The Blocksize Debate & Concerns

[Lauda]

Worth reading,

HaoBTC.
https://medium.com/@HaoBTC/a-call-for-core-developers-to-clarify-their-stance-on-2mb-hard-fork-d6797ddbed8c#.86cgl0lhg

I would be interested in hearing from the people who were part of that agreement. The other Core developers do not have to voice themselves as they're not part of it.

The miners are service providers. They don't have a say in how Bitcoin develops.

They shouldn't have a say in it, unless they're actively contributing indeed. They are free to decide whether they want to run those changes or not.

Has anyone noticed how the 2MB2MB2MB shills never post anywhere except in threads that let them propagate their dev team coup propaganda? You'd think they'd be active all over Bitcoin, seeing as they're such genuine fellas, huh?

I've noticed that. They usually have no contributions in any way or form.

[1713878114]

1713878114

[rizzlarolla]

I think everyone knows who the shill is in this thread.

I do.

Has anyone noticed how the 2MB2MB2MB shills never post anywhere except in threads that let them propagate their dev team coup propaganda? You'd think they'd be active all over Bitcoin, seeing as they're such genuine fellas, huh?

I've noticed that. They usually have no contributions in any way or form.

And backed up by a completely ridiculous statement from staff in support.

RealBitcoin, how can anyone debate with this?
This thread was linked on Blockchain.info yesterday.
This circus was on full display. (maybe that is why someone made 15 ad hom bs posts)

[Carlton Banks]

ad hom bs posts

How many times: it's not ad hominem when it's true

[franky1]

if miners are just service providers then core devs are just service providers

and its users who have bitcoins(funds) that are the ultimate owners of bitcoin(brand)...
wait.. miners own bitcoins(funds).. hmm so miners do have a say. atleast a bigger say then core dev's who are only holding a big bag of fiat and only doing nasty things purely to release the next tranche of fiat..

wait.. i can predict you are about to say that blockstream owns bitcoin(brand)... go on. say it. get to the crux of your whole rhetoric that blockstream rule supreme, i know you want to




now with that all said, lets get back to the topic at hand. the blocksize debate.

we all know that the the reasons against a hardfork is getting thinner and thinner, especially now that it has begun to resort to blackmail and bribery to push segwit on users(including miners).

so the options left is very simple.
because the next "big" implementation needs 95% acceptance. its definitely a perfect time to include the extra code to allow users and miners more potential capacity for natural unhindered growth. without endlessly having to upgrade every few months.

[Carlton Banks]

No the developers are designers. Anyone can do what the miners do: I was mining for a long time. I expect even you could strap a mining rig together, Franky

The miners and users own their capital: BTC or mining equipment. They don't own the network: the economic majority does. If you were such a big pockets 'Coiner Franky, you would have no need to spread your propaganda: you could just wait till some miner consortium tries to force a fork (much predicted, never happens), then use your massive BTC stash to short sell Core.

But you haven't got any Bitcoins, so instead, you're here talking shit.

Likewise all your garbage about Segwit: there are practical, real world steps you could take yourself to prove your BS. Just get on testnet and carry out all the exploits and flaws you've "identified" on a running implementation, then you could prove all your little theories!

Except you and no-one else has, because it's all hot air propaganda. You're a sad, disgusting little man who lies for a living, face it.

[franky1]

the economic majority does.

The miners and users own their capital:

thank you for proving my point. that miners do have a bigger say in what direction bitcoin should go
especially when the majority of the hoards on exchanges that can "sellout" are miners and users,

the real funny part is that miners and users dont need to use their funds to "sellout" if they dont like core.. they simply just dont use core..
no need to sell bitcoin to prove a point. much easier to just not use core and let core get the hint in a proper way

but i am shocked you didnt take your rhetoric in the real direction you wanted, that blockstream rules supreme
so i guess you concede that developers are service providers too and their service is "designing"

edit:
and now i see carlton fail once more at a logical rebuttle and so pretends im bought by a corporation.. thats funny
carltons ultimate mindset. if anyone is not a sheep for the blockstream corp, they must be paid by other corps

comedy gold

[Carlton Banks]

Franky, shut up. Reading your posts is such a waste of time, I'm amazed anyone pays you for this poor performance. @Franky's employer: dock his pay or sack him, he's useless

[Carlton Banks]

Alright then (you asked)


Miners own hashing hardware. And some controllers, and possibly also their own Bitcoin node (even you, Franky, are cognizant of the fact that some large miners don't even run one node of their own)

And so they own the hardware that hashes; take them away and there is no network. And the same proposition is true of every other component of the Bitcoin network: full node operators, wallet service users, and the Bitcoin economy itself.

Take away:

• wallet users: no network
• node operators: no network
• the miners: no network
• the Bitcoin economy (which you, Franky, have yet to demonstrate you participate in): no network

All these variously tangible and intangible elements constitute the network, not just one element in isolation. But that's you all over Franky; using simplistic subversive portrayals of the real picture to push your agenda.


Now, fuck off. For the love of god.

[franky1]

take away miners.. blocks dont get made..
take away core and things continue, (everyone stays with 0.12)

ergo miners remaining and doing something is more important than core doing something.

yes you may argue that new miners can come in to get block creation going again..
but the network can live without core. but cant live without the miners.

and yes core can be replaced if users and miners want something designed. again making core less important than miners

and now you see why i am not blindly devoted to core.. because they are not the owners of bitcoin, nor as essential to bitcoin as you subtly portray with your rhetoric.
also strange that you would advocate killing off miners before killing off core.. especially with the different mindset you had 2013-2015, which was at that time more humble about non corporate, non-control, open usability

[rizzlarolla]

Worth reading,

HaoBTC.
https://medium.com/@HaoBTC/a-call-for-core-developers-to-clarify-their-stance-on-2mb-hard-fork-d6797ddbed8c#.86cgl0lhg

"The code for the hard-fork will therefore be available by July 2016."

"Now with June approaching its end and June a few days away, there has been increasing concern whether the Core devs are ready to deliver on their promise, or any effort have been made during the past months towards this end. Some may feel compelled to ask: Were the Core devs who signed the document sincere in their promise or just squeezing the situation for all it’s worth?"

Lukejnr in reply, (snipped)

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4q3ztw/a_call_for_core_developers_to_clarify_their/d4q6ryh?context=3

"Core contributors present and party to the agreement were not acting as representatives of the Core dev team, (This was made VERY clear.)"

"There was no hardfork promised (not even all the Core dev team has authority to do that), only code that could be recommended for one. (This also was made VERY clear.)"

"The hardfork proposal promised was not a "2 MB hardfork", but a hardfork that would include as one minor change, the ability to include up to 2 MB of current witness-included-in-txid (anyone-can-malleate) transactions."

"Miners have no leverage to make demands. If they attempt to hardfork without community consensus, they harm only themselves, while Bitcoin moves on without them. (At least for my part, my goal of the agreement was to end division and argumentation, which did not happen, admittedly not because of the fault of many of the agreement participants.)"

"The July 2016 estimate was not part of the agreement, and certainly not a deadline. It was (at the time) a reasonable expectation based on the agreement terms."

"Speaking only for myself, I made the promise with sincerity, and intend to uphold it best I can (despite the almost immediate violation by one of the parties)."


Looks like the miners have been conned.
Just like the rest of us.

I'm ready to hardfork HaoBTC.
I think you will have little objection.

[Carlton Banks]

take away miners.. blocks dont get made..
take away core and things continue, (everyone stays with 0.12)

Not really Franky, because then the miners would be designing the software (bizarre tangent you're on here, incidentally, but what should we expect lol) under your scenario, and they've already demonstrated that they're plugging-cables-in and command-line-admin kinda guys. If you want cryptocurrency like that, choose from the 1000's of altcoins out there, exactly the same type of give-it-a-try developers dev those coins.



Incidentally, how do you manage to use expressions like "ergo", yet can't spell "rebuttal"? Or punctuate your sentences (at all)? Your mask is slipping

[Carlton Banks]

I'm ready to hardfork HaoBTC.

Stop talking and do it.
Talk, talk talk, nothing but talk for 18 months and counting.



I'm telling you: do it now.  Right now. Then we'll see who's who for real.
But you're a bunch of cowards, you can't take anyone much to speak of with you. Hence the waffle.

[AliceGored]

....HK agreement bilge.....

The miners are service providers. They don't have a say in how Bitcoin develops. They have a say in how their mine operates, because it's theirs. The codebase is not theirs to change, and if they don't like it, they can go somewhere else. Take the hint.

Contrasted with the white paper:



They ask this guy to provide the HF code??


https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4q3ztw/a_call_for_core_developers_to_clarify_their/d4q3793

Gluttons for punishment, these "service providers".

 

Has anyone noticed how the 2MB2MB2MB shills never post anywhere except in threads that let them propagate their dev team coup propaganda? You'd think they'd be active all over Bitcoin, seeing as they're such genuine fellas, huh?

Yeah, because this place is filled with insightful commentary from barely literate sig spammers:

Halving is a profitable???  New « 1 2 ... 40 41 »
du you spend coins on real life.  New « 1 2 ... 50 51 »
Do u know how can i have one bitcoin?  New « 1 2 ... 96 97 »

[Also, dev coup? Lol, it's open source software. It doesn't have anointed permanent devs, read the whitepaper again, and du try to understand it this time. ]

[Carlton Banks]

Hmmm, interesting distraction post. Well, when I say interesting, I mean tepid.


Re: inadequate context about miners place in the ecosystem from the Satoshi white paper

Yep, and the users vote too, as do the merchants, as do the node operators. Maybe you should read the whole white paper, not just your favourite sentence


Re: Lukejr's insights to network load

He's right. He coded very significant parts of the Bitcoin we use already.


Re: dev coup

So, you're happy to let Core team implement your preferred hard fork, right? Oh, you want the Core team replaced with a different dev team to implement your hard fork? And that's not a dev team coup? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

[RealBitcoin]

I just dont understand why people want to do a hardfork, when the risks associated with it are just too big.

They are either dishonest or dont understand what they are talking about:

Therefore if the bitcoin protocol gets changed only by a small amount, some people will abuse that opportunity, and gradually add more changes, until bitcoin goes off it's original mission, and becomes centralized.

[franky1]

Not really Franky, because then the miners would be designing the software (bizarre tangent you're on here, incidentally, but what should we expect lol) under your scenario, and they've already demonstrated that they're plugging-cables-in and command-line-admin kinda guys.

my "scenario" is that there is going to become a point where the software doesn't need changing. but miners will always be needed

lets take your former admiration for a blocksize increase last year, for instance.
if we went the route of BU (which if you wash away your false accusations of, would realise i am in favour of too) then core wont be needed to define how and when a hard fork happens because users and miners can change the settings without needing core to make new code again. as it would be part of a setting option.

but the short of it.
miners will be needed non stop for as long as bitcoin remains.. be it a few decades or centuries (no one knows). but core AKA blockstream can disappear and are not as required. so relying on them and blindly devoting yourself to their bait and switches, blackmails and bribes is not a good thing for bitcoin.

and as for my grammar and spelling.
you say tom8o i say tom@o they both mean the same thing

this is not a scholar website graded based on grammar
i type my thoughts as if i am talking with my voice, and its the context and content that means more than the presentation.
yes i can waste time proof reading. but trying to proof read something wasted on you, is a waste.

have a nice day.

[rizzlarolla]

I just dont understand why people want to do a hardfork, when the risks associated with it are just too big.

They are either dishonest or dont understand what they are talking about:

Therefore if the bitcoin protocol gets changed only by a small amount, some people will abuse that opportunity, and gradually add more changes, until bitcoin goes off it's original mission, and becomes centralized.

If there is consensus, the risk is small.

Call me dishonest or ignorant if you like.
I thought you were calling for calm?

[RealBitcoin]

I just dont understand why people want to do a hardfork, when the risks associated with it are just too big.

They are either dishonest or dont understand what they are talking about:

Therefore if the bitcoin protocol gets changed only by a small amount, some people will abuse that opportunity, and gradually add more changes, until bitcoin goes off it's original mission, and becomes centralized.

If there is consensus, the risk is small.

Call me dishonest or ignorant if you like.
I thought you were calling for calm?

There isn't a consensus (for now). And also there are other risks as well, like the all nodes uppgrading to similar client, which exposes the network to 0 day exploits.

Also the network propagation time is also problematic.

And many other.

It's a collection of multiple issues that comes up when you talk about hardfork.

[rizzlarolla]

I just dont understand why people want to do a hardfork, when the risks associated with it are just too big.

They are either dishonest or dont understand what they are talking about:

Therefore if the bitcoin protocol gets changed only by a small amount, some people will abuse that opportunity, and gradually add more changes, until bitcoin goes off it's original mission, and becomes centralized.

If there is consensus, the risk is small.

Call me dishonest or ignorant if you like.
I thought you were calling for calm?

There isn't a consensus (for now). And also there are other risks as well, like the all nodes uppgrading to similar client, which exposes the network to 0 day exploits.

Also the network propagation time is also problematic.

And many other.

It's a collection of multiple issues that comes up when you talk about hardfork.

"Also the network propagation time is also problematic" is not a hf problem.

"And many other", please tell me a few.

[franky1]

They are either dishonest or dont understand what they are talking about:

Therefore if the bitcoin protocol gets changed only by a small amount, some people will abuse that opportunity, and gradually add more changes, until bitcoin goes off it's original mission, and becomes centralized.

same can be said for softforks

I just dont understand why people want to do a hardfork, when the risks associated with it are just too big.

its only dangerous if one group of devs says no to cause contention by making it no longer a unanimous change by everyone... not due to any rational reason of what the users want. but purely about keeping a "political" grip of control of what direction only they want to take bitcoin.

in short.. if core released a 2mb or BU codebase.. then they could just let the users decide to take it up or not.. because all other implementations will work together
but by not releasing it they are limiting options and causing the controversy that actually makes a hard fork dangerous. and instead wanting to add code that takes bitcoin in a different direction and blackmail and bribe people into accepting core as the dominant central repo..

hard forks are only controversial because core is making it so