.

[figmentofmyass]

If you feel that Lauda's alluding to game theory, feel free to cite that. Forgive me if I don't take the word of random_guy_from_the_internet on trust.

i don't need to cite anything. i was expanding on what Lauda said. in any case, i am asserting that this is the relevant issue. alternatively, you could explain how it has fuck all to do with "coding."

Worked when, where and how? Also define what *you* mean by "consensus," everyone seems to have teir own opinions.

one example is BIP66. an intentional fork would, for example, not be successful if it results in multiple surviving blockchains, thereby breaking bitcoin. i defined what i meant by consensus:

the "consensus mechanism" stated in the whitepaper and the definition of "consensus" -- is to establish as close to 100% agreement as possible, and to prevent any changes that do not approach 100% agreement.

Can you please cite the relevant passage? Again, it's simply rude of you to make me search for the text you're referencing.

i'd say it's more rude to insult people for "not being a coder" when it's 100% irrelevant. if you haven't read bitcoin's whitepaper, then it's obvious why you haven't contemplated what consensus is, nor why it is necessary for bitcoin to function. refer to "consensus mechanism" in the whitepaper, relate it to the English definition of "consensus" and historically (as relates to bitcoin) how it has been used and subsequently achieved (e.g. BIP66).

cite the fucking relevant passage plz.

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.

Huh? "from a game theory perspective"? WTF are you taking about? Am enjoying the a) and b) list bit tho. Very acædemic of U.

you realize the bitcoin system is an economy, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory

Bro, unless you can be more specific than "herp, Gaem Theorie!!1!" I'm gonna have to put you on ignore.
Don't waste my time.

look, bro. clearly you're a fucking idiot if this is your grasp of economics. i took several more minutes than i should have answering your retard 101 questions, knowing full well that you know absolutely nothing about bitcoin or how it works.

your comments to Lauda asserted that economic incentives can be determined by code. please explain to me how that works.

an "economy" is "a system especially of interaction and exchange" -- that implies human rationality and incentive. so yes, if you think you can analyze the idea of "economic consensus" with no regard for modelling conflict and cooperation among intelligent rational decision-makers, you'd be dead wrong.

please feel free to ignore me, though. apparently you're just another retard that picks apart others' arguments without the slightest understanding of them, and never once proves a point of your own. you just incessantly ask irrelevant questions rather than address the substance of what is being said. this is a classically dishonest style of argument.

seriously, learn to use Google rather than forcing everyone to explain every little idea for you like a small child.

Whoops, nothing left...
Into ignore void you go then. But don't be a sad, will check on u every now and again

yep, as expected....

[jonald_fyookball]

So many critics! Hey, Gavin's trying to help!

So were the doctors who performed frontal lobotomies on unruly children.

The Bitcoin market price doesn't seem to think much of his help.

How do you know the market price is not dropping in response to the Blockstream's selling of the blockchain to Price Waterhouse?

You have an infinite number of news stories to choose from and an infinite number of price movements.  Are you sure you got this correlation right?  How about the causality?

Do you check the market price after each 10 lines of new code?  20?  100?

He didn't just say that did he?

Yeah, Greg you really are starting to crack under the pressure.

I know you're smart enough to know how markets work.
Maybe you think the rest of us aren't.

Heck, maybe the market was reacting to "core outreach"...
this article was published on the 28th, same day as Gavin's proposal.

http://www.coindesk.com/scaling-debate-bitcoin-core-outreach/

Maybe your new posting habits are part of the outreach.

Maybe I'm totally misinterpreting you and you're really
not saying: "well we're already doing segwit,
that should be enough for you.  screw Gavin and his
2MB...I've got a plan and we're doing it my way.

Anyway its not like price moved that much.
It moved much more when Hearn posted.
Seems like market participants read it and
said "damn, he's right, there's some problems."

I would bet quite a bit of money that we
would see a nice bump in price if the
following fictitious press release were published:

"Bitcoin core dev and Blockstream CTO Gregory
Maxwell gave his nod of approval today to
Gavin Andressen's BIP submission of a
blocksize increase to 2MB.  Maxwell commented:
"Although this wasn't part of the scalability
roadmap and isn't the most efficient way
to scale the network, I think this modest
increase does no harm and its acceptance
is an important political measure that
hopefully will unite the Bitcoin community
and send a clear message that all of
Bitcoin's stakeholders have a say in Bitcoin
and that consensus can be reached.  We
at Blockstream have no intention of
creating friction and have no problem
per se with a modest increase in the
blocksize at this time."

[CIYAM]

Funny - didn't your sig used to say "I support XT"?

Wonder what it is going to say next week?

Why not just change it to say "I support whatever 2MB project Gavin is pushing this week" just to be on the safe side?

[jonald_fyookball]

Funny - didn't your sig used to say "I support XT"?
 

Nope.  Never did. 

[CIYAM]

Nope.  Never did. 

Okay - but your sig support for Classic is duly noted.

[madjules007]

Funny - didn't your sig used to say "I support XT"?

Nope.  Never did. 

Your signature didn't. But your personal text did say this:


 

[CIYAM]

Your signature didn't. But your personal text did say this:


 

Ah - yes - that was it (didn't think I was imagining things).

[jonald_fyookball]

I am fine with no blocksize limit at all.  Let the miners sort it out.

[Carlton Banks]

I am fine with no blocksize limit at all.  Let the miners sort it out.

and with slithering your way out of questions you don't like answering. Not much change there either.

[Lauda]

I am fine with no blocksize limit at all.  Let the miners sort it out.

and with slithering your way out of questions you don't like answering. Not much change there either.

No real arguments defending the 'no blocksize limit'. We should give more power to the miners because that is the best approach.  

irrelevant. this isn't about code -- that's a complete strawman. whether or not you are a coder does not make you an authority on the economics of an experimental system. consensus is about economic incentive. that is game theory, not computer programming. there is no "code" that defines what works for aligning human incentives.
-snip-

Actually I do code. I've worked in the IT field my whole life but have recently changed direction. You are right that it is not about the code. Looking at the personal attack of that 'shill' and the later replies indicated that there was no use in arguing with him. I'll just put him on ignore and so should you.

i've never seen a thorough game theory analysis done by "big blockers" -- only baseless assertions that "derrrrp, ofc if one chain reaches 75% at some point the economic majority will quickly crush all opposition!1!!!" that's not an adequate explanation for anyone with basic intelligence. clearly it's enough for some of the chickens with their heads cut off running around on this forum, though.

This isn't about "big blockers" vs "small blockers" anymore, this is about taking over control over the main repository (else we'd be talking about BIP's not forks). I have not seen good arguments from them either. They're assuming that nobody will be damaged, that everyone will instantly switch because of the 75% and such. These are all assumptions based on nothing, not evidence nor research.

[jonald_fyookball]

I am fine with no blocksize limit at all.  Let the miners sort it out.

and with slithering your way out of questions you don't like answering. Not much change there either.

Which question do you feel I didn't answer?

No real arguments defending the 'no blocksize limit'. We should give more power to he miners because that is the best approach. 
 

The argument have already all been stated by myself or others in the past.

limit was a spam filter, shouldn't be part of the protocol rules,
the longest chain PoW is the best method for consensus,
there will be natural orphaning risks preventing gargantuan blocks, etc.

I'm not even here to argue about it... My forum signature was
brought up as if Bip101 was some insane idea and I'm saying
that even no limit at all is not crazy.

[Carlton Banks]

I am fine with no blocksize limit at all.  Let the miners sort it out.

and with slithering your way out of questions you don't like answering. Not much change there either.

Which question do you feel I didn't answer?

It was the part where you conveniently forgot about your support for previous failed dev-team coups, then just said some bland catch-all ("I support Bitcoin with unlimited blocks") when presented with the evidence? Remember that, it happened about 20 minutes ago. On this thread.

[jonald_fyookball]

I am fine with no blocksize limit at all.  Let the miners sort it out.

and with slithering your way out of questions you don't like answering. Not much change there either.

Which question do you feel I didn't answer?

It was the part where you conveniently forgot about your support for previous failed dev-team coups, then just said some bland catch-all ("I support Bitcoin with unlimited blocks") when presented with the evidence? Remember that, it happened about 20 minutes ago. On this thread.

Whatever you say Carlton.

The question CYIAM asked was about whether I had "XT" on my profile and I answered truthfully that I did not.
I assume you're NOT too stupid to understand the difference between BitcoinXT and Bip101, nor are
you too stupid to understand that both Bip101 and unlimited blocks both involve lifting/raising
the current blocksize limit.  

I've stated my position many times that I think we need bigger blocks and
I'm unsatisfied with Core's leadership, communication, and decisions on that
particular aspect of Bitcoin.   No big secret there.

If your point is that I supported blocksize increase proposals in the past that have failed,
then yep, you're right.  That is 100% true.

But the "slithering" accusations are nothing but trolling, politicking nonsense.  

[CIYAM]

Waiting for "jonald" (I can't spell CIYAM little own my own name) to be slapped in the face by Carlton Banks now.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Waiting for "jonald" (I can't spell CIYAM little own my own name) to be slapped in the face by Carlton Banks now.

Is your wife ok with your snarky new attiitude?

[jonald_fyookball]

Waiting for "jonald" (I can't spell CIYAM little own my own name) to be slapped in the face by Carlton Banks now.

Sorry. I guess I didn't care enough about you to get your name right.  I'll try harder in the future.  

[CIYAM]

Is your wife ok with your snarky new attiitude?

Wow - look at this guy - am guessing you haven't shown off this post to your family have you?

[bargainbin]

Is your wife ok with your snarky new attiitude?

Wow - look at this guy - am guessing you haven't shown off this post to your family have you?

He might be referencing this.

[CIYAM]

He might be referencing this.

Your point being?

(if you are trying to troll me then you'd better do better than a Jr. account)

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

He might be referencing this.

Your point being?

(if you are trying to troll me then you'd better do better than a Jr. account)

I can't help but notice your trust issues have been resolved. Scrubbed clean of all your sins then. Good for you.