BitProdigy (OP)
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 322
Merit: 115
We Are The New Wealthy Elite, Gentlemen
|
|
August 23, 2015, 03:22:07 AM Last edit: August 23, 2015, 04:05:43 AM by BitProdigy |
|
Andreas Antonopoulos : If you really believe that Mike Hearn and Gavin Andreson are wrong, then why are you worried? If they are wrong, then they are going to launch Bitcoin XT and no one is going to adopt it. And if you are worried that a lot of people are going to adopt it, then who the hell put you in charge to say no to all of these people? Maybe they should be adopting it. You can be a small-blockest, or you can be a large-blockest, but what you can't do is go against consensus. That will punish you with a one hundred percent loss of income… The whole point of consensus among the developers and consensus on a reference implementation is to lead to smoother hard forks and consensus in the network. But at the end of the day, none of it matters, the only thing that matters is consensus on the network, the runtime consensus of actuality over desire. And so, if you say that you cannot do hard forks that change the network consensus, what you are saying is that you are giving the developers the ultimate control and monopoly control over the reference implementation.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jqpKEHYGE0I agree with Antonopoulous, the only thing that matters is consensus. The only threat to bitcoin is those that threaten to split the network by going against consensus. Those who think that 75% of the network can be fooled, are the fools themselves. and those that say we cannot do hard forks are giving the core developers ultimate dictorial monopoly control over Bitcoin, the real hostile takeover.
|
|
|
|
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
|
|
August 23, 2015, 04:05:37 AM |
|
Andreas Antonopoulos : If you really believe that Mike Hearn and Gavin Andreson are wrong, then why are you worried? If they are wrong, then they are going to launch Bitcoin XT and no one is going to adopt it. And if you are worried that a lot of people are going to adopt it, then who the hell put you in charge to say no to all of these people? Maybe they should be adopting it. You can be a small-blockest, or you can be a large-blockest, but what you can't do is go against consensus. That will punish you with a one hundred percent loss of income… The whole point of consensus among the developers and consensus on a reference implementation is to lead to smoother hard forks and consensus in the network. But at the end of the day, none of it matters, the only thing that matters is consensus on the network, the runtime consensus of actuality over desire. And so, if you say that you cannot do hard forks that change the network consensus, what you are saying is that you are giving the developers the ultimate control and monopoly control over the reference implementation.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jqpKEHYGE0I agree with Antonopoulous, the only thing that matters is consensus. The only threat to bitcoin is those that threaten to split the network by going against consensus. Those who think that 75% of the network can be fooled, are the fools themselves. I didn't watch the video yet but the quote you referenced doesn't mention any fork. He is basically saying there's no threat at all to Bitcoin. You can only hurt yourself by stubbornly sticking with a fork that has no support.
|
|
|
|
BitProdigy (OP)
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 322
Merit: 115
We Are The New Wealthy Elite, Gentlemen
|
|
August 23, 2015, 04:16:14 AM |
|
I didn't watch the video yet but the quote you referenced doesn't mention any fork. He is basically saying there's no threat at all to Bitcoin. You can only hurt yourself by stubbornly sticking with a fork that has no support.
He seems to indicate that he has faith that the only way for XT to actually reach 75% consensus if it is truly the best solution. He has complete confidence in the consensus model and I am with him. I don't think 75% consensus will ever arrive at a solution that is bad for bitcoin. (this is also why I don't think XT will get 75% consensus, I am hoping for a block size increase on Core)
|
|
|
|
Delek
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 157
Merit: 103
Salí para ver
|
|
August 23, 2015, 04:40:52 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
Holliday
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1120
Merit: 1012
|
|
August 23, 2015, 06:52:11 AM |
|
What if there is no consensus? Does that mean a certain amount of people have to step in line or else? What if there is actual demand from actual users for both sides of a fork? Which group is supposed to give in so that we can achieve consensus?
I have been involved with Bitcoin for a long time now. I would consider myself a huge fan, and even a part time cheerleader. If the project moves in a direction I do not agree with, I have two options. Support a fork, or if I'm so alone in that support that the fork has no legs and fails, stop using Bitcoin altogether.
Which is best for the future of cryptocurrency? Someone moves to a different solution, keeping that solution viable for a possible future where other solutions have failed, or giving up on cryptocurrency entirely and putting my time and money into something I feel more worthwhile?
I support the freedom to choose, even if that means a fork for Bitcoin.
75% means 1 in 4 are dissatisfied with the decision. I'm using Bitcoin because I'm the 1 in 7000 (made up number to make a point) that is dissatisfied with the status quo. Consensus says just use fiat. No thanks.
|
If you aren't the sole controller of your private keys, you don't have any bitcoins.
|
|
|
glub0x
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 892
Merit: 1013
|
|
August 23, 2015, 07:12:01 AM |
|
75% means 1 in 4 are dissatisfied with the decision. I'm using Bitcoin because I'm the 1 in 7000 (made up number to make a point) that is dissatisfied with the status quo. Consensus says just use fiat. No thanks.
this! Consensus is 99,9%. The right word that should replace consensus in every topic here is "super majority" or something like that....
|
The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactionsSatoshi Nakamoto : https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
|
|
|
Kprawn
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1074
|
|
August 23, 2015, 07:55:57 AM |
|
Leave it open for debate for both sides to state their case and then leave it up to consensus to make the final decision. Let the two sides hash it out, until we find a clear winner. This is a integral part of Bitcoin and a natural process that has to play out for it to be successful. { A community decision } If you feel strongly about this, get more involved and start some nodes and hash it out. It was developed to have consensus at it's central... whatever side win this, has the consensus and we have to abide to that or move on to another Alt coin where consensus does not matter.
|
|
|
|
Carlton Banks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
|
|
August 23, 2015, 08:29:16 AM |
|
I understand that Hitler had a popular following too The difference being that the people that followed Hitler weren't just doing anything Hitler said because they'd been put in a tight position, the German people of the 1930's weren't being pressurised at all! They evaluated everything Hitler said and did on it's merit!
|
Vires in numeris
|
|
|
TransaDox
|
|
August 23, 2015, 08:46:35 AM |
|
He seems to indicate that he has faith that the only way for XT to actually reach 75% consensus if it is truly the best solution. He has complete confidence in the consensus model and I am with him. I don't think 75% consensus will ever arrive at a solution that is bad for bitcoin. (this is also why I don't think XT will get 75% consensus, I am hoping for a block size increase on Core)
Dress it up any way you like. It is a 51% attack and this is how you do it - not with huge investments in hardware of your own to out hash the existing network. But with propaganda and your own client to sway existing miners. It needs to happen if only to wake up developers that are in denial that it is actually possible. It reminds me of that XKCD cartoon,
|
|
|
|
NorrisK
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1007
|
|
August 23, 2015, 08:50:58 AM |
|
75% means 1 in 4 are dissatisfied with the decision. I'm using Bitcoin because I'm the 1 in 7000 (made up number to make a point) that is dissatisfied with the status quo. Consensus says just use fiat. No thanks.
this! Consensus is 99,9%. The right word that should replace consensus in every topic here is "super majority" or something like that.... A unanimous decision over something like this is a utopic view. This will never happen due to projects people are associated with and just the general ego of humans.
|
|
|
|
glub0x
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 892
Merit: 1013
|
|
August 23, 2015, 09:03:51 AM |
|
A unanimous decision over something like this is a utopic view. This will never happen due to projects people are associated with and just the general ego of humans.
I agree But why everybody uses the word consensus? Is it so hard to say majority of 75% or super majority or whatever? Consensus over this block thing will never happen and saying there is one when 25% disagree sound very unpleasant to me.
|
The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactionsSatoshi Nakamoto : https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
|
|
|
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
|
|
August 23, 2015, 12:42:06 PM |
|
What if there is no consensus? Does that mean a certain amount of people have to step in line or else? What if there is actual demand from actual users for both sides of a fork? Which group is supposed to give in so that we can achieve consensus?
I have been involved with Bitcoin for a long time now. I would consider myself a huge fan, and even a part time cheerleader. If the project moves in a direction I do not agree with, I have two options. Support a fork, or if I'm so alone in that support that the fork has no legs and fails, stop using Bitcoin altogether.
Which is best for the future of cryptocurrency? Someone moves to a different solution, keeping that solution viable for a possible future where other solutions have failed, or giving up on cryptocurrency entirely and putting my time and money into something I feel more worthwhile?
I support the freedom to choose, even if that means a fork for Bitcoin.
75% means 1 in 4 are dissatisfied with the decision. I'm using Bitcoin because I'm the 1 in 7000 (made up number to make a point) that is dissatisfied with the status quo. Consensus says just use fiat. No thanks.
seems that a real split is possible. The next battle would be which one gets to call itself Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
Mickeyb
|
|
August 23, 2015, 01:45:17 PM |
|
Everybody should watch an interview, it's a really good one like most of his stuff!
He pretty much calls for calming of the situation. He thinks that Bitcoin dynamics will take care of the problem and that in order to scale in the future, we will need all of the solutions. Bigger block size, lightning network, higher fees and all the rest.
He also brings interesting observation, that nobody's right and that we won't know who is right until we don't try the solutions. According to him, even Satoshi might have been wrong in many occasions in the past.
|
|
|
|
hdbuck
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
|
|
August 23, 2015, 01:49:51 PM |
|
antonopoulus is a scumbag and he will bur in hell.
also...
Two known CIA/NSA assets infiltrated in the Bitcoin community - Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn - have joined forces to push a hastily concocted privacy nightmare/scamcoin, which they call Bitcoin-XT.
It is currently completely irrelevant, owing to an absolute lack of financial, economical, technical or social support.
|
|
|
|
Muhammed Zakir
|
|
August 23, 2015, 02:04:43 PM |
|
-snip- [ color=red][ u][ b]Two known CIA/NSA assets infiltrated in the Bitcoin community - Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn - have joined forces to push a hastily concocted privacy nightmare/scamcoin, which they call Bitcoin-XT.
How is Gavin and Hearn a known CIA or NSA asset? [ size=18pt]It is currently completely irrelevant, owing to an absolute lack of financial, economical, technical or social support. [ /size][ /b][ /u][ /color]
|
|
|
|
|
Carlton Banks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
|
|
August 23, 2015, 02:21:23 PM Last edit: August 23, 2015, 02:47:42 PM by Carlton Banks |
|
How is Gavin and Hearn a known CIA or NSA asset? It's not. It usually never is. There are various ways of making an informed guess, but of those candidates that display the most suspicious characteristics, there is frequently no death bed confession or suchlike. They're often killed or imprisoned for life under suspicious circumstances before they ever get a chance to do so (Lee Harvey Oswald being a possible exception, the "I'm just a patsy" line simultaneously served as a confession of his role, not just a denial of culpability). I suspect that Hearn and Andresen are working with "five eyes" people, as there are good grounds to do so. There is zero evidence to support it at present.
|
Vires in numeris
|
|
|
Muhammed Zakir
|
|
August 23, 2015, 02:27:47 PM |
|
Answer this -- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1158259.msg12219558#msg12219558. Edit: It's not.
It usually never is. There are various ways of making an informed guess, but of those candidates that display the most suspicious characteristics, there is frequently no death bed confession or suchlike. They're often killed or imprisoned for life under suspicious circumstances before they ever get a chance to do so (Lee Harvey Oswald being a possible exception, the "I'm just a patsy" line simultaneously served as a confession of his role, not just a denial of culpability).
I suspect that Hearn and Anresen are working with "five eyes" people, as there are good grounds to do so. There is zero evidence to support it at present.
Look at hdbuck's evidence. According to him, giving a talk to CIA makes one an asset of CIA.
|
|
|
|
1K
Member
Offline
Activity: 64
Merit: 10
|
|
August 23, 2015, 02:30:36 PM |
|
Andreas Antonopoulos : If you really believe that Mike Hearn and Gavin Andreson are wrong, then why are you worried? If they are wrong, then they are going to launch Bitcoin XT and no one is going to adopt it. And if you are worried that a lot of people are going to adopt it, then who the hell put you in charge to say no to all of these people? Maybe they should be adopting it.
I also agree with him here, but I still think Hearn and Andreson have turned into dicks.
|
|
|
|
Carlton Banks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
|
|
August 23, 2015, 02:49:36 PM |
|
Look at hdbuck's evidence. According to him, giving a talk to CIA makes one an asset of CIA. It is suspicious that they invited Gavin. They could have invited someone who would talk about how evil bitcoin is, but they didn't. It's not evidence at all.
|
Vires in numeris
|
|
|
|