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

[Carlton Banks]

fascinating as usual Veritas why don't any of your beloved "popular" blockchain forks ever materlialise? how many failed forks have you backed so far now? third, or is it up to four now?

[Cuidler]

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?

Undoubtedly some of the loudests are altcoin lovers who can only profit from limiting Bitcoin.

Let the hashpower talk, thats how Bitcoin work, so everybody voice will be heard by the amount the person supports security of the Bitcoin network, not some anonymous internet discussion as a measurement of support.

[iCEBREAKER]

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.   

Bitcoin is consensus critical.  And thus the implementation is the spec.

If you feel that's a "point of centralization" perhaps you should move on to greener pastures, like your friend Mike Hearn has already done.

[Lauda]

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.

Nonsense. You're pulling up your own biased opinion. Bitcoin has always had a main implementation (QT now Core). There is no reason for which this has to change.

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.

I think you misunderstood the 'tyaranny of the majority' part. What Classic is proposing is exactly the kind of tyranny that I'd expect from the people who are behind it. The minority (which is the wrong word for 1/4 of the network) is left with no choice but to join or quit completely. Another thing that you're trying to sell here is that the network can't reach consensus; this is wrong. Miners have demonstrated that this is possible with several soft forks. With enough time and support a hard fork can be easily deployed with 90% consensus and probably more.

[bargainbin]

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.

Nonsense. You're pulling up your own biased opinion. Bitcoin has always had a main implementation (QT now Core). There is no reason for which this has to change.

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.

I think you misunderstood the 'tyaranny of the majority' part. What Classic is proposing is exactly the kind of tyranny that I'd expect from the people who are behind it. The minority (which is the wrong word for 1/4 of the network) is left with no choice but to join or quit completely.

mi·nor·i·ty
məˈnôrədē/
noun: minority; plural noun: minorities
1. the smaller number or part, especially a number that is less than half the whole number.

So yeah, 1/4 is THE MINORITY. And no one is stopping you from doing shit, or making you join anyone. Do what you want. Mine, not mine, keep your coin, sell it -- the future is yours, baby!

Another thing that you're trying to sell here is that the network can't reach consensus; this is wrong. Miners have demonstrated that this is possible with several soft forks. With enough time and support a hard fork can be easily deployed with 90% consensus and probably more.

Again, from wikip:
"...Possible decision rules for consensus vary within the following range:

    Unanimous agreement
    Unanimous consent (See agreement vs consent below)
    Unanimous agreement minus one vote or two votes
    Unanimous consent minus one vote or two votes
    Super majority thresholds (90%, 80%, 75%, two-thirds, and 60% are common).
    Simple majority
    Executive committee decides
    Person-in-charge decides"

[jonald_fyookball]

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.

Nonsense. You're pulling up your own biased opinion. Bitcoin has always had a main implementation (QT now Core). There is no reason for which this has to change.

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.

I think you misunderstood the 'tyaranny of the majority' part. What Classic is proposing is exactly the kind of tyranny that I'd expect from the people who are behind it. The minority (which is the wrong word for 1/4 of the network) is left with no choice but to join or quit completely. Another thing that you're trying to sell here is that the network can't reach consensus; this is wrong. Miners have demonstrated that this is possible with several soft forks. With enough time and support a hard fork can be easily deployed with 90% consensus and probably more.

You're conveniently ignoring VertiasSapere's crucial point (bolded) above.   
By ignoring that fact, and combined with the fact that Core is the currently
used implementation, you've convinced yourself that any change away from
Core is tyranny.

 


 

[Lauda]

You're conveniently ignoring VertiasSapere's crucial point (bolded) above.  
By ignoring that fact, and combined with the fact that Core is the currently
used implementation, you've convinced yourself that any change away from
Core is tyranny.
 

This is wrong and a misunderstanding of my views. If Classic had set up a 90 or 95% consensus threshold I would have a lot less arguments against it. Even if we disregard a lot of things in the current situation, I just can't accept a network split. I would never show my support to anyone who wants to do something harmful to the network.

[WestHarrison]

Guys, let's chillax and just make consensus proposals via consider.it^TM

[jonald_fyookball]

You're conveniently ignoring VertiasSapere's crucial point (bolded) above.  
By ignoring that fact, and combined with the fact that Core is the currently
used implementation, you've convinced yourself that any change away from
Core is tyranny.
 

This is wrong and a misunderstanding of my views. If Classic had set up a 90 or 95% consensus threshold I would have a lot less arguments against it. Even if we disregard a lot of things in the current situation, I just can't accept a network split. I would never show my support to anyone who wants to do something harmful to the network.

51%, 75%, 90%, 95%,...those are just different shades of consensus.  

I think 90% is just unrealistic in this situation, but more to the point:
If consensus cannot be reached, the only alternative is a split.

Call it tyranny if you want, but I say its the freedom of choice.
People can run whatever code they want to, and no one,
not Gavin, not Satoshi, not Greg Maxwell, not Santa Claus
can force anyone to do anything.

It is what it is.

[iCEBREAKER]

You're conveniently ignoring VertiasSapere's crucial point   

Core is tyranny   

VertiasSapere's crucial point ("True consensus in the original sense of the word is impossible among larger groups of people") has two fatal errors.

1.  It uses the No True Scotsman fallacy.

2.  Nakamoto Consensus gives us a way for true consensus to be possible among arbitrarily large groups of people.

The fact neither of you two noticed those problems demonstrates you have no business telling us how to run, much less scale, Bitcoin.

[Lauda]

51%, 75%, 90%, 95%,...those are just different shades of consensus.  

They're not. 90-95% ensures that almost everyone is on board with the plan and leaves less than 10(or 5)% of the room for a veto of the change. Another factor that needs to be considered is time. Given enough time (and not rushing unnecessary forks) this ensures that the old chain dies. This way the network successfully achieves a 'upgrade'.

I think 90% is just unrealistic in this situation, but more to the point: If consensus cannot be reached, the only alternative is a split.

Call it tyranny if you want, but I say its the freedom of choice.
People can run whatever code they want to, and no one,
not Gavin, not Satoshi, not Greg Maxwell, not Santa Claus
can force anyone to do anything.
It is what it is.

So you're willing to accept a network split and harm both chains just to get your own way? Quite irrational and egoistical behavior.  Why not fork off at 5% then, you don't need the remaining network? While you technically can't force anyone to run anything, you can easily manipulate them. I've seen a lot of manipulation attempts from the 'forkers'.

[hdbuck]

I think 90% is just unrealistic in this situation, but more to the point: If consensus cannot be reached, the only alternative is a split.

Call it tyranny if you want, but I say its the freedom of choice.
People can run whatever code they want to, and no one,
not Gavin, not Satoshi, not Greg Maxwell, not Santa Claus
can force anyone to do anything.
It is what it is.

So you're willing to accept a network split and harm both chains just to get your own way? Quite irrational and egoistical behavior.  Why not fork off at 5% then, you don't need the remaining network? While you technically can't force anyone to run anything, you can easily manipulate them. I've seen a lot of manipulation attempts from the 'forkers'.

nah, they dont fool anyone anymore.

[franky1]

You're conveniently ignoring VertiasSapere's crucial point (bolded) above.  
By ignoring that fact, and combined with the fact that Core is the currently
used implementation, you've convinced yourself that any change away from
Core is tyranny.
 

This is wrong and a misunderstanding of my views. If Classic had set up a 90 or 95% consensus threshold I would have a lot less arguments against it. Even if we disregard a lot of things in the current situation, I just can't accept a network split. I would never show my support to anyone who wants to do something harmful to the network.

51%, 75%, 90%, 95%,...those are just different shades of consensus.  

looking at the charts of the pools, lets take the 75% of peer consensus into an example or two:
there are 14 notable wedges..
it you go clockwise and count 11(over75%) thats over 90% of the hashrate.. great
but
if you count anticlockwise its only 33% of the hashrate.. not so great.

so any consensus by itself is a never ending debate where the goal posts will be moved again
EG miner peer consensus & community peer consensus
EG miner peer consensus & miner hashpower consensus
EG miner hashpower consensus & community peer consensus.

in short, many people that dont want radical change or those that have a one track mind and think they already own the world. will never be happy until they win.
(goes for both camps.. bankers and pricewaterhouse)

[Carlton Banks]

Call it tyranny if you want, but I say its the freedom of choice.
People can run whatever code they want to, and no one,
not Gavin, not Satoshi, not Greg Maxwell, not Santa Claus
can force anyone to do anything.

Yeah, jonald, the freedom to do something incredibly self-destructive to your money. You've been all about that with respect ot Bitcoin, for, what is it, 4 failed hard fork attempts? Will you ever giver it a rest?

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

You're conveniently ignoring VertiasSapere's crucial point  

Core is tyranny  

VertiasSapere's crucial point ("True consensus in the original sense of the word is impossible among larger groups of people") has two fatal errors.

1.  It uses the No True Scotsman fallacy.

2.  Nakamoto Consensus gives us a way for true consensus to be possible among arbitrarily large groups of people.

The fact neither of you two noticed those problems demonstrates you have no business telling us how to run, much less scale, Bitcoin.

The Nakamoto Consensus:

The network is robust in its unstructured simplicity. Nodes
work all at once with little coordination. They do not need to be identified, since messages are
not routed to any particular place and only need to be delivered on a best effort basis. Nodes can
leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what
happened while they were gone. 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

No 90%. No 75% No veto. Just users voting with their feet - or in this case, their CPU.  This is the unbearable truth that you need to deal with. If you let the network decide, it *will* decide. It may not be in your favour, or it may. But you dont get to choose. The network does.

[iCEBREAKER]

You're conveniently ignoring VertiasSapere's crucial point  

Core is tyranny  

VertiasSapere's crucial point ("True consensus in the original sense of the word is impossible among larger groups of people") has two fatal errors.

1.  It uses the No True Scotsman fallacy.

2.  Nakamoto Consensus gives us a way for true consensus to be possible among arbitrarily large groups of people.

The fact neither of you two noticed those problems demonstrates you have no business telling us how to run, much less scale, Bitcoin.

The Nakamoto Consensus:

The network is robust in its unstructured simplicity. Nodes
work all at once with little coordination. They do not need to be identified, since messages are
not routed to any particular place and only need to be delivered on a best effort basis. Nodes can
leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what
happened while they were gone. 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

No 90%. No 75% No veto. Just users voting with their feet - or in this case, their CPU.  This is the unbearable truth that you need to deal with. If you let the network decide, it *will* decide. It may not be in your favour, or it may. But you dont get to choose. The network does.

*yawn*

Promises, promises.  It's been over a year since Gavin started the Bitcoin civil war, but nothing has come of it besides some good lulz.

*snore*

Wake me up when some brave miner makes a block >1MB.

[alani123]

Core is tyranny.
 

I'd argue that there's no other actively developed alternative that could satisfy the demands of the community is the way Core does. The development process is open, proposals are welcome and you can submit improvements. Is there any other cryptocurrency client with more developers? Probably not. Bitcoin's development process isn't  something that should be divided. If you don't like the currently implemented solutions then you could come up with your own. Gavin's proposals aren't just blocked by the developers characterized as tyrants, but rather by most of the userbase and miners too.

If something isn't getting implemented in Bitcoin Core due to lack of consensus, it'd be safe to assume that this something is not good for bitcoin.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

*yawn*

Promises, promises.  It's been over a year since Gavin started the Bitcoin civil war, but nothing has come of it besides some good lulz.

*snore*

You are such a ball bag, but you *are* adorable.   

[Lauda]

If something isn't getting implemented in Bitcoin Core due to lack of consensus, it'd be safe to assume that this something is not good for bitcoin.

Apparently this is not the case for them. If something isn't getting implemented it is because Blockstream is involved. You could argue with them about this, however you would be wasting your free time unlike them.

I'd argue that there's no other actively developed alternative that could satisfy the demands of the community is the way Core does. The development process is open, proposals are welcome and you can submit improvements. Is there any other cryptocurrency client with more developers?

There isn't.

[jonald_fyookball]

So you're willing to accept a network split and harm both chains just to get your own way? Quite irrational and egoistical behavior.  

LOL.

It's got nothing to do with whether Jonald Fyookball is willing to accept it or not.

A network split is simply the inevitable consequence
of a failure to reach consensus.  Either everyone runs
the same code (consensus) or not.

Pretty simple.

Not sure what you're trying to argue actually.