Time to stand up to the XT shills here!

[jonald_fyookball]

What happened to Garziks proposal of 2mb blocks on 11/11?

The blockstream guys loved it because it helped mainchain scaling .....

NOT.

That's not exactly true. Adam even suggested building further on it.

https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/641707352123645956

The hyperbole (I'm not innocent either) on both sides is not going to be helpful towards us reaching a compromise.

If we get well through 2016 and are still stuck at 1MB... then I'll entertain the nefarious motives that have been thrown around. 

actions speak louder than words... you are right. we shall see.

[1715493261]

1715493261

[1715493261]

1715493261

[1715493261]

1715493261

[1715493261]

1715493261

[1715493261]

1715493261

[1715493261]

1715493261

[Zarathustra]

What happened to Garziks proposal of 2mb blocks on 11/11?

The blockstream guys loved it because it helped mainchain scaling .....

NOT.

That's not exactly true. Adam even suggested building further on it.

https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/641707352123645956

The hyperbole (I'm not innocent either) on both sides is not going to be helpful towards us reaching a compromise.

If we get well through 2016 and are still stuck at 1MB... then I'll entertain the nefarious motives that have been thrown around.  

in case you missed it, and since you seem to be the appeal to authority type..

...

I guess Hal Finney was also living this fairytale

Actually there is a very good reason for Bitcoin-backed banks to exist, issuing their own digital cash currency, redeemable for bitcoins. Bitcoin itself cannot scale to have every single financial transaction in the world be broadcast to everyone and included in the block chain. There needs to be a secondary level of payment systems which is lighter weight and more efficient. Likewise, the time needed for Bitcoin transactions to finalize will be impractical for medium to large value purchases.

Bitcoin backed banks will solve these problems. They can work like banks did before nationalization of currency. Different banks can have different policies, some more aggressive, some more conservative. Some would be fractional reserve while others may be 100% Bitcoin backed. Interest rates may vary. Cash from some banks may trade at a discount to that from others.

George Selgin has worked out the theory of competitive free banking in detail, and he argues that such a system would be stable, inflation resistant and self-regulating.

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. Most Bitcoin transactions will occur between banks, to settle net transfers. Bitcoin transactions by private individuals will be as rare as... well, as Bitcoin based purchases are today.

Ah, for the Banks. Not my goal.
Then I would prefer to scale to several Cryptocoins than to be slaved by banks again.

[HostFat]

Are you afraid of centralisazion of mining? They can't
https://youtu.be/0iQSRGT3nfE?t=3285

As I've already said, nodes have all the power, if miners are going to do something bad, well, then they'll be cut out of the network and lose everything (their prize and investment)

[HostFat]

Did you see the video?

How can they "fix it" if the nodes change the POW and so even the nodes of the exchanges?

[HostFat]

Yes i was watching the video, the thing is the community is very number dependant as we have seen with XT falling out of favor with only 1% nodes making less want it, the exchanges aren't going to transfer over if only 10% of nodes are switching because the mining company has smudged the numbers to make it look like nodes are with them and the current version of the coin.

This is another problem, I was just poiting out that the centralizing of mining can't exist, because they have no power to achieve it.

[brg444]

Yes i was watching the video, the thing is the community is very number dependant as we have seen with XT falling out of favor with only 1% nodes making less want it, the exchanges aren't going to transfer over if only 10% of nodes are switching because the mining company has smudged the numbers to make it look like nodes are with them and the current version of the coin.

This is another problem, I was just poiting out that the centralizing of mining can't exist, because they have no power to achieve it.

That's just plain ignorant.

First off centralization of mining is not limited to hashing power. Chinese miners have been proven to centralize verification of their blocks (SPV mining). That is a centralization concern and one over which the ecosystem has little control or governance over. We literally cannot tell whether or not they are doing it, at least not until they fuck it up. (Which they have)

Moreover, large mining farms can trivially hide their actual hashing power by distributing it to various mining pools. In fact it can be assumed that some of them are already doing this. That way it becomes impossible for users to validate exactly how many independent entities are responsible for a certain percentage of the hashing power.

Finally, changing the POW would involve rebooting the security of the network down to 0 which has ENORMOUS implications that could certainly be mitigated but definitely isn't some no brainer as Greg makes it appear in the video.

It's increasingly evident you're not suited intellectually for this type of debate and I suggest you leave it to more competent people  

[HostFat]

Finally, changing the POW would involve rebooting the security of the network down to 0 which has ENORMOUS implications that could certainly be mitigated but definitely isn't some no brainer as Greg makes it appear in the video.

It's increasingly evident you're not suited intellectually for this type of debate and I suggest you leave it to more competent people  

Well, while I think that Greg is easily in a situation of conflict of interests, I weight more his opinion (and Gavin) than yours

Now after what you wrote, I'm not sure if you are just a alt-coin holder or more a gov. agent (or just an idiot)

[brg444]

Finally, changing the POW would involve rebooting the security of the network down to 0 which has ENORMOUS implications that could certainly be mitigated but definitely isn't some no brainer as Greg makes it appear in the video.

It's increasingly evident you're not suited intellectually for this type of debate and I suggest you leave it to more competent people  

Well, while I think that Greg is easily in a situation of conflict of interests, I weight more his opinion (and Gavin) than yours

Now after what you wrote, I'm not sure if you are just a alt-coin holder or more a gov. agent (or just an idiot)

 

Yes let's just ignore everything else I wrote and pretend that mining centralization is not a problem.

Hey you should tell everyone! Why worry about it!? We'll just change the hashing algorithm !!

(after the miners have double spent thousands of BTC but hey! no worries, right...? right!)

 

Jesus christ you people are impossibly stupid.  

[brg444]

This is another problem, I was just poiting out that the centralizing of mining can't exist, because they have no power to achieve it.

Just going to quote that one for posterity...

Alert the press! Mining centralization can't exist!

[jonald_fyookball]

Finally, changing the POW would involve rebooting the security of the network down to 0 which has ENORMOUS implications that could certainly be mitigated but definitely isn't some no brainer as Greg makes it appear in the video.

It's increasingly evident you're not suited intellectually for this type of debate and I suggest you leave it to more competent people  

Well, while I think that Greg is easily in a situation of conflict of interests, I weight more his opinion (and Gavin) than yours

Now after what you wrote, I'm not sure if you are just a alt-coin holder or more a gov. agent (or just an idiot)

likely the latter.

[HostFat]

A fraudulent attack from the "miners" against Bitcoin will be only possible if there will be a competitors of egual value or more. The attacking miners will be a part of the competing one.

This is the only situation where it is possible, because it wont be anymore the major network, and so users will just move to the working one during and after the attack. (as it has already happened with some altcoin attacked)

[Lauda]

Now after what you wrote, I'm not sure if you are just a alt-coin holder or more a gov. agent (or just an idiot)

likely the latter.

Funny, this is the first thing that would come up in my mind for a person cheering for a Bitcoin CEO. They government would surely like this (blacklisting enforced anyone?).

I was just pointing out that the centralizing of mining can't exist, because they have no power to achieve it.

I don't even know where to begin (everyone talking about centralization so far must have been wrong?). I'd one of suggest the following: 1) Stop taking part in such discussions; 2) Watch educational (technical) videos and read up more; 3) Ask someone directly for help (maybe shorena?).
Update:

This seems to have gotten way off track from the original topic, this may be in part of BIP100 but it seems like this is going down a rabbit hole of sorts. I think if we are going to start name calling and complaining about the centralization of mining it would probably be suited in a different thread but I guess there are a lot of emotions in these block debates.

This is how it usually goes; diversion after diversion and the thread goes through various unrelated (to the topic) discussions.

[meono]

Now after what you wrote, I'm not sure if you are just a alt-coin holder or more a gov. agent (or just an idiot)

likely the latter.

Funny, this is the first thing that would come up in my mind for a person cheering for a Bitcoin CEO. They government would surely like this (blacklisting enforced anyone?).

I was just pointing out that the centralizing of mining can't exist, because they have no power to achieve it.

I don't even know where to begin (everyone talking about centralization so far must have been wrong). I'd one of suggest the following: 1) Stop taking part in such discussions; 2) Watch educational (technical) videos and read up more; 3) Ask someone directly for help.

You should keep all that to yourself.

You sounds more and more like an idiot when you all do is attacking.

[HostFat]

@Lauda
While you suggest me (or others) to watch videos, you should at least watch the one where we were talking about 

[brg444]

Now after what you wrote, I'm not sure if you are just a alt-coin holder or more a gov. agent (or just an idiot)

likely the latter.

Funny, this is the first thing that would come up in my mind for a person cheering for a Bitcoin CEO. They government would surely like this (blacklisting enforced anyone?).

I was just pointing out that the centralizing of mining can't exist, because they have no power to achieve it.

I don't even know where to begin (everyone talking about centralization so far must have been wrong). I'd one of suggest the following: 1) Stop taking part in such discussions; 2) Watch educational (technical) videos and read up more; 3) Ask someone directly for help.

You should keep all that to yourself.

You sounds more and more like an idiot when you all do is attacking.

says Adam Allcocks the master of dickheads

[meono]

Now after what you wrote, I'm not sure if you are just a alt-coin holder or more a gov. agent (or just an idiot)

likely the latter.

Funny, this is the first thing that would come up in my mind for a person cheering for a Bitcoin CEO. They government would surely like this (blacklisting enforced anyone?).

I was just pointing out that the centralizing of mining can't exist, because they have no power to achieve it.

I don't even know where to begin (everyone talking about centralization so far must have been wrong). I'd one of suggest the following: 1) Stop taking part in such discussions; 2) Watch educational (technical) videos and read up more; 3) Ask someone directly for help.

You should keep all that to yourself.

You sounds more and more like an idiot when you all do is attacking.

says Adam Allcocks the master of dickheads

Its something to be proud of no?
Just google my name bitch, i built $1M company at the age of 13. What have you done retard? Oh yeah.... you joined this forum to trade altcoin hoping you dont miss the train....

[meono]

@Lauda
While you suggest me (or others) to watch videos, you should at least watch the one where we were talking about  

The funny thing is:

She joined in April 2013, after the run up to $253


You joined in May 2010, when btc was less than $1


LOL dumbass must have ran out of "come back"

[HostFat]

It was the day of the two pizzas (and as I remember I was already lurking the forum from two weeks likely)

[Lauda]

@Lauda
While you suggest me (or others) to watch videos, you should at least watch the one where we were talking about  

I quickly skimmed through it. My suggestion was not related to the specific post nor video, but rather some lack of understanding that I saw going through your posts. Technically "centralizing of mining can't exist, because they have no power to achieve it" is a false statement. What the video was talking about is that the miners can not harm the system as the system would ignore them. Situations: Mining is centralized and can harm the system; mining is centralized and can not able harm the system; i.e. not directly related ((A ∧ B) ∨ (A ∧ ⌜B)). In other words, when miners (or mining) can't hurt the system we do not know if mining is centralized or not (not directly related - as said). Centralization does not necessarily imply harm (bad actors).
Now remind me again how this is related to "Time to stand up to the XT shills here!"?

[brg444]

Miners' centralization can't exist yet it happened this year and was responsible for a network fork. forking half the hashpower off the network.