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

[Lauda]

No straw man. You always say Bitcoin should be governed by 'economic majority', whatever that means.

He does say this and there's no denying it. I've seen it say it multiple times in various threads while discussing with me.

A list can't be subjective either. A person either is a shill or he/she is not a shill. It is not an opinion others have of him/her. For that to be determined you need very convincing proof. If you call it a list of people whose opinion you don't like or who agrees with people whose opinion you don't like, then the absurdity of it would be much more obvious, but it would also be more honest.

Of course it can be subjective. Unless evidence presented, I could see someone as a shill while some other person might not see them that way (thus subjective).

Let us not slide in this false argument for there would be no such thing as shills for the BITCOIN camp as XT/BU/Classic and all the crooks within the ecosystem are the one exclusively using proselyte tactics and invading social media to promote their scam.

Bitcoin works. Status Quo is not about some shills.  Core are to be respected for their work, and Blockstream are welcome to innovate (whilst not denaturing bitcoin obviously).

Interestingly 'whoever' is behind all of this has managed to ensure that a decent amount of people think that Blockstream is deciding Bitcoin's fate while on the other hand Toomin wants consider.it to be the main platform for Bitcoin. I'd rather stick with people who don't claim that they use 'all programming languages'.

[1714713834]

1714713834

[btcusury]

Attempting to compile a list of shills is just one of the various examples of shitty debate floating about. It's really hard for people not to get sucked into this, but my advice would be to end that line of inquiry right now. I'm not interested in who may or may not be a shill.

Why not? Where is your sense of curiosity? What naive assumptions must you be operating under to say such a thing? I'll reiterate the question I asked you on page 1: At what point, if at all, do you suppose an organized effort to protect the dying old comes into play?

Arguments on merit will always rise above those that are pure propaganda.

Yes, exactly, and yet the same nonsense arguments are repeated over and over and over by the would-be shills, who have no ability (or pretend to have no ability) to assimilate new information into their understanding.

A shill is a very specific phenomenon. Bitcoin has a lot of interconnected actors with loyalties and financial interests which will colour their reasoning with regards to contentious issues. Add finance nerds, computer nerds and conspiracy theory nutters into the mix and you have one very spicy soup.

Did you know that "conspiracy theory nutters" is a programmed unconscious euphemism for "people who haven't lost the ability to think for themselves due to having been able to resist the disempowering paradigm of equating truth with authoritativeness"?

Edit: If this thread was called "Analysis and list of top big blocks proponents" that would be far less objectionable.

You are right about that, however. Maybe "proponents and potential shills".

It is not productive going around calling people shills without evidence. It would be better to focus on the content of peoples arguments instead.

And that is what happens, but then a few of the persistent big blocks "proponents" like yourself are completely unable to integrate new information to upgrade/improve/enhance their understanding. That's what's so peculiar.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

A list can't be subjective either. A person either is a shill or he/she is not a shill. It is not an opinion others have of him/her. For that to be determined you need very convincing proof. If you call it a list of people whose opinion you don't like or who agrees with people whose opinion you don't like, then the absurdity of it would be much more obvious, but it would also be more honest.

Of course it can be subjective. Unless evidence presented, I could see someone as a shill while some other person might not see them that way (thus subjective).

So if I see you as a shill, you're a shill? That's an odd way you have with language.

[Quantus]

Big block supporters have been known to be miss informed, a lot of them think bitcoin transactions will be faster once block size is increased.
This is a myth. No matter how large the blocks you will never get instant confirmation or even confirmation under 10 minutes.

My point is I don't think we should call them Shills their just miss informed.


Its our own fault, from the very start the bitcoin community has been spewing out pro bitcoin propaganda that's just been wrong. Bitcoin will never be free, instant, or truly decentralized; it may not even be able to handle micro transactions. Bitcoins network security, reliability and usability are not forgone conclusions and are still in question, people need to understand the network we currently have is capable of far less then we have lead them to believe.

[Lauda]

So if I see you as a shill, you're a shill? That's an odd way you have with language.

You're the one who's odd at understanding. I could make up a list of planets in our Solar System that includes Laudaria as the biggest planet. Just because I've created the list, that does not mean that the things on it are true. As far as the subjective list goes, I said it could be created but that it does not mean that people on those list are in fact shills.

Big block supporters have been known to be miss informed, a lot of them think bitcoin transactions will be faster once block size is increased.

I've also seen this assumption somewhere.
I never said that it would be okay, I've just said that it is possible.

[Fatman3001]

A list can't be subjective either. A person either is a shill or he/she is not a shill. It is not an opinion others have of him/her. For that to be determined you need very convincing proof. If you call it a list of people whose opinion you don't like or who agrees with people whose opinion you don't like, then the absurdity of it would be much more obvious, but it would also be more honest.

Of course it can be subjective. Unless evidence presented, I could see someone as a shill while some other person might not see them that way (thus subjective).

So I could start an "Analysis and list of top small block murderers and rapists" thread and that'll be ok because it's subjective?

A shill is a very specific phenomenon. Bitcoin has a lot of interconnected actors with loyalties and financial interests which will colour their reasoning with regards to contentious issues. Add finance nerds, computer nerds and conspiracy theory nutters into the mix and you have one very spicy soup.

Did you know that "conspiracy theory nutters" is a programmed unconscious euphemism for "people who haven't lost the ability to think for themselves due to having been able to resist the disempowering paradigm of equating truth with authoritativeness"?

Yeah, I've heard that from conspiracy theory nutters. When I use the term it just means "conspiracy theory nutters". Can't wait to see the new X-files movie tho.

[bargainbin]

...
So I could start an "Analysis and list of top small block murderers and rapists" thread and that'll be ok because it's subjective?
...

God yes, please do!

[VeritasSapere]

...

Excellent post there Veritas, you are clearly highly sophisticated

The part below I find more tricky:

I say what people accept as Bitcoin is what Bitcoin is - you reply no, Bitcoin should be governed by node owners, miners, developers, etc

Now you are arguing a straw man, I never said this. Bitcoin is ultimately what the economic majority wants it to be and the economic majority is made up of people. I think that the miners act as a type of proxy for the economic majority in the governance mechanism of Bitcoin, which we now call the consensus mechanism.

No straw man. You always say Bitcoin should be governed by 'economic majority', whatever that means.

I still don't understand what you define as being 'economic majority'. If it has something to do with what people accept as being Bitcoin, then I don't think the miners act as a type of proxy for them. They only mine what is profitable to mine (price of the coin / forked coin / altcoin vs. quantity and quality of competition for that mined coin). ...

^That. "Economic majority" is a misleading bit jargon, implying that the interests of the miners [always] coincide with the interests of the holders.

That the interests of the miners allign with the economic majority or holders is one of the premises that Bitcoin relies on. I would consider Bitcoin to be broken if that was not the case, I might even think that we can fix Bitcoin like Core does if I thought that. Though I still do not think that Bitcoin is fundamentally broken. I still think that it is working as intended and that we should allow the experiment to continue to run its course according to the original vision of its founder and many of its supporters over the years.

[VeritasSapere]

I say what people accept as Bitcoin is what Bitcoin is - you reply no, Bitcoin should be governed by node owners, miners, developers, etc

Now you are arguing a straw man, I never said this. Bitcoin is ultimately what the economic majority wants it to be and the economic majority is made up of people. I think that the miners act as a type of proxy for the economic majority in the governance mechanism of Bitcoin, which we now call the consensus mechanism.

No straw man. You always say Bitcoin should be governed by 'economic majority', whatever that means.

I still don't understand what you define as being 'economic majority'. If it has something to do with what people accept as being Bitcoin.

Yes it does, it is the equivalent of saying that the people rule Bitcoin. However unlike state democracies where the peoples vote is supposed to be equal, that is not the case in Bitcoin. The greater stake in Bitcoin a person has the greater influence this buys. This is why I think that economic majority is a more accurate term for this discussion.

then I don't think the miners act as a type of proxy for them. They only mine what is profitable to mine (price of the coin / forked coin / altcoin vs. quantity and quality of competition for that mined coin).

This is exactly how the mining incentive works and how the miners are incentivized to follow the economic majority. Since it is the economic majority that gives any cryptocurrency its value, miners will chase profit and therefore do whatever is in the best interests of the network. This is why the miners are such a suitable proxy for the economic majority, furthermore proof of work is the only effective way to "vote" in Bitcoin, since nodes can be trivially Sybil attacked. We can not have a good governance mechanism in Bitcoin without an effective "voting" mechanism, so that the will of the economic majority can be accurately reflected.

Consensus is an emergent property which flows from the will of the economic majority. Proof of work is the best way to measure this consensus. The pools act as proxy for the miners, pools behave in a similar way to representatives within a representative democracy. Then in turn the miners act as a proxy for the economic majority. Since the miners are incentivized to follow the economic majority. In effect the economic majority rules Bitcoin, in other words the market rules Bitcoin. Bitcoin relies on the economic self-interest of the masses to govern consensus.

I also think there is no governance mechanism for Bitcoin and there shouldn't be one, same as for gold.

I do think that you are wrong on this point. The rules of gold can not be changed, the rules of Bitcoin can be changed, this is one of the reasons why Bitcoin is better then gold. Since Bitcoin does represent a community of people that follow certain common rules, any change to these rules or even just continuing to uphold these rules requires a form of governance. This is a human necessity that can not be escaped, even anarchism requires forms of governance. Fortunately Bitcoin already has a governance mechanism build into the protocol.

They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism

This brings me back to a very important point. If Bitcoin is what people accept it is, then it follows that if the majority of people want a two megabyte blocksize and we justifiably fork to express this will, then Bitcoin with a two megabyte limit is Bitcoin. This is the contradiction that has been pointed out to you in your position previously, which so far you have still failed to acknowledge.

What contradiction?

The contradiction of saying that Bitcoin is defined by the will of its participants, yet at the same time claiming that changing the blocksize means that it is no longer Bitcoin or that this is somehow not justified or to dangerous, even if an increase in the blocksize is what the economic majority wants. Credit where credit is due, you do acknowledge this contradiction in your following statement.

Ok, so... fork off right now to express your will for a 2MB max blocksize. You are confident the 'economic majority' (whatever that means) wants the 2MB max block size. What keeps you from forking?

You don't need 75% of hashpower to perform the fork. It is not a limitation.

With the recent statement from the Chinese miners it seems like we will most likely fork the network at 90%. I agree, we could even fork with a mining minority, it is technically possible, forking with a high degree of consensus is preferable however, which is why I think it is wise to give this more time to find more consensus on these issues.

But you are still trying to convince people what is good for them and how Bitcoin should be governed. Let them be free. Use your freedom, fork off, and let them come by their free will. Don't use persuasion. If the forked altcoin is better, they will come. And it will reign supreme. And it shall be called Bitcoin.

Agreed, however there is nothing wrong with attempting to persuade people over to my point of view, just like you are presently doing. It is through discussions like these that we can attempt to discover higher truths in the market place of ideas. That is a good thing, seems contradictory to me for you to criticize such efforts.

By repeating your points over and over, your discouse becomes similar to marketing techniques and propaganda.

I suppose many old arguments are repeated and I end up repeating the same old counter argument, when my theories are proven wrong or my ideological opponents theories cease to exist or become less credible in the eyes of others, I am sure that then I will become less repetitive as well.

[bargainbin]

...

Excellent post there Veritas, you are clearly highly sophisticated

The part below I find more tricky:

I say what people accept as Bitcoin is what Bitcoin is - you reply no, Bitcoin should be governed by node owners, miners, developers, etc

Now you are arguing a straw man, I never said this. Bitcoin is ultimately what the economic majority wants it to be and the economic majority is made up of people. I think that the miners act as a type of proxy for the economic majority in the governance mechanism of Bitcoin, which we now call the consensus mechanism.

No straw man. You always say Bitcoin should be governed by 'economic majority', whatever that means.

I still don't understand what you define as being 'economic majority'. If it has something to do with what people accept as being Bitcoin, then I don't think the miners act as a type of proxy for them. They only mine what is profitable to mine (price of the coin / forked coin / altcoin vs. quantity and quality of competition for that mined coin). ...

^That. "Economic majority" is a misleading bit jargon, implying that the interests of the miners [always] coincide with the interests of the holders.

That the interests of the miners allign with the economic majority or holders is one of the premises that Bitcoin relies on. I would consider Bitcoin to be broken if that was not the case, I might even think that we can fix Bitcoin like Core does if I thought that. Though I still do not think that Bitcoin is fundamentally broken. I still think that it is working as intended and that we should allow the experiment to continue to run its course according to the original vision of its founder and many of its supporters over the years.

Not as clear-cut as that. That alignment is *inferred*, and to reach it requires one to make multiple logical leaps.
Many possible stumbling blocks, like tragedy of the commons, for instance.

[Fatman3001]

A list can't be subjective either. A person either is a shill or he/she is not a shill. It is not an opinion others have of him/her. For that to be determined you need very convincing proof. If you call it a list of people whose opinion you don't like or who agrees with people whose opinion you don't like, then the absurdity of it would be much more obvious, but it would also be more honest.

Of course it can be subjective. Unless evidence presented, I could see someone as a shill while some other person might not see them that way (thus subjective).

So I could start an "Analysis and list of top small block murderers and rapists" thread and that'll be ok because it's subjective?

Unless evidence is presented, I could see Lauda as a murderer. You mean like that?

Yeah! Let's get back to our roots! Back to before roman law started poisoning our minds with their "presumption of innocence" and all that "rational" stuff!

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

So if I see you as a shill, you're a shill? That's an odd way you have with language.

You're the one who's odd at understanding. I could make up a list of planets in our Solar System that includes Laudaria as the biggest planet. Just because I've created the list, that does not mean that the things on it are true. As far as the subjective list goes, I said it could be created but that it does not mean that people on those list are in fact shills.

A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization. Whether or not a person is a shill is an objective matter of fact. There's nothing subjective about it.

[hdbuck]

Big block supporters have been known to be miss informed, a lot of them think bitcoin transactions will be faster once block size is increased.
This is a myth. No matter how large the blocks you will never get instant confirmation or even confirmation under 10 minutes.

My point is I don't think we should call them Shills their just miss informed.


Its our own fault, from the very start the bitcoin community has been spewing out pro bitcoin propaganda that's just been wrong. Bitcoin will never be free, instant, or truly decentralized; it may not even be able to handle micro transactions. Bitcoins networks security, reliability and usability are not forgone conclusions and are still in question, people need to understand the network we currently have is capable of far less then we have lead them to believe.

Agree, although to me it is on the hands of the antonopoulos bitcoin jeesus gavineries derps, too busy talking their books, lying to everyone whilst making hearing with the regulators et al... standing in the starlight to better hide their inabilities.

[VeritasSapere]

Its our own fault, from the very start the bitcoin community has been spewing out pro bitcoin propaganda that's just been wrong. Bitcoin will never be free, instant, or truly decentralized; it may not even be able to handle micro transactions. Bitcoins networks security, reliability and usability are not forgone conclusions and are still in question, people need to understand the network we currently have is capable of far less then we have lead them to believe.

I think Bitcoin is free, is instant using zero confirmation and is sufficiently decentralized, it can and further on will also handle micro transactions. Just like Satoshi always said it would. These things will no longer be true if we do not increase the blocksize, which is in part why I want to see the blocksize to be increased. But I suppose you think that increasing the blocksize to two megabytes is not possible or would destroy Bitcoin? Unless Core where the ones to increase the blocksize through their leadership, not sure if you would consider that an exception?

As far as I understand it, the blocksize can be increased and we do not need to sacrifice all of these things you listed on the alter of Core's vision for Bitcoin. There are many prominent engineers who think that increasing the blocksize is perfectly safe, like Gavin Andresen and the theZerg. This is why I think that we should increase the blocksize considering that the cost of not increasing it will be far greater in terms of the original vision. I think that that the choice you are presenting is not a real choice at all, Bitcoin can do all of these things and more.

We do not need to limit and restrict Bitcoin, we just need to allow it to be free. Our own minds need to be free, if we want Bitcoin to be free, because we are all Bitcoin.

[bargainbin]

So if I see you as a shill, you're a shill? That's an odd way you have with language.

You're the one who's odd at understanding. I could make up a list of planets in our Solar System that includes Laudaria as the biggest planet. Just because I've created the list, that does not mean that the things on it are true. As far as the subjective list goes, I said it could be created but that it does not mean that people on those list are in fact shills.

A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization. Whether or not a person is a shill is an objective matter of fact. There's nothing subjective about it.

Dictionary definition: Appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. Interpretation of "shill" is highly personal and subjective.

[VeritasSapere]

...

Excellent post there Veritas, you are clearly highly sophisticated

The part below I find more tricky:

I say what people accept as Bitcoin is what Bitcoin is - you reply no, Bitcoin should be governed by node owners, miners, developers, etc

Now you are arguing a straw man, I never said this. Bitcoin is ultimately what the economic majority wants it to be and the economic majority is made up of people. I think that the miners act as a type of proxy for the economic majority in the governance mechanism of Bitcoin, which we now call the consensus mechanism.

No straw man. You always say Bitcoin should be governed by 'economic majority', whatever that means.

I still don't understand what you define as being 'economic majority'. If it has something to do with what people accept as being Bitcoin, then I don't think the miners act as a type of proxy for them. They only mine what is profitable to mine (price of the coin / forked coin / altcoin vs. quantity and quality of competition for that mined coin). ...

^That. "Economic majority" is a misleading bit jargon, implying that the interests of the miners [always] coincide with the interests of the holders.

That the interests of the miners allign with the economic majority or holders is one of the premises that Bitcoin relies on. I would consider Bitcoin to be broken if that was not the case, I might even think that we can fix Bitcoin like Core does if I thought that. Though I still do not think that Bitcoin is fundamentally broken. I still think that it is working as intended and that we should allow the experiment to continue to run its course according to the original vision of its founder and many of its supporters over the years.

Not as clear-cut as that. That alignment is *inferred*, and to reach it requires one to make multiple logical leaps.
Many possible stumbling blocks, like tragedy of the commons, for instance.

Agreed, it is not a direct relationship, and there are stumbling blocks. I still think that if this premise is not true then Bitcoin has already failed. Obviously I do not think that is the case, but it certainly is food for thought.

[bargainbin]

...

Excellent post there Veritas, you are clearly highly sophisticated

The part below I find more tricky:

I say what people accept as Bitcoin is what Bitcoin is - you reply no, Bitcoin should be governed by node owners, miners, developers, etc

Now you are arguing a straw man, I never said this. Bitcoin is ultimately what the economic majority wants it to be and the economic majority is made up of people. I think that the miners act as a type of proxy for the economic majority in the governance mechanism of Bitcoin, which we now call the consensus mechanism.

No straw man. You always say Bitcoin should be governed by 'economic majority', whatever that means.

I still don't understand what you define as being 'economic majority'. If it has something to do with what people accept as being Bitcoin, then I don't think the miners act as a type of proxy for them. They only mine what is profitable to mine (price of the coin / forked coin / altcoin vs. quantity and quality of competition for that mined coin). ...

^That. "Economic majority" is a misleading bit jargon, implying that the interests of the miners [always] coincide with the interests of the holders.

That the interests of the miners allign with the economic majority or holders is one of the premises that Bitcoin relies on. I would consider Bitcoin to be broken if that was not the case, I might even think that we can fix Bitcoin like Core does if I thought that. Though I still do not think that Bitcoin is fundamentally broken. I still think that it is working as intended and that we should allow the experiment to continue to run its course according to the original vision of its founder and many of its supporters over the years.

Not as clear-cut as that. That alignment is *inferred*, and to reach it requires one to make multiple logical leaps.
Many possible stumbling blocks, like tragedy of the commons, for instance.

Agreed, it is not a direct relationship, and there are stumbling blocks. I still think that if this premise is not true then Bitcoin has already failed. Obviously I do not think that is the case, but it certainly is food for thought.

Not necessarily failed, there are clear attempts to address the [possible] conflict of interests (e.g. non-mining nodes, wallet software), but not sure if effective.

[VeritasSapere]

...

Excellent post there Veritas, you are clearly highly sophisticated

The part below I find more tricky:

I say what people accept as Bitcoin is what Bitcoin is - you reply no, Bitcoin should be governed by node owners, miners, developers, etc

Now you are arguing a straw man, I never said this. Bitcoin is ultimately what the economic majority wants it to be and the economic majority is made up of people. I think that the miners act as a type of proxy for the economic majority in the governance mechanism of Bitcoin, which we now call the consensus mechanism.

No straw man. You always say Bitcoin should be governed by 'economic majority', whatever that means.

I still don't understand what you define as being 'economic majority'. If it has something to do with what people accept as being Bitcoin, then I don't think the miners act as a type of proxy for them. They only mine what is profitable to mine (price of the coin / forked coin / altcoin vs. quantity and quality of competition for that mined coin). ...

^That. "Economic majority" is a misleading bit jargon, implying that the interests of the miners [always] coincide with the interests of the holders.

That the interests of the miners allign with the economic majority or holders is one of the premises that Bitcoin relies on. I would consider Bitcoin to be broken if that was not the case, I might even think that we can fix Bitcoin like Core does if I thought that. Though I still do not think that Bitcoin is fundamentally broken. I still think that it is working as intended and that we should allow the experiment to continue to run its course according to the original vision of its founder and many of its supporters over the years.

Not as clear-cut as that. That alignment is *inferred*, and to reach it requires one to make multiple logical leaps.
Many possible stumbling blocks, like tragedy of the commons, for instance.

Agreed, it is not a direct relationship, and there are stumbling blocks. I still think that if this premise is not true then Bitcoin has already failed. Obviously I do not think that is the case, but it certainly is food for thought.

Not necessarily failed, there are clear attempts to address the [possible] conflict of interests (e.g. non-mining nodes, wallet software), but not sure if effective.

I suppose this is where we disagree. I do not think the incentive mechanism of Bitcoin requires any radical fixes, and I said that Bitcoin will have failed only if the presumption of miners being incentivized towards the good of the network is wrong. Which I do not think is the case, I also do not think it would be that easy to fix even if that was the case. It would be better to start from scratch, especially considering that many people still believe in this original vision of Bitcoin, and because of how the incentive mechanism works it might not even be possible to change Bitcoin this radically, whether you consider it to have failed or not.

[bargainbin]

^Not sure what you're saying here. You don't believe there are scenarios in which interests of >51% of hashpower are at odds with those of the hodlers?

[VeritasSapere]

^Not sure what you're saying here. You don't believe there are scenarios in which interests of >51% of hashpower are at odds with those of the hodlers?

I suppose that is what I think yes. It might be more accurate to say that I do not think that the majority of the hashpower will go against the economic majority. I think that the game theory of Bitcoin is designed in such a way, that it ensures the continued decentralization and freedom of the protocol. In the case of a fifty one percent attack, I think the miners are definitely disincentivized to carry out such an attack, it would be irrational while requiring collective effort from separate entities, this I think is very unlikely, especially also considering the lessons learned over the past few years. Of course we could dream up of scenarios where this could happen, however it is very unlikely. Like many things in Bitcoin it is more about having a high probability of certainty as opposed to actually having absolute certainty. This works well enough, just like zero confirmation does in most retail situations.