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

[watashi-kokoto]

Classic REKT here we go

[1714932619]

1714932619

[1714932619]

1714932619

[1714932619]

1714932619

[1714932619]

1714932619

[Lauda]

You accused me of an ad-hom when calling you out for labeling anyone who questions core as an uninformed fool. Yet you still failed to adress any technical issues raised. I'd class responding to a post with less than usefull content as a form of trolling. Its a matter pf perspective.

I said no such thing. This is the classic manipulation from forkers. You manipulate things so that they suit your arguments. You have raised no technical issue, you have just linked to an article that someone else wrote.

I [..] am definitely more informed than people of your caliber

I think this statement summarizes your attitude perfectly.

My attitude is rational. People who resort to ad hominem deserve nothing better.
Interestingly you've changed the direction of the discussion towards attacking me. I'd be glad if we could avoid these childish acts and move on. However if this isn't the case, then I won't respond to your input anymore.

If a computer can handle compressed data with virtually no lag, then perhaps there can be a positive spillover effect to the network itself by the transmission of compressed data packages which are compressed/decompressed in realtime by the GPUs for near-zero lag. I think harnessing GPU power is definitely something worth exploring for future scaling, in more than one ways.

No. The data transmitted is mostly random and compressing random data has only a negligible benefit and even sometimes gets you the opposite of the desired result (compressed data ends up being larger).

[bargainbin]

You accused me of an ad-hom when calling you out for labeling anyone who questions core as an uninformed fool. Yet you still failed to adress any technical issues raised. I'd class responding to a post with less than usefull content as a form of trolling. Its a matter pf perspective.

I said no such thing. This is the classic manipulation from forkers. You manipulate things so that they suit your arguments. You have raised nothing, you just linked to an article that someone else wrote.

I [..] am definitely more informed than people of your caliber

I think this statement summarizes your attitude perfectly.

My attitude is rational. People who resort to ad hominem deserve nothing better.
...

TL:DR:
Questioning of my self-evident superiority and undeniable expertise is an ad-hominem attack. Which is illogical.
Thanks for further reinforcing my [already dim] view of people of your caliber.

[jonald_fyookball]

You accused me of an ad-hom when calling you out for labeling anyone who questions core as an uninformed fool. Yet you still failed to adress any technical issues raised. I'd class responding to a post with less than usefull content as a form of trolling. Its a matter pf perspective.

I said no such thing. This is the classic manipulation from forkers. You manipulate things so that they suit your arguments. You have raised nothing, you just linked to an article that someone else wrote.

I [..] am definitely more informed than people of your caliber

I think this statement summarizes your attitude perfectly.

My attitude is rational. People who resort to ad hominem deserve nothing better.

Personally, I find your attitude to be elitist and dogmatic.

   

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

You have raised no technical issue, you have just linked to an article that someone else wrote.

I could go back and link my post of the 5 issues that you and sbbett replied to, but I have a feeling that I would be wasting my time.

Its like arguing with a goldfish.

[Lauda]

Personally, I find your attitude to be elitist and dogmatic.

Elitist? Interesting considering where my position in society is. Dogmatic? No (this one suits Peter R and his followers depending on what your definition here is). I'm among the people that tend to admit that they're wrong (if they truly are) here; this can not be said for many others.

I could go back and link my post of the 5 issues that you and sbbett replied to, but I have a feeling that I would be wasting my time.

You've ignored his post. Those 5 "issues" aren't fundamental flaws in the design. I don't see something that one can directly reply to. The only two points that somewhat make sense right now are 'routing' and 'recipients being online'. The article is based on uncertainty and not technicalities.

Its like arguing with a goldfish.

Then stop arguing with yourself.

[bargainbin]

...
Its like arguing with a goldfish.

Bingo. It's all about what we consider axiomatic. For most, it's universal noncontradiction: if the thesis results in A & ~A (a contradiction), it's junk.
For others, it's "I'm always right." Any line of reasoning suggesting otherwise is junk, and must be abandoned.

[AlexGR]

If a computer can handle compressed data with virtually no lag, then perhaps there can be a positive spillover effect to the network itself by the transmission of compressed data packages which are compressed/decompressed in realtime by the GPUs for near-zero lag. I think harnessing GPU power is definitely something worth exploring for future scaling, in more than one ways.

No. The data transmitted is mostly random and compressing random data has only a negligible benefit and even sometimes gets you the opposite of the desired result (compressed data ends up being larger).

I guess it depends on the nature of data.

If someone broadcasts a few bytes payment, I suspect you are right.

If someone broadcasts a 1mb/2mb/4mb solved block, that can probably be compressed as it will have redundant bytes.

If someone is sending the blockchain to someone who is lagging 1-2-3 years, well, he could send it in compressed batches. Surely that takes compression (?)

134212277 - blk00000.dat
99375871 - blk00000.dat.gz (74.04%)
97307825 -  blk00000.dat.bz2 (72.5%)

...although the way it is transmitted might differ from the way it is eventually stored and gains may be less.

[watashi-kokoto]

I think the segwit pruning would help much more than this. The gains should be on the order of 50% reduction.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

 I don't see something that one can directly reply to. The only two points that somewhat make sense right now are 'routing' and 'recipients being online'. The article is based on uncertainty and not technicalities.

[Lauda]

I guess it depends on the nature of data.

It does. I've recently had to learn something in regards to compression. With some types of data the savings can be great, but with random data they are negligible.

If someone broadcasts a 1mb/2mb/4mb solved block, that can probably be compressed as it will have redundant bytes.

I don't think it would work though. This was discussed before and would have probably been implemented already(?).

If someone is sending the blockchain to someone who is lagging 1-2-3 years, well, he could send it in compressed batches. Surely that takes compression (?)
134212277 - blk00000.dat
99375871 - blk00000.dat.gz (74.04%)
97307825 -  blk00000.dat.bz2 (72.5%)

Just ran my own test with 7zip on Windows (Compression format Maximum).

~73%.
Some people had to be put on ignore due to trolling and idiocy.

I think the segwit pruning would help much more than this. The gains should be on the order of 50% reduction.

Segwit pruning?

[watashi-kokoto]

Segwit pruning?

Yes assuming segwit is widely used, old signatures could be eliminated on non-archival nodes. Reduces disk space.

[VeritasSapere]

Here is a discussion I had with Greg Maxwell about blocksize and governance. I re posted it so that it is easy to find and read. Thought some of the people in here might find it interesting.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/discussion-with-greg-maxwell.841/

[hdbuck]

Here is a discussion I had with Greg Maxwell about blocksize and governance. I re posted it so that it is easy to find and read. Thought some of the people in here might find it interesting.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/discussion-with-greg-maxwell.841/

nothing relevant, basically gmax is pissing in the wind.

[iCEBREAKER]

Here is a discussion I had with Greg Maxwell about blocksize and governance. I re posted it so that it is easy to find and read. Thought some of the people in here might find it interesting.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/discussion-with-greg-maxwell.841/

That thread just links back to Bitcointalk.  Desperate for traffic much?   

Now that the (hopelessly idealistic) Unlimiturd fad is over, Frap.doc's silly rump forum is also dying.

And so, we Bitcointalkers again have the pleasure of his clique's company.  Apparently you all have forgiven thermos for his sensor ships.   

Nobody even bothered to make an Unlimited #REKT thread.

But that poor bikeshed collapsed under the weight of all the paint, didn't it?   

[watashi-kokoto]

396 508 smaller than 1MB blocks

We're still in control!

[VeritasSapere]

396 508 smaller than 1MB blocks

We're still in control!

So this is about control? Who do you think should be in control?

I think that the economic majority rules Bitcoin, therefore the majority of the economic participants of Bitcoin ultimately control Bitcoin. If we collectively wanted an increased blocksize limit then the blocksize limit will be raised. This is what I think will happen and is happening now. The incentives are continuing to align.

[Carlton Banks]

396 508 smaller than 1MB blocks

We're still in control!

So this is about control? Who do you think should be in control?

I think that the economic majority rules Bitcoin, therefore the majority of the economic participants of Bitcoin ultimately control Bitcoin. If we collectively wanted an increased blocksize limit then the blocksize limit will be raised. This is what I think will happen and is happening now. The incentives are continuing to align.

Well, if you're the economic majority, then who are all these (real life) bitcoin users that are loudly and publicly refusing to turn their fortune over to some rogue bankster infested dev team that wants to destroy Bitcoin?

[Lauda]

So this is about control? Who do you think should be in control?

It is certainly nothing else. You are unable to get your own (and silly) way with Bitcoin and thus you want to get a grip on the main implementation.

I think that the economic majority rules Bitcoin, therefore the majority of the economic participants of Bitcoin ultimately control Bitcoin. If we collectively wanted an increased blocksize limit then the blocksize limit will be raised. This is what I think will happen and is happening now. The incentives are continuing to align.

75% is not a this 'economic majority' nor is it consensus. You're talking one thing but doing the opposite. You're talking about a split all in the name of the 'majority's wishes' while in fact the underlying idea it to take away the control over the main implementation.

[VeritasSapere]

So this is about control? Who do you think should be in control?

It is certainly nothing else. You are unable to get your own (and silly) way with Bitcoin and thus you want to get a grip on the main implementation.

I think that the economic majority rules Bitcoin, therefore the majority of the economic participants of Bitcoin ultimately control Bitcoin. If we collectively wanted an increased blocksize limit then the blocksize limit will be raised. This is what I think will happen and is happening now. The incentives are continuing to align.

75% is not a this 'economic majority' nor is it consensus. You're talking one thing but doing the opposite. You're talking about a split all in the name of the 'majority's wishes' while in fact the underlying idea it to take away the control over the main implementation.

There should be no such thing as a main implementation, and if there is a reference implementation like there is now, power and control should be taken away from this point of centralization.

I think that the majority is justified in forking the network. Even the minority I think has this right. To think that we should only change the network when we have consensus is the equivalent to saying that we should never change the rules of the protocol. True consensus in the original sense of the word is impossible among larger groups of people. Enforcing such an idea is no different then a tyranny of the minority. Bitcoin is freedom, it even solves the problem of tyrrany of the majority, exactly because of this ability to hard fork. Which I think is a crucial feature of Bitcoins governance mechanism which helps to ensure the continued freedom and decentralization of the protocol.