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

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

About OP discussion, no wonder here is no analysis of top big blocks shills at all, because they just worship small blocks without rational reasons behind, thus most lacking analytical skills at all.

It just shows how disconnected with reality the OP'er has become. This is a side effect of living under a censoring regime. When you only get to see one side of an argument, you start to believe that it is the only narrative.

[Lauda]

Nope, no consensus at all, just majority of Bitcoin core developers which represents only small part in Bitcoin ecosystem. At least Bitcoin core developers are honest and telling clearly they cannot dictate the future of Bitcoin thus encouraging others for developing other full node clients working with (and defining) Bitcoin protocol, so no sabotaging at all, just finding full node client which gets widest popularity among Bitcoiners. There is not realistic other option than Bitcoin core today, but given the unpopular features like RBF, SegWit as scaling option, and full blocks in 2016/2017, Im pretty sure the competetion finally starts soon and we will be not in situation where one group of developers controls the future of the whole Bitcoin ecosystem anymore, especially when they are unwilling to hear substantional (if not majority) view.

Good luck with your fairy tale. People call out on SegWit for its "complexity" but they have no problems with several implementations and different groups of developers (it certainly makes it "easier" for a person new to Bitcoin). Anyone who understands features like SegWit endorses them, the others (most, not all) are ignorant and quickly jump to conclusions. You sound a bit like Peter R to me.

It just shows how disconnected with reality the OP'er has become. This is a side effect of living under a censoring regime. When you only get to see one side of an argument, you start to believe that it is the only narrative.

Happens pretty much everywhere these days.

That's a pretty weird way of looking at it.

There are people who disagrees with the "consensus", which would lead one to believe that there isn't a consensus.

There will never be 100% consensus, especially not when bad actors are around. Get used to coming close to 100% (that's enough in the current system).

a few have been lobbying for and fanboying blockstream for months. but when actually asking them to explain in detail why people are wrong

I feel like there is correlation with you not being able to understand SegWit properly. I recommend listening to the latest Bitcoin podcast, Andreas is talking about it.

[franky1]

a few have been lobbying for and fanboying blockstream for months. but when actually asking them to explain in detail why people are wrong
they replies are "look at the picture of the features"(doesnt explain crap about reality)
they replies are "your a shill"
they replies are "your wrong and dont understand"

yet they do not put any hearty evidence, proof, numbers, examples of features, use case scenario's or hard details..

to them this is there general mindset..


i really hope they wake up one day and put numbers to paper, puts some features into real life scenario's and actually thinks outside of the box.. rather than just running with a plan that puts money in their pocket or keeps them friendly with the rich and powerful

i personally am not a XT fanboy or a blockstream fanboy. i just look rationally and throw things into scenarios and see all the possible implications of each path.
which plans can be backward compatible and which veer bitcoin down a one way street with no chance of a turnaround should something go wrong.

[DooMAD]

Mostly it's just amusing that people around here like to think of themselves as crypto-anarchists, but only until someone disagrees.  Then they swiftly turn into crypto-fascists and start whining about "contentious issues" that shouldn't be discussed and attempting to justify stifling debate about it and calling people "shills".  You're about as anarchistic as the average teenager, but with slightly less of a spine.  

[Fatman3001]

That's a pretty weird way of looking at it.

There are people who disagrees with the "consensus", which would lead one to believe that there isn't a consensus.

There will never be 100% consensus, especially not when bad actors are around. Get used to coming close to 100% (that's enough in the current system).

That is true. But to claim consensus when the lines haven't moved is a bit weird and, in my view, quite problematic. A more honest approach would be to admit/accept that consensus could not be reached but that this particular group has decided to move forward with an agreed upon set of solutions.

At the very least accept that this consensus is not morally binding/normative for others in the community and cannot be used to brand people as saboteurs and bad actors.

The funny thing is, if only they didn't try to pass it off as "consensus" in this way, this is exactly the kind of decisive leadership Gavin's been shouting about for a year now. Which is good, I guess.

Mostly it's just amusing that people around here like the think of themselves as crypto-anarchists, but only until someone disagrees.  Then they swiftly turn into crypto-fascists and start whining about "contentious issues" that shouldn't be discussed and attempting to justify stifling debate about it and calling people "shills".  You're about as anarchistic as the average teenager, but with slightly less of a spine.  

Sure, but you can do hookers and blow with money you should have used for taxes and claim it's because you have integrity.

Disclaimer: Posted on a shitty android phone. Typos and weird shit may occur.

[Bergmann_Christoph]

Mostly it's just amusing that people around here like to think of themselves as crypto-anarchists, but only until someone disagrees.  Then they swiftly turn into crypto-fascists and start whining about "contentious issues" that shouldn't be discussed and attempting to justify stifling debate about it and calling people "shills".  You're about as anarchistic as the average teenager, but with slightly less of a spine.  

Yeah, it's really funny where all this did go.

I'm watching this "Small block militia" for some month and this is their master-piece.

Funnily I never found them really discussing reasons about the problems with an increase of the blocklimits (I know that those problems exist, but I'd like to discuss them). Sometimes they answer questions, but if you discuss it, they leave. Usually their habbit is not to discuss, but to start personal attacks, insults, doxxings, character assasination. Their mindset seems to be best characterized by a slavish submissive to authority and hate for everyone whose worldview expands their very narrow perspective on bitcoin and everything else.

I wonder what they do here, since I thought bitcoin is about a free currency for free people.

Also I really wonder why the moderators tolerate that this gang of hooligans continuosly violates all rules of online-discussion. I don't know any forum where something like this would be tolerated more than two days.

I heard Theymos and the other moderators here are strictly with core and team small blocks. If so, they should be worried that this childish-faszist behavior of their supporters does much harm to the core devs and blockstream. Usually people are judged with by the behavior of their friends.

I personally am slightly for bigger blocks but am aware that there might be serious risks with hardforking to bigger blocks. But the "style" of the small block militia drives me away from supporting core, blockstream and small blocks.

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

You'd have to ask him, I'm just the messenger. Doesn't really matter tho, there is consensus on the roadmap. 

I will. There is indeed consensus but there are still people trying to sabotage it.

Nope, no consensus at all, just majority of Bitcoin core developers which represents only small part in Bitcoin ecosystem. At least Bitcoin core developers are honest and telling clearly they cannot dictate the future of Bitcoin thus encouraging others for developing other full node clients working with (and defining) Bitcoin protocol, so no sabotaging at all, just finding full node client which gets widest popularity among Bitcoiners. There is not realistic other option than Bitcoin core today, but given the unpopular features like RBF, SegWit as scaling option, and full blocks in 2016/2017, Im pretty sure the competetion finally starts soon and we will be not in situation where one group of developers controls the future of the whole Bitcoin ecosystem anymore, especially when they are unwilling to hear substantional (if not majority) view.


About OP discussion, no wonder here is no analysis of top big blocks shills at all, beause they just worship small blocks without rational reasons behind, thus most lacking analytical skills at all.

We should have LN working by 2017, and if blocks are full, we will see if raising it is a good idea or not. A massive risk just to save a tiny amount in transaction fees doesn't seem like it's something worth doing to me to be honest. I was anti small blocks back then but now I totally see the point of the dangers of centralized nodes.

[keepdoing]

Yeah, it's really funny where all this did go.

I'm watching this "Small block militia" for some month and this is their master-piece.

Funnily I never found them really discussing reasons about the problems with an increase of the blocklimits (I know that those problems exist, but I'd like to discuss them). Sometimes they answer questions, but if you discuss it, they leave. Usually their habbit is not to discuss, but to start personal attacks, insults, doxxings, character assasination. Their mindset seems to be best characterized by a slavish submissive to authority and hate for everyone whose worldview expands their very narrow perspective on bitcoin and everything else.

I wonder what they do here, since I thought bitcoin is about a free currency for free people.

Also I really wonder why the moderators tolerate that this gang of hooligans continuosly violates all rules of online-discussion. I don't know any forum where something like this would be tolerated more than two days.

I heard Theymos and the other moderators here are strictly with core and team small blocks. If so, they should be worried that this childish-faszist behavior of their supporters does much harm to the core devs and blockstream. Usually people are judged with by the behavior of their friends.

I personally am slightly for bigger blocks but am aware that there might be serious risks with hardforking to bigger blocks. But the "style" of the small block militia drives me away from supporting core, blockstream and small blocks.

Problem is... you aren't the only one.  I personally am a bit taken back by the current situation.  Bitcoin has such promise.  If a few reasonable changes were made, it COULD become a global currency, probably THE global currency.  Honestly, it has everything going for it - a huge infrastructure buildout, pretty solid user base, good name recognition, almost 10 years of solid debugging and real world lab experience, and yet..... why the heck am I getting this impending sense of doom lately?

I am totally serious.  I am totally shocked that this little Blockstream Player / Core-Dev group is so blind to what they are squandering, and at how strongly rebellion is brewing.  Right now it would not take much for everyone to start running for the exits, or towards another solution. And we KNOW that other solutions are being worked on.

Honestly I am pissed off and disgusted, and I am honestly starting to keep my eyes on the exit door at all times.  And it is sad, totally sad that this is happening.

[franky1]

a few have been lobbying for and fanboying blockstream for months. but when actually asking them to explain in detail why people are wrong

I feel like there is correlation with you not being able to understand SegWit properly. I recommend listening to the latest Bitcoin podcast, Andreas is talking about it.

i recommend you listen to andreas's podcast again

if you request transactions the old way will get a transaction without a witness
new clients have the options now to have transactions with witness or without

so goodluck old clients. your just going to relay transactions that are uncheckable and meaningless and you cant do anything about it.. making you redundant and a limp node

its funny that miners raised the transaction fee to 0.0005(22cent) and then tell people the only way to get cheap tx fee's again is to upgrade!
oh and a 75% discount in fee's is still 0.000125(5.6cent), which is higher than last years 0.0001(4.5cent)

seriously you need to look outside the blockstream box to see the big picture. thats not consensus, thats corruption, blackmail and bribery and leaving those that dont follow your agenda to be left to rot

[hdbuck]

...
seriously you need to look outside the blockstream box to see the big picture.

How is being against XT, BU, blocksize increase, segwit and any soft/hard/flabby ph0rks in general, blockstream related? Fuck them too if they can't innovate without crippeling Bitcoin's PROTOCOL.

I'm against you fuckwit reddit wannabes, authority cravers and critically inapt herd forking the shit out of the Holy Ledger to please your VC master over at cali and their cash burning useless parasitic corporations to denature the only monetary system thats left sane in this sand castle that has become the financial world.

Please proceed with your inabilities and get a RFID chip on your butt already.

[Fatman3001]

...
seriously you need to look outside the blockstream box to see the big picture.

How is being against XT, BU, blocksize increase, segwit and any soft/hard/flabby ph0rks in general, blockstream related? Fuck them too if they can't innovate without crippeling Bitcoin's PROTOCOL.

I'm against you fuckwit reddit wannabes, authority cravers and critically inapt herd forking the shit out of the Holy Ledger to please your VC master over at cali and their cash burning useless parasitic corporations to denature the only monetary system thats left sane in this sand castle that has became the financial world.

Please proceed with your inabilities and get a RFID chip on your butt already.

U R French

[Bergmann_Christoph]

if you request transactions the old way will get a transaction without a witness
new clients have the options now to have transactions with witness or without

so goodluck old clients. your just going to relay transactions that are uncheckable and meaningless and you cant do anything about it.. making you redundant and a limp node

Yes. It's like the government of the swiss says, "dear people of swiss, our constitution actually demands a referendum for us to do this properly. But since we don't trust your decision, we decided the best-solution is to tricky-track around the problem, so that we can do it without a referendum. That's brilliant. It ensures the system's stability."

The same is with RBF, no matter if opt-in or full. If it goes through, it forces every node to confirm the existance of rbf.

I'm really curious how many people will upgrade the next core version. It could happen we'll find bitcoin soon in some state of ungovernability, like belgium, where even the leading party (=core) is unable to push needed things forward.

While I'm for the decentralization of development, I'm not sure if such a state is better than what we have now.

[VeritasSapere]

if you request transactions the old way will get a transaction without a witness
new clients have the options now to have transactions with witness or without

so goodluck old clients. your just going to relay transactions that are uncheckable and meaningless and you cant do anything about it.. making you redundant and a limp node

Yes. It's like the government of the swiss says, "dear people of swiss, our constitution actually demands a referendum for us to do this properly. But since we don't trust your decision, we decided the best-solution is to tricky-track around the problem, so that we can do it without a referendum. That's brilliant. It ensures the system's stability."

The same is with RBF, no matter if opt-in or full. If it goes through, it forces every node to confirm the existance of rbf.

I'm really curious how many people will upgrade the next core version. It could happen we'll find bitcoin soon in some state of ungovernability, like belgium, where even the leading party (=core) is unable to push needed things forward.

While I'm for the decentralization of development, I'm not sure if such a state is better than what we have now.

I am adamant that it is a superior state to what we have now, if we cannot achieve such a state I would lose much of my interest in Bitcoin and I would consider the governance mechanism of Bitcoin to have failed, this is the first real test of this mechanism so the outcome is hard to know, since there is no historical precedent to this situation. This is a experiment in decentralized governance.

After all if we had to be reliant and dependent upon a centralized authority in the form of Core in order for Bitcoin to survive then this would defeat the very point of "trust" without centralized authority. I think that these alternative implementations will increase the blocksize limit more and faster then Core would.

However I do suspect that under a more decentralized model of governance that it could slow down development in other regards. Since implementations would need to negotiate any consensus critical changes with other implementations and the wider community more then they presently would. This could have the effect of slowing down development though it would also make development in Bitcoin more conservative, which I would actually consider a positive development.

[Lauda]

Also I really wonder why the moderators tolerate that this gang of hooligans continuosly violates all rules of online-discussion. I don't know any forum where something like this would be tolerated more than two days.

I heard Theymos and the other moderators here are strictly with core and team small blocks. If so, they should be worried that this childish-faszist behavior of their supporters does much harm to the core devs and blockstream. Usually people are judged with by the behavior of their friends.

You are just another shill that was created in order to manipulate people. The staff does not have to agree with theymos and many do on different matters. IIRC it even says somewhere that we should not change our behavioral pattern just because we have become a part of the staff. Most of the negative energy is coming from the manipulators while the Core developers are working hard on improving Bitcoin. I can't say the same for you and your kind.

How is being against XT, BU, blocksize increase, segwit and any soft/hard/flabby ph0rks in general, blockstream related? Fuck them too if they can't innovate without crippeling Bitcoin's PROTOCOL.

Both soft and hard forks are needed and can be quite useful. One day (and I hope not) there will be a urgent need for a hard fork or else Bitcoin dies.

That is true. But to claim consensus when the lines haven't moved is a bit weird and, in my view, quite problematic. A more honest approach would be to admit/accept that consensus could not be reached but that this particular group has decided to move forward with an agreed upon set of solutions.

The lines have not moved a bit? Are you even sure about that? The roadmap for 2016 was signed by several people.

Since everyone that disagrees with you must be a shill right?

The more people post similarly to this, the more you guys expose yourself. Keep it up.

[VeritasSapere]

Three out of the five Core committers, did not even sign on to the Core road map. You do not even have developer consensus on this issue within Core, yet you claim to have consensus in the wider community. Since everyone that disagrees with you must be a shill right?

[VeritasSapere]

Since everyone that disagrees with you must be a shill right?

The more people post similarly to this, the more you guys expose yourself. Keep it up.

You are the one calling people shills without evidence, you are only exposing yourself by doing this.

[blunderer]

... Fuck them too if they can't innovate without crippeling Bitcoin's PROTOCOL.
...

PROTO-COOL

[jonald_fyookball]

"Centralization of mining due to slow propagation with bigger blocks" is mostly a strawman argument.

Even if the blocksize went up to 8MB with no increases in Internet speed,
you're talking about 8 seconds difference between an 8mbit connection and
a 16mbit connection.  Compare to the 600 seconds required to solve a block
and you get 8/600 = .0133~.    So that's a 1.3% advantage to the faster
miner.  Quite dubious to say that would be a crushing competitive advantage
given that there are other factors involved in mining costs such as electricity,
gear, and operations.

Sry, I can't follow your numbers there with regards to block propagation. But mining centralization has already largely happened because of the economics of Bitcoin mining.  

Mining centralization already happened but small blockers are afraid that the geographic area or region with fastest internet speeds will become the only
place mining will be competitive if blocks get big.  But I'm not buying their argument.

As far as the numbers, there's 8 bits in one byte.  Therefore, a difference of 8 megabits in speed is one megabyte per second.
If block size is 8 MB, that's 8 seconds.  Yet it takes 10 minutes to solve a block so 8/600.

[Lauda]

You are the one calling people shills without evidence, you are only exposing yourself by doing this.

You don't need evidence of nothing when unknown people pop up supporting various proposals. Those votes can't be verified thus shouldn't be counted nor do they matter for consensus. I'm not exposing anything, my position is more or less clear. On some points I support Core Developers and on some I don't. I would put more effort into arguing if I was able to come up with something better, but I'm not. I suggest that you adjust your pattern (more contributing, less complaining). We should be collaborating, not fighting.

[Bergmann_Christoph]

Yes. It's like the government of the swiss says, "dear people of swiss, our constitution actually demands a referendum for us to do this properly. But since we don't trust your decision, we decided the best-solution is to tricky-track around the problem, so that we can do it without a referendum. That's brilliant. It ensures the system's stability."

The same is with RBF, no matter if opt-in or full. If it goes through, it forces every node to confirm the existance of rbf.

I'm really curious how many people will upgrade the next core version. It could happen we'll find bitcoin soon in some state of ungovernability, like belgium, where even the leading party (=core) is unable to push needed things forward.

While I'm for the decentralization of development, I'm not sure if such a state is better than what we have now.

I am adamant that it is a superior state to what we have now, if we cannot achieve such a state I would lose much of my interest in Bitcoin and I would consider the governance mechanism of Bitcoin to have failed, this is the first real test of this mechanism so the outcome is hard to know, since there is no historical precedent to this situation. This is a experiment in decentralized governance.

I worry such a state could destroy or paralyze bitcoin. But I agree with you. If voting with the client is a sin, bitcoin's protection against malgovernance will have failed.

After all if we had to be reliant and dependent upon a centralized authority in the form of Core in order for Bitcoin to survive then this would defeat the very point of "trust" without centralized authority. I think that these alternative implementations will increase the blocksize limit more and faster then Core would.

However I do suspect that under a more decentralized model of governance that it could slow down development in other regards. Since implementations would need to negotiate any consensus critical changes with other implementations and the wider community more then they presently would. This could have the effect of slowing down development though it would also make development in Bitcoin more conservative, which I would actually consider a positive development.

Maybe longterm bitcoin will be made more modular, so that only very few rules are consensus critical. In such a state it would be impossible for any party to change the 21M limit, which would be good for Bitcoin as a store of value.