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

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

The best question nobody can answer:

Seriously, core should just increase the blocksize to 2MB in a regular maintenance update. They could even roll this into release candidate v0.12.0. It was never intended to be a consensus rule - only a temporary measure.

[worhiper_-_]

The best question nobody can answer:

Seriously, core should just increase the blocksize to 2MB in a regular maintenance update. They could even roll this into release candidate v0.12.0. It was never intended to be a consensus rule - only a temporary measure.

Oh great idea! Let's enable DDoSing as a feature!

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yulwv/any_examples_of_the_10_minute_script_thats_a/

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

The best question nobody can answer:

Seriously, core should just increase the blocksize to 2MB in a regular maintenance update. They could even roll this into release candidate v0.12.0. It was never intended to be a consensus rule - only a temporary measure.

Oh great idea! Let's enable DDoSing as a feature!

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yulwv/any_examples_of_the_10_minute_script_thats_a/

It’s possible to construct a transaction that takes up almost 1MB of space and which takes 30 seconds or more to validate on a modern computer (blocks containing such transactions have been mined). In 2MB blocks, a 2MB transaction can be constructed that may take over 10 minutes to validate which opens up dangerous denial-of-service attack vectors. Other lines of code would need to be changed to prevent these problems.

Good answer?

[disclaimer201]

The core development team had more than enough time now to design a version of Bitcoin that allows scalability. The original Bitcoin never had the 1MB limitation and raising it now to 2MB will not kill the currency, it's simply adjusting the code to new requirements, gives BTC the potential to grow further and seems to reflect minimal consensus needed at this point in time. Let BTC thrive with 2MB blocks. Very simple. Classic it is!

[Cconvert2G36]

The core development team had more than enough time now to design a version of Bitcoin that allows scalability. The original Bitcoin never had the 1MB limitation and raising it now to 2MB will not kill the currency, it's simply adjusting the code to new requirements, gives BTC the potential to grow further and seems to reflect minimal consensus needed at this point in time. Let BTC thrive with 2MB blocks. Very simple. Classic it is!

Sounds like you've been misled by soundbites, and aren't very technically oriented. If Bitcoin is hardforked to 2MB by a majority of hashrate, businesses, and users... Bitcoin haz failed, K? It's only logical. Antifragile ftw.

[Lauda]

Indeed.  Bitcoin is supposed to be governed by the code people freely choose to run.  If a company like Blockstream can co-opt Core, force the adoption of "illogical" features that the user do not want, and prevent the community from migrating to a new repo, then that would demonstrate a failure of Bitcoin.  

Yes, governed by the people manipulating the masses to run code by others. Code that is redundant in comparison to SegWit. You are forcing the industry into an illogical move, not helping it avoid one.

As a developer for Bitcoin Classic, and co-Chief Architect along with jstolfi,

Is this some kind of joke?

Oh great idea! Let's enable DDoSing as a feature!

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yulwv/any_examples_of_the_10_minute_script_thats_a/

It’s possible to construct a transaction that takes up almost 1MB of space and which takes 30 seconds or more to validate on a modern computer (blocks containing such transactions have been mined). In 2MB blocks, a 2MB transaction can be constructed that may take over 10 minutes to validate which opens up dangerous denial-of-service attack vectors. Other lines of code would need to be changed to prevent these problems.

Tell me again why Core refuses to increase the size like this? It surely isn't because of a security problem (said every XT/BU/Classic supporter)? 

The core development team had more than enough time now to design a version of Bitcoin that allows scalability. The original Bitcoin never had the 1MB limitation and raising it now to 2MB will not kill the currency, it's simply adjusting the code to new requirements, gives BTC the potential to grow further and seems to reflect minimal consensus needed at this point in time. Let BTC thrive with 2MB blocks. Very simple. Classic it is!

No, it is not. 2 MB blocks could be designed so that they have nodes forking everywhere around the world (SegWit is safer). Good luck trusting a broken network.

[iCEBREAKER]

The core development team had more than enough time now to design a version of Bitcoin that allows scalability.

Core has already designed "a version of Bitcoin that allows scalability."

They have been testing Segwit, Elements (sidechains), and Lightning since last year.  _Classic is the faction trying to roll back RBF and CLTV.

Oh wait, you are a Toomininsita and thus don't give a shit about exhaustive testing for new features being added to a consensus-critical distributed database.

2MB blocks "don't require much testing" so we should just roll them out Right Fucking Now, right?

Thanks for reminding the good people of Yorba Linda why _Classic is #R3KT.   

[Bergmann_Christoph]

It’s possible to construct a transaction that takes up almost 1MB of space and which takes 30 seconds or more to validate on a modern computer (blocks containing such transactions have been mined). In 2MB blocks, a 2MB transaction can be constructed that may take over 10 minutes to validate which opens up dangerous denial-of-service attack vectors. Other lines of code would need to be changed to prevent these problems.

Hmm ... let's write some lines of code to restrict transaction size to let's say 1 MB instead of writing 500 lines of code for Segregated Witness that quadripples the complexicity of bitcoin and brings less capacity to a later point in time?

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

No, it is not. 2 MB blocks could be designed so that they have nodes forking everywhere around the world (SegWit is safer). Good luck trusting a broken network.

Are you referring to unbounded hashed bytes for sigops? Why not bound them? And are all these transactions isStandard()?

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

The core development team had more than enough time now to design a version of Bitcoin that allows scalability.

Core has already designed "a version of Bitcoin that allows scalability."

Is that the one that Nobody Wants^tm?

[iCEBREAKER]

The core development team had more than enough time now to design a version of Bitcoin that allows scalability.

Core has already designed "a version of Bitcoin that allows scalability."

Is that the one that Nobody Wants^tm?

Nobody Wants a contentious hard fork and subsequent catastrophic consensus failure, except XT/Unlimited/Classic dead-enders (but you guys don't matter, because Bitcoin is not a democracy).

The people who matter support Core.  Here, have some Fact Welfare you poor, low-information Toominista.

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases

Why don't you follow your role model Mike Hearn's example, and ride off into the sunset?

You've got the whining part down, now you just need to GTFO.   

[Zarathustra]

Poor miCEBREAKER needs to clutch the last straw, the miserably failed tactics of his totalitarian idols. Your self-destroying agitation is a great support to trigger the fork even faster than without your efforts.

[Bergmann_Christoph]

https://twitter.com/borntricky/status/688280583038873600

@adam3us @pa49 @matthew_d_green a 2 mb block is not illogical and it would put and end to this. It's stubbornness that's killing bitcoin.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

The core development team had more than enough time now to design a version of Bitcoin that allows scalability.

Core has already designed "a version of Bitcoin that allows scalability."

Is that the one that Nobody Wants^tm?

Nobody Wants a contentious hard fork and subsequent catastrophic consensus failure, except XT/Unlimited/Classic dead-enders (but you guys don't matter, because Bitcoin is not a democracy).

The people who matter support Core.  Here, have some Fact Welfare you poor, low-information Toominista.

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases

Why don't you follow your role model Mike Hearn's example, and ride off into the sunset?

You've got the whining part down, now you just need to GTFO.   

You are always so angry. I love that about you....  

So whataya got for me?

Contentious fork?  No such thing. It either forks with over 75% behind it or it doesn't happen. Just coz you are crying does not make it contentious.
Catastrophic Consensus Failure?   See first point.  You can swim against the tide all you like, bitcoin will move on without you.
Bitcoin is not a democracy?  This does not equal "Developer X decides the future"  Its consnesus - what the majority follow is what becomes the standard. you cant influence it or subvert it.
People who matter support core?  Not anymore. They had their chance and blew it. The market is tired of their procrastination  and buying time waiting for their overly complex solutions.
Whining?  Me?    

[iCEBREAKER]

So whataya got for me?

A list of Core supporters that prove you are liar:

    Adam Back
    Alex Morcos
    Aaron Voisine
    Ben Davenport
    Ben Gorlick
    Bram Cohen
    Bryan Bishop
    BtcDrak
    Charlie Lee
    Christian Decker
    Cøbra
    Cory Fields
    Craig Watkins
    Daniel
    Daniel Kraft
    David A. Harding
    David Vorick
    Dev Random
    DexX7
    Douglas Huff
    Eric Lombrozo
    Glenn H Tarbox
    Gregory Maxwell
    Gregory Sanders
    James Hilliard
    Johnathan Corgan
    Johnson Lau
    Jonas Schnelli
    Jouke Hofman
    Lawrence Nahum
    Luke Dashjr
    Mark Friedenbach
    Eric Martindale
    Manuel Aráoz
    Marco Falke
    Matt Corallo
    Midnight Magic
    Michael Ford
    Nicolas Bacca
    Nicolas Dorier
    Obi Nwosu
    Patrick Strateman
    Pavel Janik
    Peter Todd
    Pieter Wuille
    Randy Waterhouse
    Rodolfo Novak
    Ruben de Vries
    Suhas Daftuar
    Theymos
    Thomas Kerin
    Wang Chun
    Warren Togami
    Wladimir J. van der Laan

Please pout more about now "Nobody Wants" Core's scaling roadmap.  It's funny!   

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

So whataya got for me?

A list of Core supporters that prove you are liar:

    Adam Back
    Alex Morcos
    Aaron Voisine
    Ben Davenport
    Ben Gorlick
    Bram Cohen
    Bryan Bishop
    BtcDrak
    Charlie Lee
    Christian Decker
    Cøbra
    Cory Fields
    Craig Watkins
    Daniel
    Daniel Kraft
    David A. Harding
    David Vorick
    Dev Random
    DexX7
    Douglas Huff
    Eric Lombrozo
    Glenn H Tarbox
    Gregory Maxwell
    Gregory Sanders
    James Knobend
    Johnathan Corgan
    Johnson Lau
    Jonas Schnelli
    Jouke Hofman
    Lawrence Nahum
    Luke Dashjr
    Mark Friedenbach
    Eric Martindale
    Manuel Aráoz
    Marco Falke
    Matt Corallo
    Midnight Magic
    Michael Ford
    Nicolas Bacca
    Nicolas Dorier
    Obi Nwosu
    Patrick Strateman
    Pavel Janik
    Peter Todd
    Pieter Wuille
    Randy Waterhouse
    Rodolfo Novak
    Ruben de Vries
    Suhas Daftuar
    Theymos
    Thomas Kerin
    Wang Chun
    Warren Togami
    Wladimir J. van der Laan

Please pout more about now "Nobody Wants" Core's scaling roadmap.  It's funny!  

Thats (largely) a list of core contributors. Well done. I'm sure you meant to make an incisive point with that cut'n'paste, and as soon as I see it I will be sure to "+1" it for you.
 

[Bergmann_Christoph]

Thats a list of core contributors. Well done. I'm sure you meant to make an incisive point with that cut'n'paste, and as soon as I see it I will be sure to "+1" it for you.
 

I guess he wanted to say:

Look here, so many people did sign the roadmap. You must be a liar, because -- fuck you fuck you get out of bitcoin fork away let's me and my super-rich friends play alone you poor noob gavinist and toominist and statist and leftist.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Thats a list of core contributors. Well done. I'm sure you meant to make an incisive point with that cut'n'paste, and as soon as I see it I will be sure to "+1" it for you.
 

I guess he wanted to say:

Look here, so many people did sign the roadmap. You must be a liar, because -- fuck you fuck you get out of bitcoin fork away let's me and my super-rich friends play alone you poor noob gavinist and toominist and statist and leftist.

I imagine his efforts on the keyboard are split roughly 50% typing and 50% spitting

[Zarathustra]

So whataya got for me?

A list of Core supporters that prove you are liar:


Please pout more about now "Nobody Wants" Core's scaling roadmap.  It's funny!   

Ah, your Politbüro. Boring without picture.

[iCEBREAKER]

So whataya got for me?

A list of Core supporters that prove you are liar:

    Adam Back
    Alex Morcos
    Aaron Voisine
    Ben Davenport
    Ben Gorlick
    Bram Cohen
    Bryan Bishop
    BtcDrak
    Charlie Lee
    Christian Decker
    Cøbra
    Cory Fields
    Craig Watkins
    Daniel
    Daniel Kraft
    David A. Harding
    David Vorick
    Dev Random
    DexX7
    Douglas Huff
    Eric Lombrozo
    Glenn H Tarbox
    Gregory Maxwell
    Gregory Sanders
    James Knobend
    Johnathan Corgan
    Johnson Lau
    Jonas Schnelli
    Jouke Hofman
    Lawrence Nahum
    Luke Dashjr
    Mark Friedenbach
    Eric Martindale
    Manuel Aráoz
    Marco Falke
    Matt Corallo
    Midnight Magic
    Michael Ford
    Nicolas Bacca
    Nicolas Dorier
    Obi Nwosu
    Patrick Strateman
    Pavel Janik
    Peter Todd
    Pieter Wuille
    Randy Waterhouse
    Rodolfo Novak
    Ruben de Vries
    Suhas Daftuar
    Theymos
    Thomas Kerin
    Wang Chun
    Warren Togami
    Wladimir J. van der Laan

Please pout more about now "Nobody Wants" Core's scaling roadmap.  It's funny!  

Thats (largely) a list of core contributors. Well done. I'm sure you meant to make an incisive point with that cut'n'paste, and as soon as I see it I will be sure to "+1" it for you.

That is a list of people who support Core's scaling roadmap.  The "incisive point" is that you are a liar that claimed "nobody wants" Core's approach.

We, the undersigned, support the roadmap in Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system. We have been working on scalability for several years within the Bitcoin Core project and consider this the best possible continuation of our efforts.

The list of core contributers is much longer and may be found at github.