Zarathustra
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004
|
 |
September 15, 2015, 01:49:57 PM |
|
LaudaM against LaudaM:
"Yet with a flawed paper you've managed to gather a group of 'followers' around here."
"Honestly I do not have time to asses your paper, nor am I that interested in it (in general)."
Makes not much sense to discuss with people like that.
Anything else you would like to add to this personal attack? I didn't review his paper, others did. I never said that I would not discuss it based on the opinions/reviews of others. With (in general) I mean papers related to the fee market. I do not have time to read that. If you are not going to contribute properly, do not contribute at all. Anyone who does this next will be permanently ignored as well. I shall not waste my time with such people. Instead of "Peter Todd is wrong because of XXX" you go for "let's attack Lauda because of XYZ". This bring us back to: The level of hostile emotional appeal and logical fallacy in this thread is astounding.
Update: The said user was put on ignore because of zero value posts, attacks and trolling. The zero value posts of the sad user LaudaM: "Yet with a flawed paper you've managed to gather a group of 'followers' around here." "Honestly I do not have time to asses your paper, nor am I that interested in it (in general)." |
|
|
|
|
knight22
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
--------------->¿?
|
|
September 15, 2015, 01:59:09 PM |
|
What's retarded is your comparison. Ferrari are not meant to be cheap. They are meant for the rich people market. Also, if Ferrari were nodes, there would be far enough to keep the network secure and decentralized  |
|
|
|
|
brg444
|
|
September 15, 2015, 02:03:35 PM |
|
What's retarded is your comparison. Ferrari are not meant to be cheap. They are meant for the rich people market. Also, if Ferrari were nodes, there would be far enough to keep the network secure and decentralized Computing resources and bandwidth are not "meant to be cheap" either, especially if your plan is to support all of the world's transactions. Take a hike you clown, no one here takes you seriously. |
"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
|
|
|
|
BNO
|
|
September 15, 2015, 02:09:08 PM
Last edit: September 15, 2015, 02:27:29 PM by BNO |
|
The problem with Peter's paper is quite simple: it ignores reality. It is quite representative of traditional economist failures trying to paint real world issues in a vacuum relying on a bunch of spherical cows. btg444 I'm very much of the opposite opinion of pretty much everything you posted in the last Week or so. In this case also: I found Peters presentation pretty thought provoking. One NEEDS to undestand that this is at first a hypothesis which needs to be empirically tested, but its actually marvelous to try to develop models and maybe later test them instead of just screaming "centralization" and we all go under.... EDIT: and P.S. i find your way how you conduct yourself in this forum pretty annoying. Just because theymos gave you 1 free ticket to the "Show" (vor which no one else applied) doesn't at all mean you are somewhat of larger importance. After theymos gave you the ticket, how conducted yourself in the forum, i felt ashamed what a poor low life your are that is now feeling so important and you would be totally O.K. with censoring peoples opinions. You are beeing really aggressive to people that have a different opinion, putting people all the time in boxes, and fostering a hostile atmosphere. You scream a lot "liar, liar" and in the end it turns out you didn't understand something right... And your thoughts about that the blockchain belongs to the 1% and the rest can go cry as much as they want i found pretty disgusting to be honest. That is totally not the spirit of bitcoin maybe you can join Fox news with your attitude... you would fit in there... |
The thinking that has led us to this point will not lead beyond - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
brg444
|
|
September 15, 2015, 02:31:58 PM |
|
The problem with Peter's paper is quite simple: it ignores reality. It is quite representative of traditional economist failures trying to paint real world issues in a vacuum relying on a bunch of spherical cows. btg444 I'm very much of the opposite opinion of pretty much everything you posted in the last Week or so. In this case also: I found Peters presentation pretty thought provoking. One NEEDS to undestand that this is at first a hypothesis which needs to be empirically tested, but its actually marvelous to try to develop models and maybe later test them instead of just screaming "centralization" and we all go under.... EDIT: and P.S. i find your way how you conduct yourself in this forum pretty annoying. Just because theymos gave you 1 free ticket to the "Show" (vor which no one else applied) doesn't at all mean you are somewhat of larger importance. After theymos gave you the ticket, how conducted yourself in the forum, i felt ashamed what a poor low life your are that is now feeling so important and you would be totally O.K. with censoring peoples opinions. You are beeing really aggressive to people that have a different opinion, putting people all the time in boxes, and fostering a hostile atmosphere. You scream a lot "liar, liar" and in the end it turns out you didn't understand something right... And your thoughts about that the blockchain belongs to the 1% and the rest can go cry as much as they want i found pretty disgusting to be honest. That is totally not the spirit of bitcoin maybe you can join Fox news with your attitude... you would fit in there... Models need to be based on real world dynamics. Yours and Peter's ignore those therefore they are of little use to help use make decisions going forward. As for the rest of your post: I couldn't care less |
"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
|
|
|
adamstgBit
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
|
|
September 15, 2015, 02:34:26 PM |
|
The problem with Peter's paper is quite simple: it ignores reality. It is quite representative of traditional economist failures trying to paint real world issues in a vacuum relying on a bunch of spherical cows. btg444 I'm very much of the opposite opinion of pretty much everything you posted in the last Week or so. In this case also: I found Peters presentation pretty thought provoking. One NEEDS to undestand that this is at first a hypothesis which needs to be empirically tested, but its actually marvelous to try to develop models and maybe later test them instead of just screaming "centralization" and we all go under.... EDIT: and P.S. i find your way how you conduct yourself in this forum pretty annoying. Just because theymos gave you 1 free ticket to the "Show" (vor which no one else applied) doesn't at all mean you are somewhat of larger importance. After theymos gave you the ticket, how conducted yourself in the forum, i felt ashamed what a poor low life your are that is now feeling so important and you would be totally O.K. with censoring peoples opinions. You are beeing really aggressive to people that have a different opinion, putting people all the time in boxes, and fostering a hostile atmosphere. You scream a lot "liar, liar" and in the end it turns out you didn't understand something right... And your thoughts about that the blockchain belongs to the 1% and the rest can go cry as much as they want i found pretty disgusting to be honest. That is totally not the spirit of bitcoin maybe you can join Fox news with your attitude... you would fit in there... Models need to be based on real world dynamics. Yours and Peter's ignore those therefore they are of little use to help use make decisions going forward. As for the rest of your post: I couldn't care less that's putting it mildly... |
|
|
|
Zarathustra
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004
|
|
September 15, 2015, 02:42:43 PM |
|
The problem with Peter's paper is quite simple: it ignores reality. It is quite representative of traditional economist failures trying to paint real world issues in a vacuum relying on a bunch of spherical cows. btg444 I'm very much of the opposite opinion of pretty much everything you posted in the last Week or so. In this case also: I found Peters presentation pretty thought provoking. One NEEDS to undestand that this is at first a hypothesis which needs to be empirically tested, but its actually marvelous to try to develop models and maybe later test them instead of just screaming "centralization" and we all go under.... EDIT: and P.S. i find your way how you conduct yourself in this forum pretty annoying. Just because theymos gave you 1 free ticket to the "Show" (vor which no one else applied) doesn't at all mean you are somewhat of larger importance. After theymos gave you the ticket, how conducted yourself in the forum, i felt ashamed what a poor low life your are that is now feeling so important and you would be totally O.K. with censoring peoples opinions. You are beeing really aggressive to people that have a different opinion, putting people all the time in boxes, and fostering a hostile atmosphere. You scream a lot "liar, liar" and in the end it turns out you didn't understand something right... And your thoughts about that the blockchain belongs to the 1% and the rest can go cry as much as they want i found pretty disgusting to be honest. That is totally not the spirit of bitcoin maybe you can join Fox news with your attitude... you would fit in there... He seems to believe that he can win the community with his ad hominems. Ridiculous that such dividers philosophize about consensus. Since he is more and more alone with his 'arguments', the community is suffering a spam attack of 50 or more of his 'posts'. |
|
|
|
|
knight22
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
--------------->¿?
|
|
September 15, 2015, 02:43:08 PM |
|
What's retarded is your comparison. Ferrari are not meant to be cheap. They are meant for the rich people market. Also, if Ferrari were nodes, there would be far enough to keep the network secure and decentralized Computing resources and bandwidth are not "meant to be cheap" either, especially if your plan is to support all of the world's transactions. Take a hike you clown, no one here takes you seriously. Yup and they are getting cheaper every years. Hence my point. |
|
|
|
Carlton Banks
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
|
|
September 15, 2015, 02:58:22 PM |
|
The problem with Peter's paper is quite simple: it ignores reality. It is quite representative of traditional economist failures trying to paint real world issues in a vacuum relying on a bunch of spherical cows. btg444 I'm very much of the opposite opinion of pretty much everything you posted in the last Week or so. In this case also: I found Peters presentation pretty thought provoking. One NEEDS to undestand that this is at first a hypothesis which needs to be empirically tested, but its actually marvelous to try to develop models and maybe later test them instead of just screaming "centralization" and we all go under.... That's what Core team are proposing. Was it not the original proposal from the architects of BIP101 that we should conduct a hard fork driven by popular opinion, so that we could test BIP101 out live on the network? Oh no, that's right we have Gavin and Peter to provide the "popular" argument with some fallacious research to support the live testing *ahem* strategy.... strange how unpopular that has proven among the actual bitcoin community |
Vires in numeris
|
|
|
knight22
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
--------------->¿?
|
|
September 15, 2015, 03:01:46 PM |
|
The problem with Peter's paper is quite simple: it ignores reality. It is quite representative of traditional economist failures trying to paint real world issues in a vacuum relying on a bunch of spherical cows. btg444 I'm very much of the opposite opinion of pretty much everything you posted in the last Week or so. In this case also: I found Peters presentation pretty thought provoking. One NEEDS to undestand that this is at first a hypothesis which needs to be empirically tested, but its actually marvelous to try to develop models and maybe later test them instead of just screaming "centralization" and we all go under.... That's what Core team are proposing. Was it not the original proposal from the architects of BIP101 that we should conduct a hard fork driven by popular opinion, so that we could test BIP101 out live on the network? Oh no, that's right we have Gavin and Peter to provide the "popular" argument with some fallacious research to support the live testing *ahem* strategy.... strange how unpopular that has proven among the actual bitcoin community How do you test real market dynamics at large scale based on real incentives to collect empirical evidences? I would be curious to hear your thoughts on this. |
|
|
|
|
AtheistAKASaneBrain
|
|
September 15, 2015, 03:10:57 PM |
|
What's retarded is your comparison. Ferrari are not meant to be cheap. They are meant for the rich people market. Also, if Ferrari were nodes, there would be far enough to keep the network secure and decentralized If Ferrari were nodes, Bitcoin would be centralized across a small % of a very wealthy elite, we already got fiat for that. With Bitcoin we want any regular joe to be able to run a node, this can't never be compromised. |
|
|
|
|
adamstgBit
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
|
|
September 15, 2015, 03:16:00 PM |
|
What's retarded is your comparison. Ferrari are not meant to be cheap. They are meant for the rich people market. Also, if Ferrari were nodes, there would be far enough to keep the network secure and decentralized If Ferrari were nodes, Bitcoin would be centralized across a small % of a very wealthy elite, we already got fiat for that. With Bitcoin we want any regular joe to be able to run a node, this can't never be compromised. there's a difference between decentralized and distributed...  regular joe, doesn't necessarily have to run a node to keep bitcoin decentralized. |
|
|
|
|
BNO
|
|
September 15, 2015, 03:18:48 PM |
|
He seems to believe that he can win the community with his ad hominems. Ridiculous that such dividers philosophize about consensus. Since he is more and more alone with his 'arguments', the community is suffering a spam attack of 50 or more of his 'posts'. Totally yes. the spirit is "consensus is when everybody has my opinion". Something is with the community not so right at the moment. I'm not all in on BIP101 another solution is O.K. too. And i do like lightening networks and sidechains, they promis a good way to make bitcoin the "backbone" and reserve currency of the financial system. But my point is i think the people supporting core are a bit to aggressive. It is not helping if you start censorship on reddit and Dos XT nodes. Something is wrong with those people if they think "that's the right thing to do".... Their argument is some of the kind that: "the network has been attacked and we fought back heroically"... But that's just bullshit... I believe what Gavin wants to do is to grow up bitcoin by having more alternative clients. Its more diverse and more stable, more anti-fragile to have more implementations. The internet does not have only one browser neither... What was not good from XT was to mix the topic of alternative clients with the topic of the blocksize, which could lead to a fork of the blockchain. That's whats to be feared the fork of the chain! Not having an alternative implementation that is in the long term much safer and it even attracts more developers, something i'm a little concerned sometimes!! It didn't kill the internet to have besides netscape other browsers... |
The thinking that has led us to this point will not lead beyond - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
brg444
|
|
September 15, 2015, 03:27:38 PM |
|
What's retarded is your comparison. Ferrari are not meant to be cheap. They are meant for the rich people market. Also, if Ferrari were nodes, there would be far enough to keep the network secure and decentralized If Ferrari were nodes, Bitcoin would be centralized across a small % of a very wealthy elite, we already got fiat for that. With Bitcoin we want any regular joe to be able to run a node, this can't never be compromised. there's a difference between decentralized and distributed... regular joe, doesn't necessarily have to run a node to keep bitcoin decentralized. Regular joe cannot use Bitcoin as a peer and therefore without counterparty risk if he cannot run a node. |
"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
|
|
|
adamstgBit
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
|
|
September 15, 2015, 03:34:24 PM |
|
What's retarded is your comparison. Ferrari are not meant to be cheap. They are meant for the rich people market. Also, if Ferrari were nodes, there would be far enough to keep the network secure and decentralized If Ferrari were nodes, Bitcoin would be centralized across a small % of a very wealthy elite, we already got fiat for that. With Bitcoin we want any regular joe to be able to run a node, this can't never be compromised. there's a difference between decentralized and distributed... regular joe, doesn't necessarily have to run a node to keep bitcoin decentralized. Regular joe cannot use Bitcoin as a peer and therefore without counterparty risk if he cannot run a node. does that necessarily mean the bitcoin network is not Decentralized? NO. if you think joe is interested in running a full node because he fears counterparty risk you don't know joe. |
|
|
|
|
brg444
|
|
September 15, 2015, 03:51:43 PM |
|
What's retarded is your comparison. Ferrari are not meant to be cheap. They are meant for the rich people market. Also, if Ferrari were nodes, there would be far enough to keep the network secure and decentralized If Ferrari were nodes, Bitcoin would be centralized across a small % of a very wealthy elite, we already got fiat for that. With Bitcoin we want any regular joe to be able to run a node, this can't never be compromised. there's a difference between decentralized and distributed... regular joe, doesn't necessarily have to run a node to keep bitcoin decentralized. Regular joe cannot use Bitcoin as a peer and therefore without counterparty risk if he cannot run a node. does that necessarily mean the bitcoin network is not Decentralized? NO. if you think joe is interested in running a full node because he fears counterparty risk you don't know joe.
Good, then what problem is there with having him transact on layer 2 protocols and not directly on the blockchain? That said, Bitcoin being decentralized also mean regular joe needs to have easy access to running a node if they chose so. |
"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
|
|
|
knight22
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
--------------->¿?
|
|
September 15, 2015, 03:59:58 PM |
|
What's retarded is your comparison. Ferrari are not meant to be cheap. They are meant for the rich people market. Also, if Ferrari were nodes, there would be far enough to keep the network secure and decentralized If Ferrari were nodes, Bitcoin would be centralized across a small % of a very wealthy elite, we already got fiat for that. With Bitcoin we want any regular joe to be able to run a node, this can't never be compromised. there's a difference between decentralized and distributed... regular joe, doesn't necessarily have to run a node to keep bitcoin decentralized. Regular joe cannot use Bitcoin as a peer and therefore without counterparty risk if he cannot run a node. does that necessarily mean the bitcoin network is not Decentralized? NO. if you think joe is interested in running a full node because he fears counterparty risk you don't know joe.
Good, then what problem is there with having him transact on layer 2 protocols and not directly on the blockchain? That said, Bitcoin being decentralized also mean regular joe needs to have easy access to running a node if they chose so. No. Joe needs to have an easy access to the blockchain and running a node is irrelevant for him. |
|
|
|
|
brg444
|
|
September 15, 2015, 04:02:36 PM |
|
What's retarded is your comparison. Ferrari are not meant to be cheap. They are meant for the rich people market. Also, if Ferrari were nodes, there would be far enough to keep the network secure and decentralized If Ferrari were nodes, Bitcoin would be centralized across a small % of a very wealthy elite, we already got fiat for that. With Bitcoin we want any regular joe to be able to run a node, this can't never be compromised. there's a difference between decentralized and distributed... regular joe, doesn't necessarily have to run a node to keep bitcoin decentralized. Regular joe cannot use Bitcoin as a peer and therefore without counterparty risk if he cannot run a node. does that necessarily mean the bitcoin network is not Decentralized? NO. if you think joe is interested in running a full node because he fears counterparty risk you don't know joe.
Good, then what problem is there with having him transact on layer 2 protocols and not directly on the blockchain? That said, Bitcoin being decentralized also mean regular joe needs to have easy access to running a node if they chose so. No. Joe needs to have an easy access to the blockchain and running a node is irrelevant for him. One does not truly access the blockchan without running a full node. Any other scenario involves reliance on a third party. Do you understand what a peer-to-peer network is? |
"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
|
|
|
adamstgBit
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
|
|
September 15, 2015, 04:10:20 PM |
|
One does not truly access the blockchan without running a full node. Any other scenario involves reliance on a third party.
Do you understand what a peer-to-peer network is?
whats wrong with having a dumb peer that can't validate blocks and can only push TX's. dumb peer-to-peer network  |
|
|
|
|
brg444
|
|
September 15, 2015, 04:23:13 PM |
|
One does not truly access the blockchan without running a full node. Any other scenario involves reliance on a third party.
Do you understand what a peer-to-peer network is?
whats wrong with having a dumb peer that can't validate blocks and can only push TX's. dumb peer-to-peer network What's wrong? It can be cheated. You do understand the security implications of relying on SPV do you? |
"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
|
|
|
|
