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

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Hey Lauda, I took your advice to learn C [1].  I've been playing around with arrays and I think I've found a technical solution to the block size limit debate:

Code:

#include <stdio.h>

int main()
{
   int array[10]; 
   array[11] = 0;
   printf("stick with core\n");
}

When I run my program, it gave me the answer:

Code:

>./decentralize_development
segmentation fault (core dumped)

It's time to dump the core!!

/stupid programmer joke

[1] Just kidding.  My C code is running in semiconductor fabs all over the world including at Intel and Samsung.    

What's the Classic position on opt-in RBF?

[Peter R]

What's the Classic position on opt-in RBF?

Our polling shows that there is almost no support for it (and lots of opposition towards it).  For this reason, opt-in RBF will not be included in Bitcoin Classic. 

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

What's the Classic position on opt-in RBF?

Our polling shows that there is almost no support for it (and lots of opposition towards it).  For this reason, opt-in RBF will not be included in Bitcoin Classic. 

I hope you aren't giving votes to people like me. We know nothing!

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

What's the Classic position on opt-in RBF?

Our polling shows that there is almost no support for it (and lots of opposition towards it).  For this reason, opt-in RBF will not be included in Bitcoin Classic. 

Can you provide more information?

Who was polled?

Who was excluded from the poll?

How was the question phrased?

[hdbuck]

What's the Classic position on opt-in RBF?

Our polling shows that there is almost no support for it (and lots of opposition towards it).  For this reason, opt-in RBF will not be included in Bitcoin Classic. 

I hope you aren't giving votes to people like me. We know nothing!

Thats the whole point.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

What's the Classic position on opt-in RBF?

Our polling shows that there is almost no support for it (and lots of opposition towards it).  For this reason, opt-in RBF will not be included in Bitcoin Classic. 

Can you provide more information?

Who was polled?

Who was excluded from the poll?

How was the question phrased?

You're like a clever version of me. I like that about you.

[hdbuck]

What's the Classic position on opt-in RBF?

Our polling shows that there is almost no support for it (and lots of opposition towards it).  For this reason, opt-in RBF will not be included in Bitcoin Classic. 

Can you provide more information?

Who was polled?

Who was excluded from the poll?

How was the question phrased?

Overall about 50 internet randoms deluded enough to think they somehow matter.. some people clearly forgot their meds.

[VeritasSapere]

Further on lifting Theymos up to developer status within Core by making him one of their signatories makes them even more complicit of his actions, they should not be supportive of people that carry out this sort of censorship. Inaction sometimes is wrong, I am sorry if you can not understand that. There is an old quote which I think is relevant here:

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

You mean the same way as Classic lifted Peter Rizun to a developer on their list? You didn't complain about that. Definitely not biased, right?

Peter R has not engaged in censorship, unlike Theymos. Diverting my argument with a baseless attack? My point still stands.

[iCEBREAKER]

What's the Classic position on opt-in RBF?

Our polling shows that there is almost no support for it (and lots of opposition towards it).  For this reason, opt-in RBF will not be included in Bitcoin Classic. 

Can you provide more information?

Who was polled?

Who was excluded from the poll?

How was the question phrased?

[iCEBREAKER]

What's the Classic position on opt-in RBF?

Our polling shows that there is almost no support for it (and lots of opposition towards it).  For this reason, opt-in RBF will not be included in Bitcoin Classic. 

Classic is censoring supporters of RBF!  It's literally worse than the Khmer Rouge!   

Why not give users the option of enabling (disabled by default) RBF?

Is Classic "making zero-conf tx as safe as possible" to ensure Bitcoin is Starbucks-compatible?  @BitFury doesn't like that "fancy Visa" BS.

Time to route around Classic's (unconscionably heavy-handed) RBF Ban by forking  into Classic2 - where popular features won't be prohibited by law.

Good luck with your Toomin dictatorship and its (feature) killing fields.  You can take our RBF, but you will never take our freedom!

[Lauda]

int array[10];
array[11] = 0;

/stupid programmer joke

[1] Just kidding.  My C code is running in semiconductor fabs all over the world including at Intel and Samsung.    

Array out of bounds exception. Also C++ is better than C.

Being willing to listen someones arguments is equivalent to an attack now, is it?  Thats what we used to call a debate.

I was not talking about you in that particular part, sorry that I did not clarify. I added an update to the post.

Peter R has not engaged in censorship, unlike Theymos. Diverting my argument with a baseless attack? My point still stands.

Of course it does not, else you would not be discussing this here at all. Most of the censorship accusations were in fact invalid, but of course you would never admit to that. Moderation is something that only exists in fairy tales.

[Zarathustra]

What's the Classic position on opt-in RBF?

Our polling shows that there is almost no support for it (and lots of opposition towards it).  For this reason, opt-in RBF will not be included in Bitcoin Classic.  

I hope you aren't giving votes to people like me. We know nothing!

I hope they will. Such is democracy. Here in Switzerland, wherever the entire population can vote on individual acts, everything works better than elsewhere on the planet where experts and Politbüros are deciding.
The Core developers and cheerleaders prefer to speak on armed squares. The Bitcoin Classic people prefer those squares:

http://www.myswitzerland.com/en-ch/landsgemeinden.html

[iCEBREAKER]

What's the Classic position on opt-in RBF?

Our polling shows that there is almost no support for it (and lots of opposition towards it).  For this reason, opt-in RBF will not be included in Bitcoin Classic.  

I hope you aren't giving votes to people like me. We know nothing!

I hope they will. Such is democracy. Here in Switzerland, wherever the entire population can vote on individual acts, everything works better than elsewhere on the planet where experts and Politbüros are deciding.
The Core developers and cheerleaders prefer to speak on armed squares. The Bitcoin Classic people prefer those squares:

http://www.myswitzerland.com/en-ch/landsgemeinden.html

Did you vote to get rid of banking secrecy?

Did you vote to betray all those who trusted Swiss banks to protect their families' saving from predatory governments?

Did you vote to peg the Franc to the Euro?  Did you vote to suspend/relax that peg?

Did you vote for negative interest rates?

[Zarathustra]

What's the Classic position on opt-in RBF?

Our polling shows that there is almost no support for it (and lots of opposition towards it).  For this reason, opt-in RBF will not be included in Bitcoin Classic.  

Classic is censoring supporters of RBF!  It's literally worse than the Khmer Rouge!  

Good luck with your Toomin dictatorship and its (feature) killing fields.  You can take our RBF, but you will never take our freedom!

Says the one who supports censorship the most and opens threads that are censored by himself. Noone with half a brain listens to your orwellian BS.

[Zarathustra]

What's the Classic position on opt-in RBF?

Our polling shows that there is almost no support for it (and lots of opposition towards it).  For this reason, opt-in RBF will not be included in Bitcoin Classic.  

I hope you aren't giving votes to people like me. We know nothing!

I hope they will. Such is democracy. Here in Switzerland, wherever the entire population can vote on individual acts, everything works better than elsewhere on the planet where experts and Politbüros are deciding.
The Core developers and cheerleaders prefer to speak on armed squares. The Bitcoin Classic people prefer those squares:

http://www.myswitzerland.com/en-ch/landsgemeinden.html

Did you vote to get rid of banking secrecy?

Did you vote to betray all those who trusted Swiss banks to protect their families' saving from predatory governments?

Did you vote to peg the Franc to the Euro?  Did you vote to suspend/relax that peg?

Did you vote for negative interest rates?

We can vote to everything, as soon as we decide to, you noob. Educate yourself!

[iCEBREAKER]

What's the Classic position on opt-in RBF?

Our polling shows that there is almost no support for it (and lots of opposition towards it).  For this reason, opt-in RBF will not be included in Bitcoin Classic.  

Classic is censoring supporters of RBF!  It's literally worse than the Khmer Rouge!  

Good luck with your Toomin dictatorship and its (feature) killing fields.  You can take our RBF, but you will never take our freedom!

Says the one who supports censorship the most and opens threads that are censored by himself. Noone with half a brain listens to your orwellian BS.

Orwellian?  Like how Big Brother Toomin memory-holed RBF, by removing even the option to enable it?

At least I know the difference between the Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft and a democracy.  That's pathetic, given that you live in the Confoederatio Helvetica!   

[Zarathustra]

What's the Classic position on opt-in RBF?

Our polling shows that there is almost no support for it (and lots of opposition towards it).  For this reason, opt-in RBF will not be included in Bitcoin Classic.  

Classic is censoring supporters of RBF!  It's literally worse than the Khmer Rouge!  

Good luck with your Toomin dictatorship and its (feature) killing fields.  You can take our RBF, but you will never take our freedom!

Says the one who supports censorship the most and opens threads that are censored by himself. Noone with half a brain listens to your orwellian BS.

Orwellian?  Like how Big Brother Toomin memory-holed RBF, by removing even the option to enable it?

At least I know the difference between the Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft and a democracy.  That's pathetic, given that you live in the Confoederatio Helvetica!  

You know nothing. If the people in Switzerland want to decide and vote upon any option, we can! If we decide to not enable BS that the Politbüro programmed, we do!

[valiz]

Hey Lauda, I took your advice to learn C [1].  I've been playing around with arrays and I think I've found a technical solution to the block size limit debate:

Code:

#include <stdio.h>

int main()
{
   int array[10]; 
   array[11] = 0;
   printf("stick with core\n");
}

When I run my program, it gave me the answer:

Code:

>./decentralize_development
segmentation fault (core dumped)

It's time to dump the core!!

/stupid programmer joke

Hey Peter TRoll, you are such an incompetent 'developer'. Obviously, running your code does not always end up with "segmentation fault", it is only a possibility. Look, I compiled and ran the code and there was no segmentation fault. 

Your code only leads to undefined behavior. And btw, you should put a "return" statement when you exit the main function to hide your gross incompetence.

Code:

$ cat petertroll.c 
#include <stdio.h>

int main()
{
   int array[10]; 
   array[11] = 0;
   printf("stick with core\n");
}

$ gcc -o petertroll petertroll.c 
$ ./petertroll   
stick with core

[1] Just kidding.  My C code is running in semiconductor fabs all over the world including at Intel and Samsung.   

No proof for this statement.

[valiz]

Obviously, running your code does not always end up with "segmentation fault", it is only a possibility.

Code:

int main()
{
   [b]int array[10]; [/b]
   array[11] = 0;
   printf("stick with core\n");
}

Oops, I was wrong. Because you put the "array" array on the stack, there are no chances for "segmentation fault".

Peter TRoll 'developer' #REKT

 

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Obviously, running your code does not always end up with "segmentation fault", it is only a possibility.

Code:

int main()
{
   [b]int array[10]; [/b]
   array[11] = 0;
   printf("stick with core\n");
}

Oops, I was wrong. Because you put the "array" array on the stack, there are no chances for "segmentation fault".

Peter TRoll 'developer' #REKT

 

The array is neither static nor in a function, so its not on the stack. More likely ( dependent on your setup) its pre-allocated in the programs data section.
The fact that you dont core any time is down to blind luck.