

Exaggerating what Taleb said is a little different to "all neo-serfs must bow to the solar-shielding/carbon-credit overlords", which is presumably an exaggeration of your point of view?