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

[ATguy]

I hope that they get 75% miner support right away so that I can watch their miners saying, "Oh shit, we just mined a ton of worthless altcoins!".

I can't wait either. As iCEBREAKER pointed out a few posts back this is mearly a wedge attempt, but at least this time with "Bitcoin Classic" they don't mince words and admit they want to fork Bitcoin.

Let 'em I say. I'll just grab some popcorn and watch it play out like all reddit-fueled drama does: "Yay, we did it!" euphoria followed by "Oh shit!" when holders of the Bitcoin Classic altcoin realize they were socially engineered.

With majority of Bitcoin economy showing support for Bitcoin Classic as the new client for Bitcoin protocol (check soon for this new Bitcoin client), it is pretty desilusional anyone running/mining with Bitcoin core client will be using Bitcoin anymore. Basically the hardcore small blockers (maybe Blockstream supporters as well) will represents forked version with no relevance to Bitcoin anymore.

There still isn't clarity if this is a 2MB kick the can proposal, and 2MB immediate, and 4MB later proposal , or and 2MB immediate and doubling every 2 years BIP 101 style proposal. (We are also unaware of the specifics to the hardfork transition) Since the normal BIP process isn't being followed and no whitepaper exists, I cannot give my opinion on Bitcoin Classic. I would suggest that I do find it backwards and disheartening that so many are ACk'ing a proposal that isn't even clarified formally in either a whitepaper, BIP, or code which should all come before people judge it, IMHO.

I think it is pretty clear:

We call our code repository Bitcoin Classic. It is a one-feature patch to bitcoin-core that increases the blocksize limit to 2 MB. We will have ports for master, 0.11.2, and -86, so that miners and businesses can upgrade to 2 MB blocks from any recent bitcoin software version they run.

In the future we will continue to release updates that are in line with Satoshi’s whitepaper & vision, and are agreed upon by the community.

The BitPay adaptive blocks are under investigation. If it proves to be best option, 2 MB will be replaced with adaptive blocks in future, otherwise 2-4-8 MB deployed when blocks become almost full. Pretty reasonable and in line with Satoshi’s whitepaper & vision, not like the unrealistic Bitcoin Core so called "scalling plan"

[BitUsher]

I think it is pretty clear:

We call our code repository Bitcoin Classic. It is a one-feature patch to bitcoin-core that increases the blocksize limit to 2 MB. We will have ports for master, 0.11.2, and -86, so that miners and businesses can upgrade to 2 MB blocks from any recent bitcoin software version they run.

In the future we will continue to release updates that are in line with Satoshi’s whitepaper & vision, and are agreed upon by the community.

The BitPay adaptive blocks are under investigation. If it proves to be best option in future, 2 MB will be replaced with adaptive blocks, otherwise 2-4-8 MB deployed when blocks become almost full. Pretty reasonable, not like the unrealistic Bitcoin Core so called "scalling plan"

Sounds to me like you are suggesting BIP102 hard fork now and than perhaps future hardforks?

As you can see here they appear to be voting democratically on the technical specifications at the moment -
https://bitcoinclassic.consider.it/

With this pull request being merged -

https://bitcoinclassic.consider.it/merge-3-v0112-2mb-4mb?results=true

Mainnet parameters are:
2 MB cap
... doubling every two years
... for two years
... earliest possible chain fork: 1 Mar 2016
... after miner supermajority (750/1000 blocks)
... and 4 week grace period once supermajority achieved

This appears to contradict your claim, that it is simply BIP 102, and looks more like a 2- 4 plan but realistically an effective 3.5MB - 7MB plan because it looks as if they are going to copy over segwit as well

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

This appears to contradict your claim, that it is simply BIP 102, and looks more like a 2- 4 plan but realistically an effective 3.5MB - 7MB plan because it looks as if they are going to copy over segwit as well

Where did you read that segwit is to be included? That would be very unlikely.

You are correct, its a 2-4 plan.

[ATguy]

I think it is pretty clear:

We call our code repository Bitcoin Classic. It is a one-feature patch to bitcoin-core that increases the blocksize limit to 2 MB. We will have ports for master, 0.11.2, and -86, so that miners and businesses can upgrade to 2 MB blocks from any recent bitcoin software version they run.

In the future we will continue to release updates that are in line with Satoshi’s whitepaper & vision, and are agreed upon by the community.

The BitPay adaptive blocks are under investigation. If it proves to be best option in future, 2 MB will be replaced with adaptive blocks, otherwise 2-4-8 MB deployed when blocks become almost full. Pretty reasonable, not like the unrealistic Bitcoin Core so called "scalling plan"

Sounds to me like you are suggesting BIP102 hard fork now and than perhaps future hardforks?

As you can see here they appear to be voting democratically on the technical specifications at the moment -
https://bitcoinclassic.consider.it/

With this pull request being merged -

https://bitcoinclassic.consider.it/merge-3-v0112-2mb-4mb?results=true

Mainnet parameters are:
2 MB cap
... doubling every two years
... for two years
... earliest possible chain fork: 1 Mar 2016
... after miner supermajority (750/1000 blocks)
... and 4 week grace period once supermajority achieved

This appears to contradict your claim, that it is simply BIP 102, and looks more like a 2- 4 plan but realistically an effective 3.5MB - 7MB plan because it looks as if they are going to copy over segwit as well

About the bitcoinclassic.consider.it voting, you should wait for more people/players to vote to get better idea of result. Also democratic voting is bad word, obviously large exchange/top miners/main code contributors have higher voice than random person. Especially for SegWig, as this is not necessary feature anymore in my opinion, just mostly now supported by random people, but let see later...

Also, hard forks are nothing to fear, happened in the past and saved Bitcoin already. No need to maintain status quo with the necessary consensus (100%) anymore which just helped small block militia and Blockstream agenda which just blocked everything with just minority support required.

[brg444]

We can't both be quite happy with how things are changing, because one of us keeps frantically trying to protect the status quo

We'd just all be happy if you could leave Bitcoin alone and take care of your altcoins.

Everytime one of you forkers open his mouth with yet another flavored governance coup the market drops.

I mean, I'm expecting moon this year and you damn f0rkers are NOT going to ruin this  

[shinohai]

We can't both be quite happy with how things are changing, because one of us keeps frantically trying to protect the status quo

We'd just all be happy if you could leave Bitcoin alone and take care of your altcoins.

Quite. To put it succinctly: http://therealbitcoin.org/ml/btc-dev/2015-December/000184.html

any implementation that does not validate the entire blockchain during initial sync, including transaction signatures, may not be considered a Bitcoin client

How hard is that to understand?

[Zarathustra]

We can't both be quite happy with how things are changing, because one of us keeps frantically trying to protect the status quo

We'd just all be happy if you could leave Bitcoin alone and take care of your altcoins.

Everytime one of you forkers open his mouth with yet another flavored governance coup the market drops.

I mean, I'm expecting moon this year and you damn f0rkers are NOT going to ruin this  

Moon without scaling. Is there an even dumber desire anywhere out there? That a majority has the desire to fork you totalitarian Pseudobitcoiners with your Blockstream Altcoin out of the game should not be a surprise.

[Fatman3001]

We can't both be quite happy with how things are changing, because one of us keeps frantically trying to protect the status quo

We'd just all be happy if you could leave Bitcoin alone and take care of your altcoins.

Everytime one of you forkers open his mouth with yet another flavored governance coup the market drops.

I mean, I'm expecting moon this year and you damn f0rkers are NOT going to ruin this  

You are detached from reality. Leave this to people with their heads soldered on the right way and you and your fascist buddies will, unfortunately, benefit as well.

[BitUsher]

Where did you read that segwit is to be included? That would be very unlikely.

That is where the votes are - https://bitcoinclassic.consider.it/  and 2 of 3 devs are in favor of a hardfork segwit on bitcoin classic.. so it will likely be included. If it isn't included we should definitely avoid Bitcoin classic as SegWit does some amazing things beyond 1.75 capacity.  

...you should wait for more people/players to vote to get better idea of result.... but let see later...

Well that was my originally position. To withhold judgment until an actual proposal is made and code released. You than suggested it was clear which isn't the case as the Bitcoin classic group is still formulating a proposal. It is quite scary we have people Ack'ing a "non-proposal" as well... why aren't people being reasonable and waiting to see what is being proposed before agreeing to it? Additionally, why are people attacking "it" when there is nothing to attack except personalities. People should judge the proposal or BIP on its technical merits and not on the people who develop it , because after all this is open source and one good idea can be copied by all.

[brg444]

We can't both be quite happy with how things are changing, because one of us keeps frantically trying to protect the status quo

We'd just all be happy if you could leave Bitcoin alone and take care of your altcoins.

Everytime one of you forkers open his mouth with yet another flavored governance coup the market drops.

I mean, I'm expecting moon this year and you damn f0rkers are NOT going to ruin this  

Moon without scaling. Is there an even dumber desire anywhere out there? That a majority has the desire to fork you totalitarian Pseudobitcoiners with your Blockstream Altcoin out of the game should not be a surprise.

Don't get it twisted the totalitarians are the forkers attempting to subvert Bitcoin with the tyranny of the majority.

I know it's the oldest trick in the book to point fingers and say the other one did it but you're not 5 years old, are you?

[hdbuck]

Where did you read that segwit is to be included? That would be very unlikely.

That is where the votes are - https://bitcoinclassic.consider.it/  and 2 of 3 devs are in favor of a hardfork segwit on bitcoin classic.. so it will likely be included. If it isn't included we should definitely avoid Bitcoin classic as SegWit does some amazing things beyond 1.75 capacity.  

OMG, you actually think the whole bitcoin network rely on ~50 bubble voting whatnots on the internet.. +2 or 3 devs!

[brg444]

Where did you read that segwit is to be included? That would be very unlikely.

That is where the votes are - https://bitcoinclassic.consider.it/  and 2 of 3 devs are in favor of a hardfork segwit on bitcoin classic.. so it will likely be included. If it isn't included we should definitely avoid Bitcoin classic as SegWit does some amazing things beyond 1.75 capacity.  

OMG, you actually think the whole bitcoin network rely on ~50 whatnots bubble voting on the inernet.. +2 or 3 devs!

A dozen nobodies and a couple corporatist puppets. YUP! Sounds like consensus to me!

[Zarathustra]

We can't both be quite happy with how things are changing, because one of us keeps frantically trying to protect the status quo

We'd just all be happy if you could leave Bitcoin alone and take care of your altcoins.

Everytime one of you forkers open his mouth with yet another flavored governance coup the market drops.

I mean, I'm expecting moon this year and you damn f0rkers are NOT going to ruin this  

Moon without scaling. Is there an even dumber desire anywhere out there? That a majority has the desire to fork you totalitarian Pseudobitcoiners with your Blockstream Altcoin out of the game should not be a surprise.

Don't get it twisted the totalitarians are the forkers attempting to subvert Bitcoin with the tyranny of the majority.

I know it's the oldest trick in the book to point fingers and say the other one did it but you're not 5 years old, are you?

Finally: Jeff is leaving the sinking ship of the Totalitarians. I never understood why he tried to compromise with the compromised for so many month. This was a promising day:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/40tuhy/the_bitcoin_community_should_get_behind_bitcoin/

[BitUsher]

OMG, you actually think the whole bitcoin network rely on ~50 bubble voting whatnots on the internet.. +2 or 3 devs!

Your reading comprehension is poor or you are trying to troll.
I'm only am speaking about the context of Bitcoin classic where I see 4 devs to respond to a question about the probabilities of segwit being copied over, obviously there are thousands of devs contributing to the bitcoin ecosystem.

Finally: Jeff is leaving the sinking ship of the Totalitarians.

Hyperbole are always helpful to remind which comments to ignore.

-------------------------

[brg444]

We can't both be quite happy with how things are changing, because one of us keeps frantically trying to protect the status quo

We'd just all be happy if you could leave Bitcoin alone and take care of your altcoins.

Everytime one of you forkers open his mouth with yet another flavored governance coup the market drops.

I mean, I'm expecting moon this year and you damn f0rkers are NOT going to ruin this  

Moon without scaling. Is there an even dumber desire anywhere out there? That a majority has the desire to fork you totalitarian Pseudobitcoiners with your Blockstream Altcoin out of the game should not be a surprise.

Don't get it twisted the totalitarians are the forkers attempting to subvert Bitcoin with the tyranny of the majority.

I know it's the oldest trick in the book to point fingers and say the other one did it but you're not 5 years old, are you?

Finally: Jeff is leaving the sinking ship of the Totalitarians. I never understood why he tried to compromise with the compromised for so many month. This was a promising day:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/40tuhy/the_bitcoin_community_should_get_behind_bitcoin/

So long. Never liked him anyway. At least he finally shows some balls and take a stance rather than constantly hoping over the fence trying to please everybody.

[shinohai]

i like to think outside of the box. and it seems that many people argue, if your not a XT supporter you must be a blockstream supporter.

which brings people to start a 'race war' about which community people belong to.

but think outside of the box and ask yourself,
in 2011 when mining was done on GPU, why wasnt there "security risks" and people crying when the average block went from 100kb to 200kb, when the average persons hard drive was 250gb

why in 2013 when mining was done by 60ghash miners and the blocks were 500kb average and peoples hard drives were 500gb average, that there was no big arguments?

why in 2016 where a 2TB hard drive is cheap enough for regular people to buy, suddenly there is a problem for even an increase of the blocklimit to 2mb.

afterall if a GPU that is 1,000,000 slower than just one current asic, but was able to handle 10% of a 2mb block potential(200kb average bloat).. then just going by the numbers. an asic can handle alot more let alone a farm of asics. and the amount of ram the pool can put on their motherboards is higher than previous years too, meaning it debunks the the block hashing problem.(crying about orphans)

as for non mining user distribution of the solved blocks(full node users).. a 2tb hard drive can fix that argument too.. as a 2mb block would allow for 104gb yearly bloat, for ~20 years
even gavins proposed 8mb allows users to have 412gb yearly bloat for 5 years..

i personally think 8mb is a bit much straight off the cuff. id prefer 2mb and then increase if bottlenecks happen in the future.
by which time internet speed and storage capacity would be far more then average now. and affordable by average people.

if the debate is about bandwidth.. well i run a fullnode, i watch streaming videos (netflix, etc) play online gaming.. and i dont have any internet hiccups, and i dont expect to have any if the blocks went upto 2mb either. and im on a internet speed of under 20mb/s (nothing special)

once you realise that netflix streams at 1gb/hour SD and 3gb/hour HD.. which equates to 166mb every 10 minutes SD or 500mb every 10 minutes HD. you will then see that moaning about 1mb, 2mb, 8mb for something that gives you financial security.. is smallfry compared to bandwidth bloat of video which gives you just boredom relief temporarily.

in short if your computer and internet can handle netflix.. then blocksizes are not a problem

in short:
i just dont see a rational and logical reason why upping the block limit is going to be so disastrous

i would also like to know. out of all the people arguing which camp people belong to, and also what is the best way forward for bitcoin as a whole...who of them actually runs a bitcoin full node. as i think it should only be a discussion for those people who will actually be running a full node. or actually want to run a full node

I am neither an XT supporter, nor a Blockstream supporter. I support Bitcoin.

[iCEBREAKER]

"Furioser and furioser!" said Alice.

Fear does funny things to people.

Wasn't your precious XT fork supposed to happen today?

Or was that yesterday?

Either way, for all the sturm und drang last year the deadline turned out to be a titanic non-event.

Exactly as the small block militia told you it would be.

The block size is still 1MB, and those in favor of changing cannot agree when to raise it, nor by how much, nor by what formula future increases should be governed.

You are still soaking in glorious gridlock despite all the sound and fury, and I am loving every second of your agitation.   

We can't both be quite happy with how things are changing, because one of us keeps frantically trying to protect the status quo

No comment on the XT activation date passing without so much as a single 101 block being mined?  That's right, pretend it never happened.   

Nothing is actually changing, except for the nomenclature of [silly thing Gavinistas are hyping].

You are confusing signal and noise, just like Charlie Brown when Lucy convinces him to try kicking the football.

If it push really comes to shove, which is still highly unlikely so long as Bitcoin Core continues Bitcoining without skipping a beat, MPEX's Gavincoin Short will stop _Classic just like it would destroy XT.

[Cconvert2G36]

@iCE

Deftly keep referring to XT, while Bitmain, BW, (BTCC?), OKcoin, Coinbase are giving support to a simple BIP 102 type bump to Core 0.11 in the form of Classic.

Have you asked MP his opinion on the Power Ranger's roadmap?

Any big exchanges and miners signed on to the roadmap? (Not sure if Blockstream counts as big, is anyone using Liquid yet?)

The MP suicide short is a great incentive to have fiat on the exchange when a fork happens. Like "opportunity of a lifetime" style if he has the stones to do it. (I'm doubtful anyone would take the trouble to list the <25% chain... but if they do, I bet I won't be the only one on the other end of that trade.)   

[iCEBREAKER]

Deftly keep referring to XT, while Bitmain, BW, (BTCC?), OKcoin, Coinbase are giving support to a simple BIP 102 type bump to Core 0.11 in the form of Classic.

Have you asked MP his opinion on the Power Ranger's roadmap?

Any big exchanges and miners signed on to the roadmap? (Not sure if Blockstream counts as big, is anyone using Liquid yet?)

The MP suicide short is a great incentive to have fiat on the exchange when a fork happens. Like "opportunity of a lifetime" style if he has the stones to do it. (I'm doubtful anyone would take the trouble to list the <25% chain... but if they do, I bet I won't be the only one on the other end of that trade.)  

"Deftly?"  You aren't using that word correctly.  Consult a dictionary before you try to match my vocabulary.  And read more books.

You don't understand how the Gavincoin Short works.  At minimum, all that is required is for an exchange (or merchant) to accept my Gavincoins, while my Bitcoins stay safely in the Trezor.  No fiat is required.  Please learn WTF you are talking about before spewing misinformation.

I'm "deftly" (lol such tryhard fuckwit) referring to XT because its Jan 11 trigger date just passed, without even 1 in 1000 recent blocks mined in its favor.

Don't you think XT's wimpering nothingburger of a demise is worth remarking upon?  Or would you prefer everyone ignore and forget that embarrassing failure?

So some large pools/miners/exchanges support a bump to 2MB, in addition to a few of the soundly defeated Gavinistas.  Let's see them agree on the timing of that bump, the (contentious?) percent required to trigger its hardfork, and the algorithm (or lack thereof) for future increases.

Done?  Good.  Now the Gavinista-Redditurd Joint Engineering Committee must decide on whether or not to include RBF (and what flavor), SegWit, and CLTV.   Good luck with that.  

One does not simply raise the blocksize.  You should know that by now!  

[Cconvert2G36]

Deftly keep referring to XT, while Bitmain, BW, (BTCC?), OKcoin, Coinbase are giving support to a simple BIP 102 type bump to Core 0.11 in the form of Classic.

Have you asked MP his opinion on the Power Ranger's roadmap?

Any big exchanges and miners signed on to the roadmap? (Not sure if Blockstream counts as big, is anyone using Liquid yet?)

The MP suicide short is a great incentive to have fiat on the exchange when a fork happens. Like "opportunity of a lifetime" style if he has the stones to do it. (I'm doubtful anyone would take the trouble to list the <25% chain... but if they do, I bet I won't be the only one on the other end of that trade.)  

"Deftly?"  You aren't using that word correctly.  Consult a dictionary before you try to match my vocabulary.  And read more books.

You don't understand how the Gavincoin Short works.  At minimum, all that is required is for an exchange (or merchant) to accept my Gavincoins, while my Bitcoins stay safely in the Trezor.  No fiat is required.  Please learn WTF you are talking about before spewing misinformation.

I'm "deftly" (lol such tryhard fuckwit) referring to XT because its Jan 11 trigger date just passed, without even 1 in 1000 recent blocks mined in its favor.

Don't you think XT's wimpering nothingburger of a demise is worth remarking upon?  Or would you prefer everyone ignore and forget that embarrassing failure?

So some large pools/miners/exchanges support a bump to 2MB, in addition to a few of the soundly defeated Gavinistas.  Let's see them agree on the timing of that bump, the (contentious?) percent required to trigger its hardfork, and the algorithm (or lack thereof) for future increases.

Done?  Good.  Now the Gavinista-Redditurd Joint Engineering Committee must decide on whether or not to include RBF (and what flavor), SegWit, and CLTV.   Good luck with that.  

One does not simply raise the blocksize.  You should know that by now!  

The Old English word gedæfte, which means "mild" or "gentle," is the root of the word deftly, whose meaning still has that sense of doing something both skillfully and gently, or effortlessly.

So now you know.  

You skillfully, gently, and effortlessly substitute XT for your real fear, which is now Bitcoin Classic. A distinction you are cautious to publicly ignore, for good reason.

You, of all people, know I have been more of a Garzik guy than a Hearn guy, and never was stridently supportive of XT... even during the days of the gold thread that shall not be named.

If a fork happens... Mircea dumps his "gavincoins" and keeps the worthless ones, I get it. We get cheap coinz in the moment his rage is absorbed. Happy and heady days.