Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers)

[AlexGR]

Define spam.
Is Gambling spam?
Daily-payouts of cloudminers?
Every kind of blockchain-graffiti?
everything < 1$?
<5$

Who decides what spam is and what usecases to restrict? If you decide now that some kind of transaction are considered as spam and thus prohibited, you act like a regulator. Every node and miner can decide to prohibit spam - and should be allowed to chose his own definition of spam - but we don't need a central regime where a bunch of people decide which transactions are not worth to get in the chain.

Satoshi placed BTC in the "Small enough to include what you might call the top of the micropayment range" market segment.

If I had to take a guess, with paypal charging ~0.35$ for receiving money (plus % fees), I'd say that it's highly impractical for things that are close to 1$. Banks typically charge 0.30 euro to 0.35 euro for card transactions or epayments over here where I live. So BTC could probably be used for like 1$ transactions right now, but not a few cents. This could change in the future though.

Bitcoin isn't currently practical for very small micropayments.  Not for things like pay per search or per page view without an aggregating mechanism, not things needing to pay less than 0.01.  The dust spam limit is a first try at intentionally trying to prevent overly small micropayments like that.

Bitcoin is practical for smaller transactions than are practical with existing payment methods.  Small enough to include what you might call the top of the micropayment range.  But it doesn't claim to be practical for arbitrarily small micropayments.

Forgot to add the good part about micropayments.  While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall.  If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time.  Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms.  Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical.  I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.

I am not claiming that the network is impervious to DoS attack.  I think most P2P networks can be DoS attacked in numerous ways.  (On a side note, I read that the record companies would like to DoS all the file sharing networks, but they don't want to break the anti-hacking/anti-abuse laws.)

If we started getting DoS attacked with loads of wasted transactions back and forth, you would need to start paying a 0.01 minimum transaction fee.  0.1.5 actually had an option to set that, but I took it out to reduce confusion.  Free transactions are nice and we can keep it that way if people don't abuse them.

It would be nice to keep the blk*.dat files small as long as we can.

The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets.

But for now, while it's still small, it's nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster.  When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won't matter much anymore.

There's more work to do on transaction fees. In the event of a flood, you would still be able to jump the queue and get your transactions into the next block by paying a 0.01 transaction fee.

[JorgeStolfi]

I know by fact that the current bitcoin protocol by which I abided and invested was the one not allowing on chain mass adoption scaling coffee tipping bullshit whilst staying in the reach of low technology hardware so everybody got their access to it.

You should have read the contract whitepaper before signing it. 

There was no mention of a block size limit there.  There was no mention of transactions piling up in a queue, fighting with each other through "smart" fee estimation algorithms and RBFs. On the contrary, it was assumed that miners would confirm, into the next block, every transaction that paid a fee sufficient to make that worthwhile.

More importantly, there was no mention of a clique of developers having control of the protocol and deciding what the miners should do.  According to the protocol, the only players that have any power over the system are the miners (which Satoshi called "nodes"), who vote with their hashing power.  And this is not an accident, but an essential feature of the design, that no one knows how to change without breaking it.

Granted, Satoshi did not foresee that 70% of the mining would be concentrated into 4 Chinese companies. Raising the block size limit and letting the miners decide the fees, while conceptually the right thing to do, will not work in that context. However, the concentration of mining, by itself, already means bitcoin is broken. 

Basically, the block size war is like a dispute among pilot and co-pilot about whether the plane that ran out of fuel in mid-Atlantic should be flown normally or upside-down while it falls.

[VeritasSapere]

I do not think that Bitcoin is broken due to excessive mining centralization, you should keep in mind that these are pools, who do not actually control the hashpower themselves. Pools act in a way that is similar to a representative democracy for the miners. This conception changes the evaluation of the state of mining centralization. It is not as bad as a lot of people are making it out to be, there is of course plenty of room for improvement, increasing mining decentralization would be best stimulated by an increased price actually.

[hdbuck]

I know by fact that the current bitcoin protocol by which I abided and invested was the one not allowing on chain mass adoption scaling coffee tipping bullshit whilst staying in the reach of low technology hardware so everybody got their access to it.

You should have read the contract whitepaper before signing it.  

There was no mention of a block size limit there.  There was no mention of transactions piling up in a queue, fighting with each other through "smart" fee estimation algorithms and RBFs. On the contrary, it was assumed that miners would confirm, into the next block, every transaction that paid a fee sufficient to make that worthwhile.

More importantly, there was no mention of a clique of developers having control of the protocol and deciding what the miners should do.  According to the protocol, the only players that have any power over the system are the miners (which Satoshi called "nodes"), who vote with their hashing power.  And this is not an accident, but an essential feature of the design, that no one knows how to change without breaking it.

Granted, Satoshi did not foresee that 70% of the mining would be concentrated into 4 Chinese companies. Raising the block size limit and letting the miners decide the fees, while conceptually the right thing to do, will not work in that context. However, the concentration of mining, by itself, already means bitcoin is broken.  

Basically, the block size war is like a dispute among pilot and co-pilot about whether the plane that ran out of fuel in mid-Atlantic should be flown normally or upside-down while it falls.

Read again. I said CURRENT BITCOIN PROTOCOL. not WP.

But whatever, troll.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

I know by fact that the current bitcoin protocol by which I abided and invested was the one not allowing on chain mass adoption scaling coffee tipping bullshit whilst staying in the reach of low technology hardware so everybody got their access to it.

You should have read the contract whitepaper before signing it.  

There was no mention of a block size limit there.  There was no mention of transactions piling up in a queue, fighting with each other through "smart" fee estimation algorithms and RBFs. On the contrary, it was assumed that miners would confirm, into the next block, every transaction that paid a fee sufficient to make that worthwhile.

More importantly, there was no mention of a clique of developers having control of the protocol and deciding what the miners should do.  According to the protocol, the only players that have any power over the system are the miners (which Satoshi called "nodes"), who vote with their hashing power.  And this is not an accident, but an essential feature of the design, that no one knows how to change without breaking it.

Granted, Satoshi did not foresee that 70% of the mining would be concentrated into 4 Chinese companies. Raising the block size limit and letting the miners decide the fees, while conceptually the right thing to do, will not work in that context. However, the concentration of mining, by itself, already means bitcoin is broken.  

Basically, the block size war is like a dispute among pilot and co-pilot about whether the plane that ran out of fuel in mid-Atlantic should be flown normally or upside-down while it falls.

Read again. I said CURRENT BITCOIN PROTOCOL. not WP.

But whatever, troll.

I think you are confusing reality with whats in your head again...

[Peter R]

Will Core capitulate to 2 MB, should it begin to lose node share?

[jonald_fyookball]

Hdbuck appears to be stuck in his own dogma. Like many he drank the maxwellhouse koolaid but because he is also particularly abrasive and closeminded hes been on my ignore list for a while along with brg and icebreaker.

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

Will Core capitulate to 2 MB, should it begin to lose node share?

Now, now, Justus told you that "best" includes more than three implementations.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-261

Is animating a fourth pie really that hard?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Can't you just add quotes? There are only so many forums I can follow.

[iCEBREAKER]

So a legit proposal equals to him trolling them? Makes sense.

changing POW is a legit proposal? How?  Why?

He submits a PR with a vague title like "Fix mining centralisation"

then lands the bombshell of HOW he wants to do it?

thats a pretty low rent effort.

Changing _Classic's POW is an excellent suggestion (which I've also previously made), and not only (or mainly) as a way to prevent/delay a repeat of the current situation where a handful of giant miners can credibly threaten to back contentious hard forks.

If _Classic wanted a clean break from Core, changing POW at the same time as the first (potentially) >1MB _ClassicBlock is the right way to do it.

Then there would be no Gavincoin Toomincoin Short fork war missile crisis to worry about, and users don't have to fear ToominTaint ruining their Core coins.

Lukejr wants Keccak, and I suggested an extra round of SHA256.  Keccak would make current ASICs useless, SHA256^3 would not.

But that doesn't matter, because by rejecting the entirely logical 'change POW' proposition _Classic has shown their hand.

_Classic is not a technologically driven project.  Changing 1MB to 2MB is only a trivial TPS increase, which SegWit will approximate.

_Classic is a politically motivated governance coup, which risks (or arguably entails) catastrophic consensus failure just to satisfy the egos of the Get Thermos Kill Blockstream Emasculate Mircea Destroy Core malcontents.

[iCEBREAKER]

Hdbuck appears to be stuck in his own dogma. Like many he drank the maxwellhouse koolaid but because he is also particularly abrasive and closeminded hes been on my ignore list for a while along with brg and icebreaker.

I am pleased to be on jonald's ignore list, because I despise hypocrisy.

What kind of person whines about others being "abrasive" after writing abrasive posts like these?

Fuck you and die.

you're a goddman fool
Fuck your politics and personalities

get your head out of your arse

Many drank the Maxwellhouse Koolaid
and are waking up from the stupor.

There is a special place in Hell for people like jonald.

I blame his parents.  They should be slapped across the face by everyone on earth for raising such an intolerable brat and inflicting him on the rest of the planet.

[iCEBREAKER]

ROFL.  That is so fucking classic!  

ToominCoin FTW  

Is that poutrage? From icebreaker??  
Y U always pick loosing side??  

So when he sided with Core on Core vs XT, he ended up on the loosing side?

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

So a legit proposal equals to him trolling them? Makes sense.

changing POW is a legit proposal? How?  Why?

He submits a PR with a vague title like "Fix mining centralisation"

then lands the bombshell of HOW he wants to do it?

thats a pretty low rent effort.

Changing _Classic's ... [garbage]

_Classic is a politically motivated governance coup, which risks (or arguably entails) catastrophic consensus failure just to satisfy the egos of the Get Thermos Kill Blockstream Emasculate Mircea Destroy Core malcontents.

We still need to do this? Why wasn't I cc'ed on that memo?  

Your POW bluff is just so shit. I think evenings spent frapping to nude 'shopped photos of Marine Le Penn has dulled your brain.


pro-tip: get real ones of her Mom - now they are hot!!   

[BillyBobZorton]

This was an execllent thread, but fees a bit like beating a dead horse at this point. This trojan was a failure, next is Bitcoin Classic. I can't wait for the next Classic #REKT thread.

[Bergmann_Christoph]

So a legit proposal equals to him trolling them? Makes sense.

changing POW is a legit proposal? How?  Why?

He submits a PR with a vague title like "Fix mining centralisation"

then lands the bombshell of HOW he wants to do it?

thats a pretty low rent effort.

Changing _Classic's POW is an excellent suggestion (which I've also previously made), and not only (or mainly) as a way to prevent/delay a repeat of the current situation where a handful of giant miners can credibly threaten to back contentious hard forks.

If _Classic wanted a clean break from Core, changing POW at the same time as the first (potentially) >1MB _ClassicBlock is the right way to do it.
-snip-
by rejecting the entirely logical 'change POW' proposition _Classic has shown their hand.

You're funny. When you'll be out of bitcoin soon, will you look for a job as a court jester?

What if I'd asked the fron national officially, to set taxes to 90% and invite all muslims of the world to live in france, and if the front rejects to discuss this in his official referendum, I call them anti-democratic?

This pow-trolling is ridicoulos and way below luke-jr niveau. That it is even discussed seriously is a proof of the desperation of team small blocks.


btw ... what happened with your grinning? Is your colossal "Schadenfreude" about Mike's departure already gone? Are you afraid to soon have the choice to a) have a bitcoin you never wanted or b) have no bitcoins at all?

_Classic is a politically motivated governance coup, which risks (or arguably entails) catastrophic consensus failure just to satisfy the egos of the Get Thermos Kill Blockstream Emasculate Mircea Destroy Core malcontents.

this is what you and other angry small blocker with a real brain have in common: you blame unilaterally big blockers for the hardfork.

Why don't you see that the economy, the users and the miners, those parties that give bitcoin it's value, have been incredibly patient with core but lost their faith aftter scaling bitcoin II? What do you think would have happened if core had raised the limit to 2 MB? Wouldn't it be more responsible to chose a technically maybe slightly less optimal solution that won't lead into a political desaster?

They have been warned so often, but didn't thought the economy plays a role in decision finding of bitcoins future. So they dared to release a roadmap that said: No blocksize increase for at least 2016.

Now, why do you think supports one economic party after another classic? Because they all know less then you and they are manipulated? It's frustration with core.

[iCEBREAKER]

This was an execllent thread, but fees a bit like beating a dead horse at this point. This trojan was a failure, next is Bitcoin Classic. I can't wait for the next Classic #REKT thread.

We're all giddy with anticipation for that.

But first, Team _Classic have to implode from irreconcilable differences of opinion with regard to their hard fork's timing/threshold and inclusion/exclusion of controversial features like bandwidth throttling, CLTV, RBF, SegWit, Lightning, sidechains, future increases, etc.

The Tooministas are still enjoying their honeymoon.  Give them a few weeks for the grim realities of software engineering and committee-based decision making to throw a wrench in their gears.

When they realize they are painting the Bikeshed from Hell, we can start laughing as _Classic gets #REKT.   

[Zarathustra]

When they realize they are painting the Bikeshed from Hell, we can start laughing as _Classic gets #REKT.   

Here we go:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1330351.new#new

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

This was an execllent thread, but fees a bit like beating a dead horse at this point. This trojan was a failure, next is Bitcoin Classic. I can't wait for the next Classic #REKT thread.

We're all giddy with anticipation for that.

But first, Team _Classic have to implode from irreconcilable differences of opinion with regard to their hard fork's timing/threshold and inclusion/exclusion of controversial features like bandwidth throttling, CLTV, RBF, SegWit, Lightning, sidechains, future increases, etc.

The Tooministas are still enjoying their honeymoon.  Give them a few weeks for the grim realities of software engineering and committee-based decision making to throw a wrench in their gears.

When they realize they are painting the Bikeshed from Hell, we can start laughing as _Classic gets #REKT.   

So all development work has stopped on Core. How does that make you feel now, miCEBREAKER? 

You assholes are too busy trolling Classic forum to fix the god awful mess that you made of rbf!!
Then we have Luke-jesus submitting a PR to change POW.  Is there any depth you mpfags wont sink to?

Your obvious #CORERAGE is giving me wood......     

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

When they realize they are painting the Bikeshed from Hell, we can start laughing as _Classic gets #REKT.  

Here we go:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1330351.new#new

Theymos has censored this again, moved off to the alt coin wilderness.

 But while last week I would have been mildly annoyed, now it seems about as worthwhile as trying to turn back the tide with a spoon.

but best not to start threads like that - they serve no purpose, and just drag you down to the level of brg and miceBreaker

[SamusNi]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1329377