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

[valiz]

Fork off! Fork off now, Classic supporters! Why are you waiting for the ignorant chinese miners?

Huge blocks NOW! Or else Bitcoin fails...

Fork off while you still can!

We will jump to your coin after we finally see the imminent doom!

Fork off now!

[sgbett]

Longest is a superlative adjective. By its very definition it refers to one thing. You cannot have two longest anything.

Yes, occasionally bitcoin has and will fork and the longer chain will be correctly orphaned off. This is why you need to clarify and make a distinction between simply the longest and longest valid PoW.

To do so the majority is going to have to make a longer chain. It does that by having more hash power, and the nodes to propagate.

History provides evidence of this. The 0.7/0.8 fork and reorg, 0.8 had more hash and pulled ahead, so this was the longest chain and during that time it defined what was valid. Anyone still on 0.7 was mining a shorter chain, they had there own idea about what was valid and as a result fell behind.

People could say ah, but 0.8 is invalid and 0.7 is actually valid, but that is just an opinion (however widely held) until the blockchain itself reflects it as reality.

Only by getting everyone back onto 0.7 could this be resolved, once the hash power was back on 0.7 that chain grew longer than the 0.8 chain, and redefined what was valid.

You are putting the cart before the horse, you are saying valid defines the chain. I am saying the longest chain defines what is valid.

If you change the rules as to what constitutes a valid chain, then you are going to need the miners and the nodes to actually follow it, otherwise your definition of valid is neither here nor their.

If you do not define what is valid, and instead look to the blockchain you will see what is considered valid because that will be the longest chain.

This is how consensus happens, on the blockchain. Not in meetings, or on reddit, or in here, or even on consider.it

[Carlton Banks]

Fork off! Fork off now, Classic supporters! Why are you waiting for the ignorant chinese miners?

Huge blocks NOW! Or else Bitcoin fails...

Fork off while you still can!

We will jump to your coin after we finally see the imminent doom!

Fork off now!

That's what's so amusing about their position: they have no popular support, and so they can't. They have to stay on bitcointalk to keep twisting the narrative.


That's the delicious irony of the whole thing: these attempted infiltrators constantly parade around claiming victory in every way possible, yet they don't seem to understand that if they'd really convinced anyone, they wouldn't have to be here at all. Strange that.

[watashi-kokoto]

Greedy NY Bankers 0 : 1 Rest of the world


Chinese miners  ..!..

CLASSIC REKT

[BitUsher]

Longest is a superlative adjective. By its very definition it refers to one thing. You cannot have two longest anything.

Yes, occasionally bitcoin has and will fork and the longer chain will be correctly orphaned off. This is why you need to clarify and make a distinction between simply the longest and longest valid PoW.

To do so the majority is going to have to make a longer chain. It does that by having more hash power, and the nodes to propagate.

History provides evidence of this. The 0.7/0.8 fork and reorg, 0.8 had more hash and pulled ahead, so this was the longest chain and during that time it defined what was valid. Anyone still on 0.7 was mining a shorter chain, they had there own idea about what was valid and as a result fell behind.

People could say ah, but 0.8 is invalid and 0.7 is actually valid, but that is just an opinion (however widely held) until the blockchain itself reflects it as reality.

Only by getting everyone back onto 0.7 could this be resolved, once the hash power was back on 0.7 that chain grew longer than the 0.8 chain, and redefined what was valid.

You are putting the cart before the horse, you are saying valid defines the chain. I am saying the longest chain defines what is valid.

If you change the rules as to what constitutes a valid chain, then you are going to need the miners and the nodes to actually follow it, otherwise your definition of valid is neither here nor their.

If you do not define what is valid, and instead look to the blockchain you will see what is considered valid because that will be the longest chain.

This is how consensus happens, on the blockchain. Not in meetings, or on reddit, or in here, or even on consider.it

I see, you do indeed misunderstand who is in control, I have no time to repeat what I have already explained but for others ---
http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/01/03/time-for-bitcoin-user-voice/

[watashi-kokoto]

F2Pool Welcomes Bitcoin Classic Hard Forking Solution But Does Not Actively Support it



    

[sgbett]

Longest is a superlative adjective. By its very definition it refers to one thing. You cannot have two longest anything.

Yes, occasionally bitcoin has and will fork and the longer chain will be correctly orphaned off. This is why you need to clarify and make a distinction between simply the longest and longest valid PoW.

To do so the majority is going to have to make a longer chain. It does that by having more hash power, and the nodes to propagate.

History provides evidence of this. The 0.7/0.8 fork and reorg, 0.8 had more hash and pulled ahead, so this was the longest chain and during that time it defined what was valid. Anyone still on 0.7 was mining a shorter chain, they had there own idea about what was valid and as a result fell behind.

People could say ah, but 0.8 is invalid and 0.7 is actually valid, but that is just an opinion (however widely held) until the blockchain itself reflects it as reality.

Only by getting everyone back onto 0.7 could this be resolved, once the hash power was back on 0.7 that chain grew longer than the 0.8 chain, and redefined what was valid.

You are putting the cart before the horse, you are saying valid defines the chain. I am saying the longest chain defines what is valid.

If you change the rules as to what constitutes a valid chain, then you are going to need the miners and the nodes to actually follow it, otherwise your definition of valid is neither here nor their.

If you do not define what is valid, and instead look to the blockchain you will see what is considered valid because that will be the longest chain.

This is how consensus happens, on the blockchain. Not in meetings, or on reddit, or in here, or even on consider.it

I see, you do indeed misunderstand who is in control, I have no time to repeat what I have already explained but for others ---
http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/01/03/time-for-bitcoin-user-voice/

One might as well argue about whether the people or politicians rule the world. You haven't really addressed the key point. The blockchain defines what is valid.

Sure you can campaign to get things changed, you can petition the exchanges and convince the users etc that one was is better than another but until you have a blockchain that reflects that its all hot air.

That is to say I am not denying that the blockchain is not the end product of the competing interests, but it is the defect definition of validity.

[BitUsher]

One might as well argue about whether the people or politicians rule the world. You haven't really addressed the key point. The blockchain defines what is valid.

Sure you can campaign to get things changed, you can petition the exchanges and convince the users etc that one was is better than another but until you have a blockchain that reflects that its all hot air.

You used the term "The". There isn't simply one blockchain , but many. There are many of us that will attempt to burn "The" bitcoin blockchain to the ground and restart if some basic principles are betrayed or it becomes too centralized (which make it vulnerable to becoming corrupt).

So yes, I understand you are saying the longest chain of hashing double rounds of SHA256 is the only valid chain to you and we cannot stray from it. I am disagreeing and suggesting the users can and should make a decision to leave if Bitcoin becomes corrupt. The users have the power to vote , simply through inaction, by not upgrading as well.... and no group of developers, merchants, miners, or regulators can force them to decide otherwise.

[watashi-kokoto]

I think these people are simply testing the waters, threw $ 8 000 000 000 , an attempt to game the system.

If everyting goes the way I understand it, they are going to be really really surprised about the result.

[bargainbin]

... There are many of us that will attempt to burn "The" bitcoin blockchain to the ground and restart if some basic principles are betrayed or it becomes too centralized (which make it vulnerable to becoming corrupt).

Don't forget to poison the wells & salt the fields.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

... There are many of us that will attempt to burn "The" bitcoin blockchain to the ground and restart if some basic principles are betrayed or it becomes too centralized (which make it vulnerable to becoming corrupt).

Don't forget to poison the wells & salt the fields.

And if there are women and children, leave them behind.

[Lauda]

Satoshi Nakamoto on..
-snip-

Sometimes it is nice to reference what he said and remember, however this is an appeal to authority and you know it yourself. I don't care what he said a few years back. Actually I don't care what anyone said a few years back. What matters is the most recent research and opinions. Satoshi being gone means that his opinion is irrelevant.

[BitUsher]

... There are many of us that will attempt to burn "The" bitcoin blockchain to the ground and restart if some basic principles are betrayed or it becomes too centralized (which make it vulnerable to becoming corrupt).

Don't forget to poison the wells & salt the fields.

Certainly. If bitcoin becomes so centralized that most of the nodes have KYC/AML/Blacklists or directly implements KYC in the protocol it will become an extremely dangerous tool of oppression and more problematic than physical Fiat.

I am not trying to be melodramatic and sensational, as I do think we may avoid this future, but it is important that those impatient get rich quick "to the moon" speculative investors realize there are still many of us around with principles and understanding. Principles and understanding which supersede profit and we will revolt if Bitcoin becomes a Paypal 2.0.

What is troubling about this is I hear very little  "exponential blockers"  empathizing with the centralization concerns and bargaining with their opposition with something like --- "We understand your concerns but if we as an ecosystem can create a plan and begin to reverse mining and node centralization and show a little progress in solidarity, perhaps we can both agree to raise maxBlockSize?"

Does this mean I am going to revolt if we do a rushed hardfork with BIP 102 to 2MB... of course not, I think it isn't ideal but it won't overly harm the ecosystem. Will I and others revolt if a dev team controlled by a voting mob starts exponentially increasing the blocksize with mob rule and with little regard to the technical implications... You bet!  

And if there are women and children, leave them behind.

No its ... "rape the horses; ride off on the women"

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Not sure I can support your raping horses proposal. Is that a Bitcoin_Classic thing?

What about mining centralization? Wouldn’t raising max block size help weaken the Chinese mining cartel's stranglehold on hash?

[franky1]

i said it before but it seems some people prefer to shout out their doomsday scenario of 2 chains..
so here is a nice picture..

W and X is the dooms-dayers mantra of there being 2 chains (altcoins).. which is simply wrong
W and X would only happen if X 2mb implementation never accepted blocks from miners (a) (b) that do not have (c) data because that have the 1mb rule and reject (c) automatically..

but where X only accepted blocks from miner(c) totally ignoring (a)(b) forever and always.. that way the (c) miner would have the (c) blocks in its chain..

but the reality is that (a) (b) and (c) all make blocks.. and if (a) and (b) win the next block.. knowing their blocks dont hold data/history of (c).. so then causing previous (c) blocks to gets orphaned (as shown by Y) and the result after orphaning off (c) would be Z..



so after orphaning off due to consensus and the blocks merkle chain of previous blocks.. there would be one chain of data (because Z is W)

in short

[btcusury]

... There are many of us that will attempt to burn "The" bitcoin blockchain to the ground and restart if some basic principles are betrayed or it becomes too centralized (which make it vulnerable to becoming corrupt).

Don't forget to poison the wells & salt the fields.

Certainly. If bitcoin becomes so centralized that most of the nodes have KYC/AML/Blacklists or directly implements KYC in the protocol it will become an extremely dangerous tool of oppression and more problematic than physical Fiat.

I am not trying to be melodramatic and sensational, as I do think we may avoid this future, but it is important that those impatient get rich quick "to the moon" speculative investors realize there are still many of us around with principles and convictions understanding. Principles and convictions understanding which supersede profit and we will revolt if Bitcoin becomes a Paypal 2.0.

FTFY. Don't poison your mind with static belief systems. The big blockists have very strong convictions but no understanding, which is why their principles are different.

What is troubling about this is I hear very little  "exponential blockers"  empathizing with the centralization concerns and bargaining with their opposition with something like --- "We understand your concerns but if we as an ecosystem can create a plan and begin to reverse mining and node centralization and show a little progress in solidarity, perhaps we can both agree to raise maxBlockSize?"

Yes, you see this as well. So why assume that it's entirely an organic/natural development without any kind of deliberate disinformation effort by those with the most to lose (the oppressive elements, or control system)?

[VeritasSapere]

Satoshi Nakamoto on..
-snip-

Sometimes it is nice to reference what he said and remember, however this is an appeal to authority and you know it yourself. I don't care what he said a few years back. Actually I don't care what anyone said a few years back. What matters is the most recent research and opinions. Satoshi being gone means that his opinion is irrelevant.

His vision is still relevant, it is a vision that I do also agree with. Not increasing the blocksize is a divergence from this original vision.

I quoted Satoshi because it is relevant to this discussion. I was responding to other people claiming that this was not the case. Lets at least have our facts straight, it is fine to disagree with the original vision. We must be able to think for ourselves, however I do think it is important to understand this original vision in the first place. We must be able to fully understand something before we should be able to fully critique it.

In regards to what chain is valid, I think strictly speaking the longest chain is what should be considered to be Bitcoin, as described in the whitepaper. Personally however, I think that what chain is considered valid is actually subjective.

[BitUsher]

FTFY. Don't poison your mind with static belief systems. The big blockists have very strong convictions but no understanding, which is why their principles are different.

Well put... I am willing to change my mind based upon new data. I'll edited my post.

Yes, you see this as well. So why assume that it's entirely an organic/natural development without any kind of deliberate disinformation effort by those with the most to lose (the oppressive elements, or control system)?

I believe its a mix of trolls, shills wanting to create wedge issues to damage bitcoin, the misinformed, and people with genuine intentions that have slightly different priorities than us.

What about mining centralization? Wouldn’t raising max block size help weaken the Chinese mining cartel's stranglehold on hash?

Potentially. I have stated many times that Gavin's argument in which we must grow very quickly to insure that governments and banks can't subvert our project and increase decentralization is a valid strategy(a blitzkrieg like strategy that may increase decentralization). Such a strategy is dangerous and can also do the exact opposite as well. So we must temper such strategy with some safeguards in place.

Yes, there are a few small block purists out there but a majority of core and blockstream not only want the blocksize to grow but need it to grow to allow the Lightning network to properly work. I understand there are some conspiracy theorists out there that don't trust blockstream, but until they have good evidence their fears are misplaced and they need not worry, we will attack core and blockstream if they don't open source the lightning network and allow a level playing field for nodes.

 Perhaps we work together in solidarity and make a plan to decentralize mining and node count with set goals that if reached will prompt us to move forward with a maxBlockSize HF increase? If the strategy is that we need to move quickly, than we move quickly and demand bitfury sell those new chips to the public as they keep promising and roll out several plans to increase node count.

[watashi-kokoto]

It's getting a little bit of heated in here.





HODL!

[jonald_fyookball]

So the "current rules for Bitcoin" are set in stone unless the directors of the core repository say otherwise?
Do I have your position understood correctly?

Yes. It's the original rules introduced by Satoshi Nakamoto.

Satoshi Nakamoto introduced his 1MB limit to prevent the dust attack also known as the first "stress test".

If you disagree with Satoshi's rules, you're getting on a slippery slope.

It begins with a block size. Is there so much use? Who knows? Who cares?

Next the block time can be put into question. Do we need faster confirmations? But this affects the reward schedule itself. And so on.

In the end we have inflationary paradise no more different than the bailout-plagued system of today.

I agree with watashi-kokoto. He/she is wise 

(uh, no, he's not.)

Anyway, so we're clear:  you believe a small group of developers should be in charge of deciding what Bitcoin is.
That's fantastic.