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

[watashi-kokoto]

Essentially I define the economic majority as the majority of economic participants on the network and their sum of collective influence.

And how would the majority vote look like in practice? Using their collective influence to change the user agent ? Or you prefer that we give you the finger by voting both for and against your proposal? I can certainly run both Toomim and Satoshi, how you are gonna know which one is used in production?

The thing is that you people can go fork yourself. You have no measurable objective to accomplish here. Better go create your altcoin if you piss on the Satoshi rules.

The truth is as the pressure on miners to enforce various know your customer, anti laundering and other crap grows, you know what they gonna do?

First of all they aren't gonna give a fork about stuff happening outside their nation. In fact the more a certain nation is hated globally, the more the rest of world is going to mine thefts and laundry happening there just to give them the middle finger. A global karma in action if you will.

Secondly sure they may be forced to do various orwel-tier account blacklisting and whatnot within their nation and so what? They can try but when's its confirmed it's too late to cry. There's no hotline to reverse it, some rich governor or lawyer or whatever can go fork himself. And I guarantee to you that majority of various scams the owner discovers it too late and what good is some anti-laundry once they notice, the clothes are already dry, ironed and in wardrobes all over the world.

Certainly I'm the person least giving a fuck, I never broke the law, these clowns (both criminals and establishment) can clown around in the real world but here they have no power.

I definitely prefer this sort of virtual war to world war 3. At least here the good guys seem to have an edge.

[Carlton Banks]

I definitely prefer this sort of virtual war to world war 3. At least here the good guys seem to have an edge.

I've recently been toying with the idea that the entire internet literally is world war 3. And that Einstein was wrong; it's the 5th world war that will be fought with sticks and stones.

[CuntChocula]

... The economic majority effects the price of Bitcoin. ...

I think your confusion lies in "Economic Majority" (as defined in Bitcoin Wiki) being a misnomer.

"Economic majority" only makes sense if we choose to go with BTC as the unit of account. But BTC is a ridiculous unit of account IRL. Or, rather, as appropriate for gauging the soundness of Bitcoin propositions as Beanie Babies are for gauging the soundness of Beanie propositions.

If this is still unclear, "Economic Majority" != "Those most invested in Bitcoin," those barely matter. Rational self-interest, for most, means maximizing *buying power,* which loosely translates to USD. By using USD as the unit of account, it becomes clear that economic majority is the fiat holders.

If the miners (or, rather, the 9 guys controlling 90% of the hashpower) are offered a few billion bucks to fork Bitcoin up de butt, do you really think they'd consult BTC hodlers? Assuming "rational [utilitarian] self-interest," that is?

TL;DR: fiat hodlers are the true economic majority in Bitcoin.

I disagree with the definition in the Bitcoin wiki, I have lost respect for that wiki after the censorship occurred on there. I define the economic majority more broadly, to represent the entire Bitcoin ecosystem. From exchanges, merchants, payment processors, holders, investors, full node operators and even the miners, among many more groups. Essentially I define the economic majority as the majority of economic participants on the network and their sum of collective influence. It is just another way of saying that the market rules Bitcoin and or that the people rule Bitcoin.

But so much is predicated on that wiki definition. Once we allow that bitcoin hodlers are an insignificant part of "economic majority," it's no longer implicit that the miners' interests should [rationally] be aligned with those of the hodlers ("here's a few billion bucks, make BTC worthless" example). In a closed system, that type of attack makes no sense (miners paid in BTC, by debasing BTC they're simultaneously making their reward worthless), but open it to fiat...

... Better go create your altcoin if you piss on the Satoshi rules. ...

Which rules would those be?

[btcusury]

There are many prominent engineers who think that increasing the blocksize is perfectly safe, like Gavin Andresen and the theZerg.

Yes, let's all update our definitions of "many" to mean "two"!

Yes, the meaning of word "shill" has changed, the dictionaries don't keep up with the evolution of the English language. Shill has mostly lost its negative connotation and isn't going to be an effective insult anymore.

LOL, you haven't been reading the Internet much, have you?

Anyway, I don't want this to became a language discussion. I much rather stick to the legal definitions of the word "shill", thus my reference to NGCB instead of a dictionary. My guess is that people who continue to think that "shill" is kind of an insult are English monolinguals. But this website is aiming at a global audience.

Why? Is Black's Law Dictionary your holy book, or what? Why are you treating "legal definitions", created by some supposedly "authoritative" person, as somehow superior to the actual original meaning of the word which people use?  

[Hyperjacked]

Honestly?

Well they don't pay me...its not even traded yet! of course I will be pumping it for grins and chuckles...

[Zarathustra]

the tide is turning.

Only in your mind.

In reality, the community has rejected XT, Unlimited, and now "Classic". Your move.

Forget it. You'll get a hard fork to 2 MB this year.

[Carlton Banks]

the tide is turning.

Only in your mind.

In reality, the community has rejected XT, Unlimited, and now "Classic". Your move.

Forget it. You'll get a hard fork to 2 MB this year.

Still using the Goebbels approach, Zara?  ("repeat the lie so often that it becomes the truth")

[Fatman3001]

the tide is turning.

Only in your mind.

In reality, the community has rejected XT, Unlimited, and now "Classic". Your move.

Forget it. You'll get a hard fork to 2 MB this year.

Still using the Goebbels approach, Zara?  ("repeat the lie so often that it becomes the truth")

That's the shittiest nazi comparison I've seen in a long time.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

the tide is turning.

Only in your mind.

In reality, the community has rejected XT, Unlimited, and now "Classic". Your move.

Forget it. You'll get a hard fork to 2 MB this year.

Still using the Goebbels approach, Zara?  ("repeat the lie so often that it becomes the truth")

That's the shittiest nazi comparison I've seen in a long time.

Oh really? Well how very Heinrich Himmler of you. 

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Better add Gmax to the list of big block shills.

A year ago I suggested that if increased capacity were urgently needed we could just do a 2MB hardfork-- which, while causing harm, wouldn't likely cause irrecoverable harm. It was aggressively opposed by the persons demanding effectively unlimited blocksizes.
https://np.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/42ftps/list_of_reputations_that_core_supporters_have/czcu3sw

So #rekt.

[sgbett]

the tide is turning.

Only in your mind.

In reality, the community has rejected XT, Unlimited, and now "Classic". Your move.

Forget it. You'll get a hard fork to 2 MB this year.

Still using the Goebbels approach, Zara?  ("repeat the lie so often that it becomes the truth")

* is #REKT

Keep at it; not long now

[iCEBREAKER]

Better add Gmax to the list of big block shills.

A year ago I suggested that if increased capacity were urgently needed we could just do a 2MB hardfork-- which, while causing harm, wouldn't likely cause irrecoverable harm. It was aggressively opposed by the persons demanding effectively unlimited blocksizes.
https://np.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/42ftps/list_of_reputations_that_core_supporters_have/czcu3sw

So #rekt.

if increased capacity were urgently needed we could just do a 2MB hardfork

if increased capacity were urgently needed we could just do a 2MB hardfork

if increased capacity were urgently needed we could just do a 2MB hardfork

Yawn.  Wake me up if there is an "urgently needed" capacity increase.  I'm not expecting one for at least a year or two...

So long as competitive fees effectively pay for tx priority within Bitcoin's fee-for-service markets (plural because in- and out-of-band markets exist), Bitcoin is just starting to work the way it's supposed to.

The idea of FREE TX 4EVA is bunk; block subsidies won't last forever and we must have a better, loop-of-self-sufficiency-closing way to pay miners for our collective security.

If fee markets fail to develop as block subsidies decline, there will be less incentive for miners to secure the One True Blockchain.  And that would lead to talk of a tail emission, which might entail raising the 21e6 coin limit.

Do you really wan to go there?

If you want free tx, use a less popular, alternative chain with (effectively) no minimum fee.

[Carlton Banks]

the tide is turning.

Only in your mind.

In reality, the community has rejected XT, Unlimited, and now "Classic". Your move.

Forget it. You'll get a hard fork to 2 MB this year.

Still using the Goebbels approach, Zara?  ("repeat the lie so often that it becomes the truth")

* is #REKT

Keep at it; not long now

No, bett.

*that-threatens-bitcoin is #REKT. Inherently.


That's another one from the Goebbels school, eh bett? Exaggerate your adversary's position out of all recognition... And I always thought you occupied the reasonable-middle-ground?  

[Fatman3001]

the tide is turning.

Only in your mind.

In reality, the community has rejected XT, Unlimited, and now "Classic". Your move.

Forget it. You'll get a hard fork to 2 MB this year.

Still using the Goebbels approach, Zara?  ("repeat the lie so often that it becomes the truth")

* is #REKT

Keep at it; not long now

No, bett.

*that-threatens-bitcoin is #REKT. Inherently.


That's another one from the Goebbels school, eh bett? Exaggerate your adversary's position out of all recognition... And I always thought you occupied the reasonable-middle-ground?  

Is this an attempt at irony? Now you are repeating lies in the aforementioned fashion. Although I'd settle for a less controversial manipulative populist, like Donald Trump.

[sgbett]

the tide is turning.

Only in your mind.

In reality, the community has rejected XT, Unlimited, and now "Classic". Your move.

Forget it. You'll get a hard fork to 2 MB this year.

Still using the Goebbels approach, Zara?  ("repeat the lie so often that it becomes the truth")

* is #REKT

Keep at it; not long now

No, bett.

*that-threatens-bitcoin is #REKT. Inherently.


That's another one from the Goebbels school, eh bett? Exaggerate your adversary's position out of all recognition... And I always thought you occupied the reasonable-middle-ground?  

I'm still here in the middle - perhaps you are so far off to one side that the middle doesn't look like the middle anymore!

The 'that-threatens-bitcoin' was implicit in my asterisk, because when people post these rekt statements they are opinions. I'd go further and say 'that-threatens-what-i-think-bitcoin-is'

But really that's missing the point. Which is that regardless of what someone thinks bitcoin is, posting about how everything that doesn't fit their view is automatically rekt is hyperbole.

These people post in such a way to suggest they think they *know* the future, when in fact that is impossible, because the future is uncertain. A statement in which someone claims to know the future is by definition a lie.

Posting that statement repeatedly is exactly what you described when you said "repeat the lie so often that it becomes the truth"

You could accuse me of the same thing "Keep at it; not long now" could allude to me thinking that one particular outcome is foregone conclusion, but it could also just be that I think that a resolution either way could be coming soon. The crowd will decide what they decide

I think that somewhat similarly you are very careful about what you post. I think you recognise that publicly stating extreme views only alienates the undecided. Adam back does great job of that too and as a result I've spent a lot more mind time on understanding his point of view. Its tricky though because although nobody will acknowledge it (because that weakens the credibility - so in doing so I am taking that hit), the reality is that sometimes charged debates (such as blocksize limit) become about debating and the relative merits of the positions can sometimes play second fiddle to this. In that respect Back is a huge asset for the small block camp, because he does know how to play that game. Small wonder he is in the position he is in!

You can all now go ahead and pretend I'm crazy for suggesting that is the case (and in doing so confirm it to be true)

Anyway thats kind of a meta argument, what I was getting to is that here:

In reality, the community has rejected XT, Unlimited, and now "Classic". Your move.

I think you dropped the ball. You're stating the community has rejected all three of the alternatives, admittedly XT is not very popular and so you could argue it has been 'rejected' (for now).

Unlimited - its out there right now its really only early days, but you are stating that it has been rejected? I'd say we are in opinion territory here.

Classic - its not even been released yet. So here you cannot possibly say it has been rejected by the community, but you have. The "In reality" makes it really hard for you to argue that you weren't presenting this as fact.

So whilst you haven't specifically said "classic is #rekt", you kinda have. Which puts you amongst the ice'n'brgs and hdbuck's of the thread, and I'm definitely not exaggerating their position!

[sgbett]

Better add Gmax to the list of big block shills.

A year ago I suggested that if increased capacity were urgently needed we could just do a 2MB hardfork-- which, while causing harm, wouldn't likely cause irrecoverable harm. It was aggressively opposed by the persons demanding effectively unlimited blocksizes.
https://np.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/42ftps/list_of_reputations_that_core_supporters_have/czcu3sw

So #rekt.

if increased capacity were urgently needed we could just do a 2MB hardfork

if increased capacity were urgently needed we could just do a 2MB hardfork

if increased capacity were urgently needed we could just do a 2MB hardfork

Yawn.  Wake me up if there is an "urgently needed" capacity increase.  I'm not expecting one for at least a year or two...

So long as competitive fees effectively pay for tx priority within Bitcoin's fee-for-service markets (plural because in- and out-of-band markets exist), Bitcoin is just starting to work the way it's supposed to.

The idea of FREE TX 4EVA is bunk; block subsidies won't last forever and we must have a better, loop-of-self-sufficiency-closing way to pay miners for our collective security.

If fee markets fail to develop as block subsidies decline, there will be less incentive for miners to secure the One True Blockchain.  And that would lead to talk of a tail emission, which might entail raising the 21e6 coin limit.

Do you really wan to go there?

If you want free tx, use a less popular, alternative chain with (effectively) no minimum fee.

I'd like to make it really clear that I don't want FREE TX 4EVA, and that I agree entirely with the right honourable gentleman when he says that it is bunk.

However I would like the right honorouble gentleman to wake *me* up if fee markets fail to develop as block subsidies decline, and if there is less incentive for miners to secure the One True Blockchain, and if there is talk of a tail emission, which might entail raising the 21e6 coin limit.

Because taking action because something *might* be a problem is clearly crazy!

[watashi-kokoto]

enlighten me gentlemen, is the war over? I keep reading that core developers demand peace, but I disagree. We must continue until we annihilate the "big blocks" camp, there is no room for compromise.



This is a major threat to the survival of Bitcoin and politically correctness is thus irrelevant. 1 MB blocks.

[Lauda]

enlighten me gentlemen, is the war over? I keep reading that core developers demand peace, but I disagree. We must continue until we annihilate the "big blocks" camp, there is no room for compromise.

Core did improve themselves though. They are trying to better their communication with the community (website and twitter both up). There is even a very good post about Segwit now for those who don't understand it or improperly understood it. The other side doesn't really have any good argument aside from hanging onto the 'influenced by Blockstream' campaign. This is a very ignorant claim especially for people who are supporting Classic (Toomin brothers pushing their project Consider.it as the main platform there; for the sake of Bitcoin right?).

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Better add Gmax to the list of big block shills.

A year ago I suggested that if increased capacity were urgently needed we could just do a 2MB hardfork-- which, while causing harm, wouldn't likely cause irrecoverable harm. It was aggressively opposed by the persons demanding effectively unlimited blocksizes.
https://np.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/42ftps/list_of_reputations_that_core_supporters_have/czcu3sw

So #rekt.

if increased capacity were urgently needed we could just do a 2MB hardfork

if increased capacity were urgently needed we could just do a 2MB hardfork

if increased capacity were urgently needed we could just do a 2MB hardfork

Yawn.  Wake me up if there is an "urgently needed" capacity increase.  I'm not expecting one for at least a year or two...

So long as competitive fees effectively pay for tx priority within Bitcoin's fee-for-service markets (plural because in- and out-of-band markets exist), Bitcoin is just starting to work the way it's supposed to.

The idea of FREE TX 4EVA is bunk; block subsidies won't last forever and we must have a better, loop-of-self-sufficiency-closing way to pay miners for our collective security.

If fee markets fail to develop as block subsidies decline, there will be less incentive for miners to secure the One True Blockchain.  And that would lead to talk of a tail emission, which might entail raising the 21e6 coin limit.

Do you really wan to go there?

If you want free tx, use a less popular, alternative chain with (effectively) no minimum fee.

I'd like to make it really clear that I don't want FREE TX 4EVA, and that I agree entirely with the right honourable gentleman when he says that it is bunk.

However I would like the right honorouble gentleman to wake *me* up if fee markets fail to develop as block subsidies decline, and if there is less incentive for miners to secure the One True Blockchain, and if there is talk of a tail emission, which might entail raising the 21e6 coin limit.

Because taking action because something *might* be a problem is clearly crazy!

I see what you did there.

[fisheater22]

enlighten me gentlemen, is the war over? I keep reading that core developers demand peace, but I disagree. We must continue until we annihilate the "big blocks" camp, there is no room for compromise.
...

Yes, it's over. Everybody won.