ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[VeritasSapere]

Do you want to find compromise or not? It really is quite simple, before you said that two megabytes is safe and fine, either it is, or it is not. I am saying that we can all simply just agree to a two megabyte blocksize regardless of what else either one of us believes, as long as we think that two megabytes is safe and doable. This would provide a solution to the current impasse since it would be a solution that both sides can be happy with for now. The other alternative is that a split occurs, because I can tell you now that the present Core road map is completely untenable for the big blocks camp.

What are you trying to do here? Make me admit to a 2 MB compromise but leave the false statements at 'it doesn't matter what either one of us believes'? That I'm not willing to do. I'm not willing to reach an end to the discussion when some of your beliefs are very wrong (e.g. 8 MB blocks are viable right now). How about you start addressing those 3 points? Once we're past that then we will see.

You still do not get it, we can disagree on these three points that is fine, I have already discussed these points ad nauseam so you should already know what my position is on these three points since we have even discussed this together previously on different threads.

I am really starting to think that you do not know what a compromise means. Again it does not matter if I think eight megabytes blocks are viable and you do not, it does not matter for this compromise. All that matters is that we both can simply agree to a two megabyte blocksize limit. You know find common ground, instead of focusing on what divides us.

meh bitcoin is not a compromise, sry but it is a consensus.

we are not dealing rugs here, so no, you wont 'compromise' bitcoin.

Yeah, lots of luck with that achieving true consensus among millions of people.

In the history of the world this has never been achieved, if true consensus was possible amongst large groups of people, politics would cease to be real subject of study. Obviously such a position is completely unrealistic.

[1713430228]

1713430228

[hdbuck]

Do you want to find compromise or not? It really is quite simple, before you said that two megabytes is safe and fine, either it is, or it is not. I am saying that we can all simply just agree to a two megabyte blocksize regardless of what else either one of us believes, as long as we think that two megabytes is safe and doable. This would provide a solution to the current impasse since it would be a solution that both sides can be happy with for now. The other alternative is that a split occurs, because I can tell you now that the present Core road map is completely untenable for the big blocks camp.

What are you trying to do here? Make me admit to a 2 MB compromise but leave the false statements at 'it doesn't matter what either one of us believes'? That I'm not willing to do. I'm not willing to reach an end to the discussion when some of your beliefs are very wrong (e.g. 8 MB blocks are viable right now). How about you start addressing those 3 points? Once we're past that then we will see.

You still do not get it, we can disagree on these three points that is fine, I have already discussed these points ad nauseam so you should already know what my position is on these three points since we have even discussed this together previously on different threads.

I am really starting to think that you do not know what a compromise means. Again it does not matter if I think eight megabytes blocks are viable and you do not, it does not matter for this compromise. All that matters is that we both can simply agree to a two megabyte blocksize limit. You know find common ground, instead of focusing on what divides us.

meh bitcoin is not a compromise, sry but it is a consensus.

we are not dealing rugs here, so no, you wont 'compromise' bitcoin.

Yeah, lots of luck with that achieving true consensus among millions of people.

In the history of the world this has never been achieved, if true consensus was possible amongst large groups of people, politics would cease to be real subject of study. Obviously such a position is completely unrealistic.

heh, exactly


edit: altho not that consensus is not being achieved right before your eyes and every new block, just good luck indeed changing it.. ^^

[VeritasSapere]

Do you want to find compromise or not? It really is quite simple, before you said that two megabytes is safe and fine, either it is, or it is not. I am saying that we can all simply just agree to a two megabyte blocksize regardless of what else either one of us believes, as long as we think that two megabytes is safe and doable. This would provide a solution to the current impasse since it would be a solution that both sides can be happy with for now. The other alternative is that a split occurs, because I can tell you now that the present Core road map is completely untenable for the big blocks camp.

What are you trying to do here? Make me admit to a 2 MB compromise but leave the false statements at 'it doesn't matter what either one of us believes'? That I'm not willing to do. I'm not willing to reach an end to the discussion when some of your beliefs are very wrong (e.g. 8 MB blocks are viable right now). How about you start addressing those 3 points? Once we're past that then we will see.

You still do not get it, we can disagree on these three points that is fine, I have already discussed these points ad nauseam so you should already know what my position is on these three points since we have even discussed this together previously on different threads.

I am really starting to think that you do not know what a compromise means. Again it does not matter if I think eight megabytes blocks are viable and you do not, it does not matter for this compromise. All that matters is that we both can simply agree to a two megabyte blocksize limit. You know find common ground, instead of focusing on what divides us.

meh bitcoin is not a compromise, sry but it is a consensus.

we are not dealing rugs here, so no, you wont 'compromise' bitcoin.

Yeah, lots of luck with that achieving true consensus among millions of people.

In the history of the world this has never been achieved, if true consensus was possible amongst large groups of people, politics would cease to be real subject of study. Obviously such a position is completely unrealistic.

heh, exactly

The technology is amazing I agree, it solves many older political problems I entirely agree, like tyranny of the majority for instance, maybe not under your conception of Bitcoin but certainly under my conception. This problem however regarding consensus lies within human nature, culture and free will. These things are not changed by Bitcoin, which means they are also not problems/dynamics that are solved by Bitcoin.

edit: altho not that consensus is not being achieved right before your eyes and every new block, just good luck indeed changing that

I do agree on this conception of consensus, that it is how Bitcoin works, However with my conception of Bitcoin, when an issue becomes contentious, consensus in the literal meaning is lost, if no compromise is found this is expressed through a split and or a loss of confidence precipitating in an exodus to alternative cryptocurrencies. I embrace this governance mechanism as an expression of freedom and the right to our own self determination.

[hdbuck]

Yea yea here we go again with the political philosophy..

In the end you expressed yourselves switching to Classic xt or whatever... such freedom.

We all agree not to agree, sounds lika consensus to me.

[VeritasSapere]

Yea yea here we go again with the political philosophy..

In the end you expressed yourselves switching to Classic xt or whatever... such freedom.

We all agree not to agree, sounds lika consensus to me.

If that is your conception of consensus then I can agree with that. What consensus means as a governance model in the literal sense of the word is that essentially any changes become impossible. If changes require true consensus then change becomes completely impossible since there will always be a few people that disagree, regardless. Not how I perceive the governance of Bitcoin but if that is how you perceive it then I can at least respect the consistence of your believes.

[hdbuck]

Yea yea here we go again with the political philosophy..

In the end you expressed yourselves switching to Classic xt or whatever... such freedom.

We all agree not to agree, sounds lika consensus to me.

If that is your conception of consensus then I can agree with that. What consensus means as a governance model in the literal sense of the word is that essentially any changes become impossible. If changes require true consensus then change becomes completely impossible since there will always be a few people that disagree, regardless. Not how I perceive the governance of Bitcoin but if that is how you perceive it then I can at least respect the consistence of your believes.

Dont worry, shifting consensus will likely be reached if bitcoin's very existence would directly be threaten, as in security wise for example.

But coinbase or other mainstream matters are not vital for bitcoin. Sorry (for their loss).

[VeritasSapere]

Yea yea here we go again with the political philosophy..

In the end you expressed yourselves switching to Classic xt or whatever... such freedom.

We all agree not to agree, sounds lika consensus to me.

If that is your conception of consensus then I can agree with that. What consensus means as a governance model in the literal sense of the word is that essentially any changes become impossible. If changes require true consensus then change becomes completely impossible since there will always be a few people that disagree, regardless. Not how I perceive the governance of Bitcoin but if that is how you perceive it then I can at least respect the consistence of your believes.

Dont worry, shifting consensus will likely be reached if bitcoin's very existence would directly be threaten, as in security wise for example.

But coinbase or other mainstream matters are not vital for bitcoin. Sorry (for their loss).

You are right, that is the one exception, if lets say the cryptography was broken for instance, to switch the cryptography if that happened would be the type of change that could gain consensus. Any other changes though would be impossible to implement with true consensus. Segwit is a good example of this, it only takes a few people to disagree for "true" consensus to be lost.

I personally do think that transaction cost and reliability on the first layer are critical for Bitcoin to remain the dominant cryptocurrency, this can only be preserved with a blocksize increase. I suppose this is the type of "mainstream" change that you do not think is vital I presume.

[Zarathustra]

Yea yea here we go again with the political philosophy..

In the end you expressed yourselves switching to Classic xt or whatever... such freedom.

We all agree not to agree, sounds lika consensus to me.

If that is your conception of consensus then I can agree with that. What consensus means as a governance model in the literal sense of the word is that essentially any changes become impossible. If changes require true consensus then change becomes completely impossible since there will always be a few people that disagree, regardless. Not how I perceive the governance of Bitcoin but if that is how you perceive it then I can at least respect the consistence of your believes.

Dont worry, shifting consensus will likely be reached if bitcoin's very existence would directly be threaten, as in security wise for example.

But coinbase or other mainstream matters are not vital for bitcoin. Sorry (for their loss).

You are not vital for Bitcoin. Coinbase is.

[hdbuck]

Yea yea here we go again with the political philosophy..

In the end you expressed yourselves switching to Classic xt or whatever... such freedom.

We all agree not to agree, sounds lika consensus to me.

If that is your conception of consensus then I can agree with that. What consensus means as a governance model in the literal sense of the word is that essentially any changes become impossible. If changes require true consensus then change becomes completely impossible since there will always be a few people that disagree, regardless. Not how I perceive the governance of Bitcoin but if that is how you perceive it then I can at least respect the consistence of your believes.

Dont worry, shifting consensus will likely be reached if bitcoin's very existence would directly be threaten, as in security wise for example.

But coinbase or other mainstream matters are not vital for bitcoin. Sorry (for their loss).

You are not vital for Bitcoin. Coinbase is.

Sure, im not, but still they arent either...

In fact we all arent, and even the internet isnt.  

[hdbuck]

Yea yea here we go again with the political philosophy..

In the end you expressed yourselves switching to Classic xt or whatever... such freedom.

We all agree not to agree, sounds lika consensus to me.

If that is your conception of consensus then I can agree with that. What consensus means as a governance model in the literal sense of the word is that essentially any changes become impossible. If changes require true consensus then change becomes completely impossible since there will always be a few people that disagree, regardless. Not how I perceive the governance of Bitcoin but if that is how you perceive it then I can at least respect the consistence of your believes.

Dont worry, shifting consensus will likely be reached if bitcoin's very existence would directly be threaten, as in security wise for example.

But coinbase or other mainstream matters are not vital for bitcoin. Sorry (for their loss).

You are right, that is the one exception, if lets say the cryptography was broken for instance, to switch the cryptography if that happened would be the type of change that could gain consensus. Any other changes though would be impossible to implement with true consensus. Segwit is a good example of this, it only takes a few people to disagree for "true" consensus to be lost.

I personally do think that transaction cost and reliability on the first layer are critical for Bitcoin to remain the dominant cryptocurrency, this can only be preserved with a blocksize increase. I suppose this is the type of "mainstream" change that you do not think is vital I presume.

I appreciate your more reflexive attitude, but what we all think is of no importance consensus wise as I've demonstrated.

If anything, it will only harden the state of Bitcoin's status quo.

So we do what we do as politicized simpletons and turn in circles, argue and throw shit at each other whilst meanwhile Bitcoin does its thing.

 

And that's the beauty of it. That is what brings bitcoin its value. That is the apolitical, antifragile and disruptive monetary system we all bought into.

That is what is making the banksters and all powers that wannabe mad about.

[watashi-kokoto]

You are not vital for Bitcoin. Coinbase is.

Coinbase, a peon who for some reason refuses to obey it's master,, won't be around for long my friend. Mark my words.

And the master is noone else who pushes this Classic nonsense, and dumps coin after every Classic refusal.

Pressing the stress test button, on the other hand, may or may not work. The very people who need the capability to locate the needles, are making the haystack larger.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

Coinbase vital for bitcoin!

Ha that's the best joke I've heard in a while. Do you mean Coinbase is vital for the US Government to control & monitor bitcoin?

[hdbuck]

The very people who need the capability to locate the needles, are making the haystack larger.

Lovely analogy

[VeritasSapere]

Yea yea here we go again with the political philosophy..

In the end you expressed yourselves switching to Classic xt or whatever... such freedom.

We all agree not to agree, sounds lika consensus to me.

If that is your conception of consensus then I can agree with that. What consensus means as a governance model in the literal sense of the word is that essentially any changes become impossible. If changes require true consensus then change becomes completely impossible since there will always be a few people that disagree, regardless. Not how I perceive the governance of Bitcoin but if that is how you perceive it then I can at least respect the consistence of your believes.

Dont worry, shifting consensus will likely be reached if bitcoin's very existence would directly be threaten, as in security wise for example.

But coinbase or other mainstream matters are not vital for bitcoin. Sorry (for their loss).

You are right, that is the one exception, if lets say the cryptography was broken for instance, to switch the cryptography if that happened would be the type of change that could gain consensus. Any other changes though would be impossible to implement with true consensus. Segwit is a good example of this, it only takes a few people to disagree for "true" consensus to be lost.

I personally do think that transaction cost and reliability on the first layer are critical for Bitcoin to remain the dominant cryptocurrency, this can only be preserved with a blocksize increase. I suppose this is the type of "mainstream" change that you do not think is vital I presume.

I appreciate your more reflexive attitude, but what we all think is of no importance consensus wise as I've demonstrated.

If anything, it will only harden the state of Bitcoin's status quo.

So we do what we do as politicized simpletons and turn in circles, argue and throw shit at each other whilst meanwhile Bitcoin does its thing.

And that's the beauty of it. That is what brings bitcoin its value. That is the apolitical and robust new monetary system we all bought into.

I suppose we bought into different monetary systems then, since my understanding going into it was different. I think that Bitcoin relies on the economic self-interest of the masses to govern consensus. I actually perceive Bitcoin as being the evolution of governance. Voluntary and decentralized non geographically bound governance, the evolution of the modern democracy if you will into something better and superior.

Bitcoin's governance mechanism is a form of democracy, not a democracy in the way that we know today. It is very different, I think better. However there are very democratic aspects to it, like reflecting the will of the economic majority. Which is not that dissimilar to reflecting the will of the people, which is what democracies are supposed to do in theory at least.

Bitcoin is interesting as a form of democracy, because it is different to modern state democracies in that it places positive incentives on a select group of people who essentially vote in the interests of the economic majority, almost the opposite of how modern state democracies work, since our representatives in modern state democracies often have perverse incentives acting upon them. Which is what makes decentralized proof of work blockchains arguably a superior form of governance.

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.

[hdbuck]

err, im not going to argue more, bitcoin IS NOT a democracy, by any form, type, or shape.

Miners and all of us are basically lucky slaves.

But do what you do, the more people argue, the more resilient bitcoin will be.

[VeritasSapere]

err, im not going to argue more, bitcoin IS NOT a democracy, by any form, type, or shape.

Miners and all of us are basically lucky slaves.

But do what you do, the more people argue, the more resilient bitcoin will be.

I think that Bitcoin is freedom, as long as enough people think this way, it will continue to be free.

Bitcoin is a form of democracy even though some people will try and convince you that it is not, what does that tell you?

The only way to destroy freedom, is to convince people they are safer without it. This is exactly what is happening to Bitcoin.

[hdbuck]

Bitcoin is not freedom, there are rules..

Bitcoin is trust. Or trustlessness for that matter.

So whatever blockstream or anyone says, in Bitcoin I trust.

[iCEBREAKER]

Shots fired!   

[gmaxwell]

iCEBREAKER, surely there is better fodder for the classic r3kt party?

When people make fun of petty crap like that it gives the impression that there is nothing substantive to say.

I think it's best the weird personal attacks to others: As the Irish proverb says, "Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty, but the pig will like it."

[iCEBREAKER]

iCEBREAKER, surely there is better fodder for the classic r3kt party?

When people make fun of petty crap like that it gives the impression that there is nothing substantive to say.

I think it's best the weird personal attacks to others: As the Irish proverb says, "Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty, but the pig will like it."

The classic r3kt party is winding down, so we're left scraping the bottom of the barrel for new material (ie, something else substantive to say).

The great thing about shrinknut's zinger was its context and phrasing, not the admittedly petty content.