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

[BitUsher]

Anyway, so we're clear:  you believe a small group of developers should be in charge of deciding what Bitcoin is.
That's fantastic.  

You want to be careful because J toomin still hasn't explained Bitcoin Classics governance model clearly thus far you would be trading a small group of 45+ devs for 5 devs until he clarifies it. There has already been multiple examples of veto's where he threw out the voting process or the will of consider.it with a unilateral decision(which is fine as long as you are ok with the benevolent dictator governance model)

Perhaps a consortium can be created where all the implementations share their ideas and have a more formal governance model . More akin to the IETF than the bitcoin foundation?

[franky1]

Anyway, so we're clear:  you believe a small group of developers should be in charge of deciding what Bitcoin is.
That's fantastic.  

You want to be careful because J toomin still hasn't explained Bitcoin Classics governance model clearly thus far you would be trading a small group of 45+ devs for 5 devs until he clarifies it. There has already been multiple examples of veto's where he threw out the voting process or the will of consider.it with a unilateral decision(which is fine as long as you are ok with the benevolent dictator governance model)

Perhaps a consortium can be created where all the implementations share their ideas and have a more formal governance model . More akin to the IETF than the bitcoin foundation?

sounds good.
also where all 50-200 devs be completely open and have opensource code and they all check it and tell the general population which version has dirty code and what version is just clean code... not based on personal emotions or biases in favour of who... but based purely on the codes legitimacy.

after all if there is no hidden agenda to be found in the code then there is nothing to rant on about the programmers emotions as their emotions are errelevant to what the code does.

[BitUsher]

sounds good.
also where all 50-200 devs be completely open and have opensource code and they all check it and tell the general population which version has dirty code and what version is just clean code... not based on personal emotions or biases in favour of who... but based purely on the codes legitimacy.

after all if there is no hidden agenda to be found in the code then there is nothing to rant on about the programmers emotions as their emotions are errelevant to what the code does.

Many of the devs are extremely intelligent but some are poor communicators. We all need lessons in communication and empathy as well. The BIP process and governance model could be improved, but the consortium should be designed in a careful way to insure the incentives are aligned where buying favors(TBF) and politics is discouraged in general. We don't want democratic mob rule controlled by leading industry CEO's controlling bitcoin, that would be much worse than the current status quo. Perhaps something as simple as having an open BIP submission process but force it to be completely anonymous to insure that we are required to study, test and peer review it thoroughly without appeals to authority or a popularity contest which would corrupt the process.  The one problem I see with this is volunteer developers lose the incentive of lack of recognition , so we could have their identity/ies hashed in the BIP and revealed when accepted.

[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  

(uh, no, he's not.)

Anyway, so we're clear:  you believe a small group of developers should be in charge of deciding what Bitcoin is.
That's fantastic.  

What? Where did I say that? There is something really wrong with your logic. Or you are a shill trying to use a diversionary tactic using one of your propaganda ideas.

Your statement is wrong on so many levels... it's not worth the time arguing with shills like you.

[jonald_fyookball]

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  

(uh, no, he's not.)

Anyway, so we're clear:  you believe a small group of developers should be in charge of deciding what Bitcoin is.
That's fantastic.  

What? Where did I say that? There is something really wrong with your logic. Or you are a shill trying to use a diversionary tactic using one of your propaganda ideas.

Your statement is wrong on so many levels... it's not worth the time arguing with shills like you.

I don't see any meaningful difference between:

"current rules for Bitcoin are set in stone unless the directors of the core repository say otherwise"

and

"a small group of developers should be in charge of deciding what Bitcoin is."

Since you agreed with the first, it follows that you agree with the second.
That is my logic. 

[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  

(uh, no, he's not.)

Anyway, so we're clear:  you believe a small group of developers should be in charge of deciding what Bitcoin is.
That's fantastic.  

What? Where did I say that? There is something really wrong with your logic. Or you are a shill trying to use a diversionary tactic using one of your propaganda ideas.

Your statement is wrong on so many levels... it's not worth the time arguing with shills like you.

I don't see any meaningful difference between:

"current rules for Bitcoin are set in stone unless the directors of the core repository say otherwise"

and

"a small group of developers should be in charge of deciding what Bitcoin is."

Since you agreed with the first, it follows that you agree with the second.
That is my logic. 

I agreed with what watashi-kokoto said, not with what you said. 

His 'yes' was for the first part of your post anyway, not for the second propaganda part. That second part is ignored automatically by every non-shill around here.

[watashi-kokoto]

"current rules for Bitcoin are set in stone unless the directors of the core repository say otherwise"

How does soft fork change the rules? the old system 1xxx addresses remains the same.

rewards are same. block cap is same.

Only new rules are added. But one who does not wish to make use of some new features, can

comfortably use the old features and they work same as for the last 7 years.

"a small group of developers should be in charge of deciding what Bitcoin is."

And when Unlimited takes over? It's again just a group of developers.

[franky1]

I don't see any meaningful difference between:

"current rules for Bitcoin are set in stone unless the directors of the core repository say otherwise"

and

"a small group of developers should be in charge of deciding what Bitcoin is."

i think the difference is rather than 5 people with the github commit keys who ultimately in control of what gets implemented.
vs 100 intelliagent coders who discuss and choose what is best and more openly and distrubuted compared to just 5.

EG difference between the senate of dozens of senators making laws.. Vs the president and his vice making executive orders without being questioned

[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?

Valiz, then if we had a miscommunication , I'll ask you again (SEE ABOVE).

If you're now saying "NO" (the rules arent set in stone), then
that means the rules can change.  And if there is no consensus,
the change will be by fork.   Would you still call a fork that gets
75-95% an "altcoin"?

[watashi-kokoto]

Bitcoin is a production system that is known  (ok few glitches fixed)
 for operating correctly for more than 7 years now.

Every rule has been heavily scrutinized, many reviews have been made. Lots of people tested various stuff you have no idea about at all.

And now some clueless guy comes along and says you have to deploy XYZ next week/month. What the fuck?
Also people who thing Core team is in charge are deeply mistaken. The Core people simply serve the needs of the community.


Every new features from Core that don't affect consensus are heavily scrutinized. Core pretty much does not have a power to perform a hard fork just for fun. Everything has to be justified.


Toomim sitting in his basement flooding the system and then claiming it's real users demands is deeply mistaken that anybody is going to listen to that.




if you want to create cool new arbitrary rules, make an altcoin.

[franky1]

a fork does not become an altcoin unless the fork ignores certain miners and only talks to miners that correspond with the new rules.

EG
if miner A and miner B are 1mb blocks.. and miner C is 2mb blocks.. and 2mb user nodes accepted any block from A, B and C then the fork will rectify itself every time a node accepts a block from A, B..  because A and B dont contain any C blocks headers... making C orphaned and ultimately all nodes have just <1mb data, once the orphans are sorted..
eg


but if the 2mb implementation only got 2mb blocks from C and totally ignored 1mb blocks from A B .. then it would be an altcoin that follows C's chain of headers.. and everyone else just follows A,B where there is no crossover or orphaning inbetween... just 2 disctinct chains with totally separate data

so as long as 2mb nodes also get A B.. there wont be an altcoin. as the image shows, it would just be alot of orphans.. and resyncing

[YarkoL]

"a small group of developers should be in charge of deciding what Bitcoin is."

And when Unlimited takes over? It's again just a group of developers.

And quite a few economists too. The idea is to arrive at way of dynamically
adjusting the block size limit (or more generally, block validation metrics) by
a process that mimics the free market as closely as possible.

Unlimited denies that any dev group have powers to dictate what is best
for the network as a whole.

[hdbuck]

"a small group of developers should be in charge of deciding what Bitcoin is."

And when Unlimited takes over? It's again just a group of developers.

And quite a few economists too. The idea is to arrive at way of dynamically
adjusting the block size limit (or more generally, block validation metrics) by
a process that mimics the free market as closely as possible.

Unlimited denies that any dev group have powers to dictate what is best
for the network as a whole.

you forgot scammers.

[YarkoL]

Yeah, scammers shouldn't have any say at all in what's
best for the network as far as I'm concerned 

[valiz]

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?

Valiz, then if we had a miscommunication , I'll ask you again (SEE ABOVE).

If you're now saying "NO" (the rules arent set in stone), then
that means the rules can change.  And if there is no consensus,
the change will be by fork. 

I agreed with what watashi-kokoto said, not with what you said. 

His 'yes' was for the first part of your post anyway, not for the second propaganda part. That second part is ignored automatically by every non-shill around here.

'So the "current rules for Bitcoin" are set in stone' -> YES
'unless the directors of the core repository say otherwise' -> propaganda part

Who cares what Bitcoin Core does. If they do a hard fork, that's still an altcoin.

Would you still call a fork that gets 75-95% an "altcoin"?

Every hard forked coin is an altcoin. Gets 75%-95% of what? Trolls?

Now, since you are a shill, I'm wasting my time with you.

[valiz]

Nobody is 'dictating' anything, everyone is free to fork off. 

Dislike Bitcoin Core? Fork off NOW!

[Cconvert2G36]

Nobody is 'dictating' anything, everyone is free to fork off. 

Dislike Bitcoin Core? Fork off NOW!

Processing...

[Zarathustra]

#COREKT

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/428jg6/new_core_great_new_taste_better_than_ever/

[iCEBREAKER]

a fork does not become an altcoin unless the fork ignores certain miners and only talks to miners that correspond with the new rules.

EG
if miner A and miner B are 1mb blocks.. and miner C is 2mb blocks.. and 2mb user nodes accepted any block from A, B and C then the fork will rectify itself every time a node accepts a block from A, B..  because A and B dont contain any C blocks headers... making C orphaned and ultimately all nodes have just <1mb data, once the orphans are sorted..
eg


but if the 2mb implementation only got 2mb blocks from C and totally ignored 1mb blocks from A B .. then it would be an altcoin that follows C's chain of headers.. and everyone else just follows A,B where there is no crossover or orphaning inbetween... just 2 disctinct chains with totally separate data

so as long as 2mb nodes also get A B.. there wont be an altcoin. as the image shows, it would just be alot of orphans.. and resyncing

And that's why XT failed.  Nobody is actually stupid enough to be the first to defect from 1MB consensus.  They would lose block rewards (if miners) and BTC (if users).  Everyone simply waits (perhaps while paying lip service to the big-block idea for marketing/trolling purposes) until somebody else is "brave" enough to stick their neck out on the (orphan) chopping block.

The ToominCoin Short strategy enables defenders with economic leverage, in that defenders may spend ToominCoins in ToominBlocks (in exchange for real BTC or gold or whatever), then laugh as the block is orphaned in the next reorg.  That process may be repeated until miners get tired of mining worthless ToominBlocks and merchants get tired of accepting worthless ToominCoins.

[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?

Valiz, then if we had a miscommunication , I'll ask you again (SEE ABOVE).

If you're now saying "NO" (the rules arent set in stone), then
that means the rules can change.  And if there is no consensus,
the change will be by fork. 

I agreed with what watashi-kokoto said, not with what you said. 

His 'yes' was for the first part of your post anyway, not for the second propaganda part. That second part is ignored automatically by every non-shill around here.

'So the "current rules for Bitcoin" are set in stone' -> YES
'unless the directors of the core repository say otherwise' -> propaganda part

Who cares what Bitcoin Core does. If they do a hard fork, that's still an altcoin.

Would you still call a fork that gets 75-95% an "altcoin"?

Every hard forked coin is an altcoin. Gets 75%-95% of what? Trolls?

Now, since you are a shill, I'm wasting my time with you.

1. People that take a different opinion than you aren't necessarily 'shills'.
Perhaps you should look up the word in a dictionary.

2. Obviously "75%" means 75% of mining power. 
I guess you weren't paying that much attention
during the XT debate.

3.  You said "YES" to "Bitcoin is literally set in stone"
That means it can never change (and it can never scale).

4. You consistently contradict yourself.
 
You can't have it both ways:


You either believe "Core"
(a small group of developers) should
decide what Bitcoin is (even if 75%
of the miners disagree),  or you
believe a majority can fork Bitcoin
and change it and its still Bitcoin.