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

[BitUsher]

What vote?

'Economic majority' is a phantom concept.

After a hard fork, there will be 2 competing currencies. Each one with it's longest valid chain, each one with it's group of users.

If the biggest nodes and the biggest miners start to use only one of the competing currencies, it doesn't mean that currency will be more valuable.

Economic majority is difficult to exactly quantify  (I.E... we don't know if the 500 k to 1 million bitcoins Satoshi controls is lost , controlled by one individuals or multiple individuals ) but is an important concept nonetheless.

Case in point --- if all the bitcoin processors , exchanges, and banks accepted one fork over the other than the other fork instantly loses most of its utility and becomes merely speculative asset like many alts. This doesn't mean that it will necessarily be worth less than the chain with the most utility but likely it will be worth much less.

***There are some extreme scenarios where enough interest is within the minor chain such as them switching over to an ASIC proof PoW algo scheme with most of the talented developers backing it which may convince enough people to value the minor chain with temporarily less utility more.

[watashi-kokoto]

In short:

Classic, XT, ... REKT

[jonald_fyookball]

The altcoin is the one that diverges from the current network rules of the Bitcoin currency. Is this hard to understand?

Which one came first? The altcoin or the Bitcoin?

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?

[watashi-kokoto]

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.

[BitUsher]

The altcoin is the one that diverges from the current network rules of the Bitcoin currency. Is this hard to understand?

Which one came first? The altcoin or the Bitcoin?

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?

"Bitcoin" already has become a new alt twice over by that definition. No one has a monopoly on what is and isn't bitcoin despite its crypto-anarchist roots. For all we know the future of bitcoin could become one of centralized big blocks controlled by a few nodes ran by organizations like coinbase/bitpay/circle/bitstamp that impose KYC/AML and blacklists on those nodes(like they do already) and the economic majority considers that to be called "bitcoin" ... I will stop using such a currency, and will probably have to use an alt by a different name.

[valiz]

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 

[Fatman3001]

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.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

[franky1]

To clarify my post the reason i focused on miners before was that I got told off once for talking only about nodes! What I mean is all the nodes might be happy with bigger blocks but if the majority of miners refuse to build on them then they will just get orphaned off, so although the nodes have the power of veto, its the miners that instigate the change in consensus.

I think we are saying the same thing though essentially! That the network decides what consensus is by *being* that consensus, in the form of the longest chain.

if miners refuse to build bigger blocks.. then even nodes with 2mb limit.. will still accept blocks of 0.2mb, 0.5mb, 0.99mb.. because its not a rule of over 1mb but less than2mb.. its its a rule of anything from 0 to 2mb.

nodes with 2mb limit wont throw any blocks out.. yet segwit would..
so the consensus would be if segwit had 95% users.. blocks would be all under 1mb and both segwit and 2mb nodes would happily talk to each other. where if 2mb node accidentally accepted a >1mb block.. it would eventually get orphaned off once they resync to consensus..

but if segwit only had 5% consensus.. and miners finally decided to go with large block due to 95% large block consensus..  then segwit would end up throwing away lots of blocks, and because segwit is throwing away lots of blocks and being left behind where they cant sync with consensus because consensus holds large blocks.. then segwit will need to adapt by finally upping the limit to be part of it again.
there isnt an altcoin.. there is only blockheight.. and whoever has the heighest height wins where the loser will forever be screaming to the next block to resync to and then rejecting it, ending up not resyncing and left at the curbside.

EG majority of nodes are 2mb running alongside segwit. where some miners are outputting blocks >1mb
13:56:02 miner A: height 400,000 size0.9mb segwit & 2mb implementations both accept
13:56:05 miner B: height 400,000 size0.9mb segwit & 2mb implementations both reject (sorry you lose, your not fast enough)

14:06:02 miner C: height 400,001 size1.025 2mb implementations accept, but segwit rejects
14:06:05 miner B: height 400,001 size0.99mb segwit accepts

14:16:02 miner B: height 400,002 size0.99mb segwit accepts, 2mb implementation accepts and orphans minerC 400,001 as its not part of miner B's block chain
14:16:05 miner A: height 400,002 size0.99mb segwit & 2mb implementations both reject (sorry you lose, your not fast enough)

14:26:02 miner C: height 400,003 size1.025 2mb implementations accept, but segwit rejects
14:26:05 miner B: height 400,003 size0.99mb segwit accepts but 2mb implementations reject (not fast enough)

14:36:02 miner C: height 400,004 size1.025 2mb implementations accept, but segwit rejects
14:36:05 miner B: height 400,004 size0.99mb segwit accepts but 2mb implementations reject (not fast enough)

14:46:02 miner B: height 400,005 size0.99mb segwit accepts, 2mb implementation accepts and orphans minerC 400,004 and 003 as its not part of miner B's block chain
14:46:05 miner A: height 400,005 size0.99mb segwit & 2mb implementations both reject (sorry you lose, your not fast enough)
this would leave miners knowing that because there is no consensus.. sooner or later thier >1mb blocks will get orphaned.. so they stay inline with <1mb just to get some wins that will hold..

now imagine the consensus IS with large blocks
13:56:02 miner A: height 400,000 size0.9mb segwit & 2mb implementations both accept
13:56:05 miner B: height 400,000 size1.025mb segwit & 2mb implementations both reject (sorry you lose, your not fast enough)

14:06:02 miner C: height 400,001 size1.025 2mb implementations accept, but segwit rejects
14:06:05 miner B: height 400,001 size1.025 segwit rejects

14:16:02 miner B: height 400,002 1.025 segwit rejects, 2mb implementation accepts
14:16:05 miner A: height 400,002 size0.99mb segwit & 2mb implementations both reject
segwit rejects because miner A block history has other blocks of 1.025 in the past so segwit rejects it on principle. and 2mb nodes reject because its not solved first

14:26:02 miner C: height 400,003 size1.025 2mb implementations accept, but segwit rejects
14:26:05 miner B: height 400,003 size0.99mb segwit & 2mb implementations both reject
segwit rejects because miner B block history has other blocks of 1.025 in the past so segwit rejects it on principle. and 2mb nodes reject because its not solved first

14:36:02 miner C: height 400,004 size1.025 2mb implementations accept, but segwit rejects
14:36:05 miner B: height 400,004 size0.99mb segwit & 2mb implementations both reject
segwit rejects because miner B block history has other blocks of 1.025 in the past so segwit rejects it on principle. and 2mb nodes reject because its not solved first

14:46:02 miner B: height 400,005 size0.99mb 2mb implementation accepts but segwit reject s
segwit rejects because miner B block history has other blocks of 1.025 in the past so segwit rejects it on principle.
14:46:05 miner A: height 400,005 size0.99mb segwit & 2mb implementations both reject
segwit rejects because miner A block history has other blocks of 1.025 in the past so segwit rejects it on principle. and 2mb nodes reject because its not solved first

so now 2mb implementation is at height 005.. but segwit is left unable to sync and stuck at 000, and because segwit is only 5% of consensus no one cares..
but sgwit has a plan.. they can either die out by not bing able to transact as they cant get blocks anymore.. or they can up the limit and be able to sync..

again its not about creation of altcoins.. its about syncing.. depending on consensus, there want be 2 coins.. there will be either a temporary for that eventually gets orphaned.. forcing miners to stay inline to prevent orphans.. or the flip side.. the loser cant sync as they reject blocks that dont fit their rules.. leaving them in the past

in short.
if segwit wins the consensus 19 implementations are not rendered useless but are just passing the parcel of unknown data. requiring alot of code changes to become full validators again

if 2mb wins the consensus 19 implementations continue to work and segwit is rendered useless.. stuck and unable to get new blocks and not playing pass the parcel but instead left sat in the corner doing nothing.. but.. requiring only changing a 1 into a 2 on one line of code to be part of the chain again.(much easier to implement)

to be honest id rather have 20 different implementations that are ready for change that can all happily still accept blocks, even if those blocks are all sub 1mb.. allowing them to be ready for any surprises next year... rather than to force people into using segwit which not only limits choice but also means the 19 implementations are relaying transactions that are 'magically' treated as valid, but may actually be nefarios transactions.. basically passing the parcel that can contain a bomb and not realise it because they are no longer full validation nodes..where the only full validation node is segwit. the single and only choice..

the logical solution for both parties is both have 2mb.. and both can work happily together. then later in a few months or year.. then miners make bigger blocks because they know there wont be orphans

[franky1]

ummm..
didnt satoshi disapear in 2010 and the 1mb block limit get implemented after he disapeared..??

hint.. may 2013.. 1mb rule implemented

[watashi-kokoto]

ummm..
didnt satoshi disapear in 2010 and the 1mb block limit get implemented after he disapeared..??

If Satoshi Nakamoto comes here, and tells me to remove His 1MB limit, I will do it immediately.

[BitUsher]

ummm..
didnt satoshi disapear in 2010 and the 1mb block limit get implemented after he disapeared..??

No, Satoshi implemented the 1MB maxBlockSize.... not that his opinion should matter more than other devs.

If Satoshi Nakamoto comes here, and tells me to remove His 1MB limit, I will do it immediately.

This is very dangerous way of thinking . Satoshi shouldn't be trusted any more than any other competent developer.
We should make changes based upon reason and evidence and not be swayed by authoritarian leaders or heros.

[sgbett]

What is your definition of valid chain?

The one that everyone agrees is valid or the one where a small minority refuse to accept things have moved on.

The longest chain, will invariably be the longest 'valid' chain by definition. The longest chain (discounting for luck/variance) is the one with most hashing power. The longest *defines* valid.

So the word valid is redundant, and using it doesn't make any sense.

If a >1MB block gets mined and that chain stays longest (because the majority build on top of it) then sorry dear, it was tonight.

Until it does we watch and wait, and people continue to post drama on the internets.

The longest valid chain is the longest one that follows the network rules of the current Bitcoin currency, the one that is accepted by people, the one that has a lot of liquidity behind it (can be exchanged for other currencies). After a potential blockchain fork, which you support, you will have 2 longest valid chains (and 2 sets of consensus rules). One will be considered valid by many, it's currency will be accepted by many people, will have a lot of liquidity behind it. Hashing power does not matter much, it is the means to provide security.

In the scenario of your dreams, hardfork, 99% of hashpower with the Classic chain, Classic still won't win if it's currency will not be accepted by people. The 1% miners would be mining $10.000 valued coins, while the 99% Classic miners would be mining $0.01 valued coins. Eventually, those stupid Classic miners will switch back to the more valued coin.

I am not worried. Bitcoin Classic is #REKT. People accept Bitcoin, not forked altcoins.

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

[btcusury]

Doesn't the idea of "economic majority" have the underlying assumption that economics is the only or overwhelming motivating factor of the nodes in the network? What about ideology/understanding (creating a better money), and, more importantly, resourceful malicious parties who want to destroy the system?

[watashi-kokoto]

No, Satoshi implemented the 1MB maxBlockSize.... not that his opinion should matter more than other devs.

We do not discuss opinion. We discuss the code by Satoshi Nakamoto.

This is very dangerous way of thinking .

Exactly, my friend. That's why I think this way. Because it's dangerous to you .

[BitUsher]

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

Yes, but 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.

This is very dangerous way of thinking .

Exactly, my friend. That's why I think this way. Because it's dangerous to you .

Ahh , you are a proud Satoshi sheep fanboi, who cannot think for himself. May I introduce you to Satoshi's vision of bitcoin -

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0042.mediawiki

Doesn't the idea of "economic majority" have the underlying assumption that economics is the only or overwhelming motivating factor of the nodes in the network? What about ideology/understanding (creating a better money), and, more importantly, resourceful malicious parties who want to destroy the system?

Since Bitcoins incentive structure rewards currency based upon work and utility and not ideology than the economic consensus only indirectly is effected by the users ideologies. If most of the economic actors within bitcoins ecosystem decide to stray away from its cryptoanarchist roots bitcoin will indeed become something much different.... and will most likely become more valuable , quicker. This is the contention many of us have between a conservative approach to other who demand bitcoin grow quickly. 

[watashi-kokoto]

Ahh , you are a proud Satoshi sheep fanboi, who cannot think for himself. May I introduce you to Satoshi's vision of bitcoin -

You are wrong. Further discussion is not necessary .

[valiz]

The longest valid chain is the longest one that follows the network rules of the current Bitcoin currency, the one that is accepted by people, the one that has a lot of liquidity behind it (can be exchanged for other currencies). After a potential blockchain fork, which you support, you will have 2 longest valid chains (and 2 sets of consensus rules). One will be considered valid by many, it's currency will be accepted by many people, will have a lot of liquidity behind it. Hashing power does not matter much, it is the means to provide security.

In the scenario of your dreams, hardfork, 99% of hashpower with the Classic chain, Classic still won't win if it's currency will not be accepted by people. The 1% miners would be mining $10.000 valued coins, while the 99% Classic miners would be mining $0.01 valued coins. Eventually, those stupid Classic miners will switch back to the more valued coin.

I am not worried. Bitcoin Classic is #REKT. People accept Bitcoin, not forked altcoins.

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

One longest valid chain for the original coin, and another longest valid chain for the forked coin. 1 + 1 = 2

I'm happy that you only pointed out this irelevant semantics detail, and ignored the rest of the post.

[BitUsher]

Ahh , you are a proud Satoshi sheep fanboi, who cannot think for himself. May I introduce you to Satoshi's vision of bitcoin -

You are wrong. Further discussion is not necessary .

Satoshi is your God, respect your god and revert your implementation back to satoshis true vision-

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0042.mediawiki

[VeritasSapere]

Satoshi Nakamoto on blocksize:

While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall.  If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time.  Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms.  Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical.  I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.

Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section Cool to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day.  Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes.  At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware.

The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets.

But for now, while it’s still small, it’s nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won’t matter much anymore.

The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users.

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

The threshold can easily be changed in the future.  We can decide to increase it when the time comes.  It's a good idea to keep it lower as a circuit breaker and increase it as needed.  If we hit the threshold now, it would almost certainly be some kind of flood and not actual use.  Keeping the threshold lower would help limit the amount of wasted disk space in that event.

Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume.

[watashi-kokoto]

Satoshi is your God, respect your god and revert your implementation back to satoshis true vision-

Cry more because daddy won't let you burn more juice in his datacenter.