Chinese Miners Revolt, Announces Plan to Hard Fork to Classic

[mayax]

You have proven to be a dumbshit, as well it seems.

I'm arguing not to tell someone how to do their job.
Chinese Miner's are telling the Core Devs that they don't know what they are doing.

Well that's where the problem is, a misunderstanding.
No, the miners aren't telling the devs "that they don't know what they are doing." What they're telling them is they're not doing what they *promised to do*.
The interests of the miners are not the same as the interests of Core devs, see?

I'll give you an analogy, show you what I mean:
Let's say Core devs are building a railroad, and drawing pay from Mayor Mccheese.
The railroad can go through the plains, which will take it right through Hamburglar's Town, or it can go over the mountains, which would take it right through The city of Mccheese.

Now, many would argue that it makes more sense to build the railroad on the plains, because no need to blast. And many will tell you just the opposite, that the mountain route is better, because shorter.
Both are not wrong. But guess which way the railroad's gonna go tho?
See where this is going?

What if in your analogy there are bandits and blockades in the plains.
These bandits have the ability to stop the train, kill all the riders and destroy the train.
Do you still go through the plains knowing that?

I'm only telling you that the train is more likely to go through the mountains if Mccheese is paying the surveyors.
I'm probably not making myself clear, so here's what I'm really trying to say:
You think that there is a right way and a wrong way to build a railroad.
I'm telling you that there are *many* right ways to do it, and different people would profit depending on *which* right way is picked.
So it's not a question of "who is smarter, Core devs or miners, Mayor Mccheese or Hamburglar. It's a question of who would profit most from what route.

As I'm sure you are aware, you have been answering me under different usernames,
so either you are using multiple accounts or you guys keep answering and talking for each other (unlikely).
Either way, I do not really care since that is not important to the larger issue here. I'm just pointing that out.

I understand what you are saying in your analogy.
I think there is a right and wrong way, since the only right way is the way that protects the network from possible attacks.
Bitcoin is only valuable if it can resist or entirely prevent all possible forms of attacks or exploits.
The recent Ethereum situation is a perfect example. They and their community have chosen the plains, IMO.
There will be many more problems with Ethereum in the future because it was designed the wrong way.

I think there are right ways and wrong ways. Not all roads lead to the same place. Some have dead ends.

For someone/for anybody, if the "dead end" is millions of cash, it's VERY good. who cares what's happening with an e-currency(it does not matter the name; it could be Bitcoin) if I make millions NOW ?

"Someone" takes the money and never look back to any shit Bitcoin Core or Classic   Your talking about principles in a world without them . 

[PorkUsher]

Yes, Luke-jr. No, I didn't know about F2Pool. Link?

I think they broke it a day later mining a Classic block. I'll update the post if I find the link.

Regardless, the agreement is either valid and binding, or it's not. If it's not, the miners are free to do whatever they wish, and this whole debate is pointless.

It matters. People who attack Luke-jr for 'trying' to create a proposal are heavily biased if it was already broken.

If Luke's argument was "you already broke the agreement," you'd have a point. His argument is that there's no agreement to be broken, the signatories did not represent core, so haha. that sort of thing. Tipikal Luke jr. shit.

If you don't code, your "objective observation" re. coding abilities of others is what's called an "uneducated opinion," and, as such, ain't worth much more than my cat's. My cat don't code.

So you can draw a conclusion of my 'coding abilities' based on not-seeing any of my code? Interesting story.

No. I'm going to assume your coding abilities are nonexistent until I see your code. I also wouldn't let a random bro do cardio surgery on me.
Not even if he gets all snide with "So you can draw a conclusion of my 'doctoring abilities' based on not-seeing any of my doctoring? Interesting story."
I haven't seen any of your doctoring, we're not in a hospital, so I'm gonna go ahead and assume that you're qualified to saw open my chest until I see some product.
Are you telling me you're an expert coder? GitHub link?

As far as "bias" goes, your bias on this issue is well-known.

No it is not. What nonsense are you talking about? I have no connection to any developer regardless of whether Core or Classic/other.

You have been toeing the core party line as long as I remember. You're on Teymos' payroll, you deleted threads that mentioned Classic, per this forum's official policy. Unbiased

[AgentofCoin]

What if in your analogy there are bandits and blockades in the plains.
These bandits have the ability to stop the train, kill all the riders and destroy the train.
Do you still go through the plains knowing that?

I'm only telling you that the train is more likely to go through the mountains if Mccheese is paying the surveyors.
I'm probably not making myself clear, so here's what I'm really trying to say:
You think that there is a right way and a wrong way to build a railroad.
I'm telling you that there are *many* right ways to do it, and different people would profit depending on *which* right way is picked.
So it's not a question of "who is smarter, Core devs or miners, Mayor Mccheese or Hamburglar. It's a question of who would profit most from what route.

As I'm sure you are aware, you have been answering me under different usernames,
so either you are using multiple accounts or you guys keep answering and talking for each other (unlikely).
Either way, I do not really care since that is not important to the larger issue here. I'm just pointing that out.

I understand what you are saying in your analogy.
I think there is a right and wrong way, since the only right way is the way that protects the network from possible attacks.
Bitcoin is only valuable if it can resist or entirely prevent all possible forms of attacks or exploits.
The recent Ethereum situation is a perfect example. They and their community have chosen the plains, IMO.
There will be many more problems with Ethereum in the future because it was designed the wrong way.

I think there are right ways and wrong ways. Not all roads lead to the same place. Some have dead ends.

For someone/for anybody, if the "dead end" is millions of cash, it's VERY good. who cares what's happening with an e-currency(it does not matter the name; it could be Bitcoin) if I make millions NOW ?

"Someone" takes the money and never look back to any shit Bitcoin Core or Classic  Your talking about principles in a world without them .  

Satoshi created Bitcoin based upon principal.
It's not my fault the community may consist of users such as yourself now.
That is what is at issue here.
The Chinese Miner's are willingly leaving security and a future and entering your world with no future and anything goes.

[Lauda]

If Luke's argument was "you already broke the agreement," you'd have a point. His argument is that there's no agreement to be broken, the signatories did not represent core, so haha. that sort of thing. Tipikal Luke jr. shit.

He's right. The individuals have never represented Core and they aren't able to do so easily anyways. It was clear that they can't promise a merge as this proposal would require evaluation and consensus like any other proposal.

No. I'm going to assume your coding abilities are nonexistent until I see your code.

You can't make a claim that Classic developers are equally as good, or good enough due to your nonexistent coding skills either (according to this logic). How many 'good developers' does Classic have?

I also wouldn't let a random bro do cardio surgery on me.

False analogy. This is an opinion nothing more.

Are you telling me you're an expert coder? GitHub link?

I may or may not be. I have claimed neither.

You have been toeing the core party line as long as I remember. You're on Teymos' payroll, you deleted threads that mentioned Classic, per this forum's official policy. Unbiased

So because I have a different opinion than you (e.g. I support Core and you support Classic) I'm biased? I most certainly am not on a "payroll" and I most certainly have not deleted such threads (I don't moderate these sections). Another failed attempt at undermining my persona.

[PorkUsher]

You have proven to be a dumbshit, as well it seems.

I'm arguing not to tell someone how to do their job.
Chinese Miner's are telling the Core Devs that they don't know what they are doing.

Well that's where the problem is, a misunderstanding.
No, the miners aren't telling the devs "that they don't know what they are doing." What they're telling them is they're not doing what they *promised to do*.
The interests of the miners are not the same as the interests of Core devs, see?

I'll give you an analogy, show you what I mean:
Let's say Core devs are building a railroad, and drawing pay from Mayor Mccheese.
The railroad can go through the plains, which will take it right through Hamburglar's Town, or it can go over the mountains, which would take it right through The city of Mccheese.

Now, many would argue that it makes more sense to build the railroad on the plains, because no need to blast. And many will tell you just the opposite, that the mountain route is better, because shorter.
Both are not wrong. But guess which way the railroad's gonna go tho?
See where this is going?

What if in your analogy there are bandits and blockades in the plains.
These bandits have the ability to stop the train, kill all the riders and destroy the train.
Do you still go through the plains knowing that?

I'm only telling you that the train is more likely to go through the mountains if Mccheese is paying the surveyors.
I'm probably not making myself clear, so here's what I'm really trying to say:
You think that there is a right way and a wrong way to build a railroad.
I'm telling you that there are *many* right ways to do it, and different people would profit depending on *which* right way is picked.
So it's not a question of "who is smarter, Core devs or miners, Mayor Mccheese or Hamburglar. It's a question of who would profit most from what route.

As I'm sure you are aware, you have been answering me under different usernames,
so either you are using multiple accounts or you guys keep answering and talking for each other (unlikely).
Either way, I do not really care since that is not important to the larger issue here. I'm just pointing that out.

I understand what you are saying in your analogy.
I think there is a right and wrong way, since the only right way is the way that protects the network from possible attacks.

Look, I don't know how to make it any simpler, but I'll try.
1. There are many right ways to build a railroad from NY to SanFran.
2. If you live in EastDmbfuck, WY, the right way *for you* is if that RR goes through EastDmbfuck, WY. Because then you wouldn't be EastDmbfuck, WY. anymore, you'd be Metropolis WY.
3. Routing RR through Armpit, KS, is not wrong, but it's wrong for EastDmbfuck, WY.
4. All of these routes could be made perfectly safe, that's not what this is abut.
5. Both Armpit, KS & EastDmbfuck, WY will give you a zillion reasons why their way is the best. It's in their enlightened self-interest to lie to you.

Back to Mayor Mccheese: City of Mccheese will shrivel up and die if RR don't go through it. It's banking on it. It bought all the devs properties that are in the right of way. It's desperate. But that's a tale for a later date.

P.S. Yes, I'm using multiple accounts. It serves MY enlightened self-interest.

[franky1]

I'll give you an analogy, show you what I mean:
Let's say Core devs are building a railroad, and drawing pay from Mayor Mccheese.
The railroad can go through the plains, which will take it right through Hamburglar's Town, or it can go over the mountains, which would take it right through The city of Mccheese.

better analogy
public railroad engineers for 7 years had a railroad with a single track that tunnelled through a mountain to get to the town
everyone had to get on a train that only allowed 2500adults and 2000children onboard per train every 10 minutes
but the town wanted to expand
trying to change it so that the trains departed every 2 or 5 minutes was impossible and would break the rail road completely. no one would do that ever..for good reason

so the HARD option is to excavate the tunnel to allow a reinforced track that could cope with larger trains to allow 5000adults and 4000 children per train every 10 minutes
or the Soft option. to make a second track that goes around the mountain.
but to do this the trains needed to change to ensure it didnt damage the track.

the private company called secondrail wanted the soft option because later they could use the soft track to divert to other towns like lightnington or sidechaina
however this soft track only works with the adults getting on the main track and the children have to get on the new soft track. and would only see an overall capacity increase if the adults made a decision to separate from their children.

the private company called secondrail funded some of the public railroad engineers for the design, labour and construction of the soft track, adding a non-compete clause.
a couple public railroad engineers didnt sign and done other things one resigned and one set up his own track company that had plans for the Hard option
the private company called secondrail made some passenger concessions such as "children can have a free ticket" so the adults see a cost reduction. hoping it would please the passengers to agree
the private company called secondrail made some threats that if the soft track was not accepted by the town they would demolish the tunnel. to scare the town into agreeing

then there was a whitehall meeting and the town asked the railroad engineers for a concession. to reinforce the tunnel to allow real capacity so both adults and children can travel together. in trains that can handle 5000 adults 4000 children per train. and if the private company wanted to make their soft track aswell, they could.

the whitehall meeting came to an agreement and all the railroad engineers agreed and signed.

but later the railroad engineers (fully funded by secondrail) told the whitehall that they signed the agreement as independent metal workers, because that is their soletrader job in the evening, completely different to the contracted job. and as such, as metal workers they could not "compete" against their contractor secondrail. and secondrail would not agree to any such deal

those at the whitehall meeting got mad.. they didnt invite metal workers. they invited only the people who could/should be able to do something, if they wanted to invite people that couldnt do the job, they would have asked their own metal worker in to sign the agreement knowing nothing would get done because the public do not trust independent metal workers.

but there is hope. the main protagonist engineer who said he was just a metal worker is going to risk it. but may end up being vilified in the same way the other 2 who didnt sign secondrails non compete got vilified.
but this wont be part of secondrail and will not have the same public awareness as second rail. so dont expect much action/reaction.

all we can do is wait and see
so far there has been no real evidence of a recent private whitehall meeting of just the townsfolk wanting to rebel by going with the guy that didnt sign the non compete..(this topics OP unsourced PR) so i left the story at the "all we can do is wait and see"

[PorkUsher]

If Luke's argument was "you already broke the agreement," you'd have a point. His argument is that there's no agreement to be broken, the signatories did not represent core, so haha. that sort of thing. Tipikal Luke jr. shit.

He's right. The individuals have never represented Core and they aren't able to do so easily anyways. It was clear that they can't promise a merge as this proposal would require evaluation and consensus like any other proposal.

/thread? what are we talking about?
No agreement, miners can do whatever they want, miners are doing whatever they want. Which is telling core devs to fuck off.
Which is cool, because that's how Bitcoin was designed to work: Everyone pursues his own best interests, whatever those may be, and, Math willing, shit should work out for the best.
Baloons.gif.

Are you telling me you're an expert coder? GitHub link?

I may or may not be. I have claimed neither.

Now tell me I'm a fool to discount your opinion, when you don't even want to *tell* me you're a decent coder.
Imagine going under the knife, and the guy doing the surgery won't even tell you if he's really a surgeon or not?
False analogy my ass

You have been toeing the core party line as long as I remember. You're on Teymos' payroll, you deleted threads that mentioned Classic, per this forum's official policy. Unbiased

So because I have a different opinion than you (e.g. I support Core and you support Classic) I'm biased? I most certainly am not on a "payroll" and I most certainly have not deleted such threads (I don't moderate these sections). Another failed attempt at undermining my persona.

1. You most certainly are on the payroll, Teymos pays you for being a mod on this forum.
2. You may claim that you are not biased, just as a prison guard on the warden's payroll or a Communist apparatchik on the Party payroll could: feel free to, but I ain't buying.

[mayax]

If Luke's argument was "you already broke the agreement," you'd have a point. His argument is that there's no agreement to be broken, the signatories did not represent core, so haha. that sort of thing. Tipikal Luke jr. shit.

He's right. The individuals have never represented Core and they aren't able to do so easily anyways. It was clear that they can't promise a merge as this proposal would require evaluation and consensus like any other proposal.

/thread? what are we talking about?
No agreement, miners can do whatever they want, miners are doing whatever they want. Which is telling core devs to fuck off.
Which is cool, because that's how Bitcoin was designed to work: Everyone pursues his own best interests, whatever those may be, and, Math willing, shit should work out for the best.
Baloons.gif.

Are you telling me you're an expert coder? GitHub link?

I may or may not be. I have claimed neither.

Now tell me I'm a fool to discount your opinion, when you don't even want to *tell* me you're a decent coder.
Imagine going under the knife, and the guy doing the surgery won't even tell you if he's really a surgeon or not?
False analogy my ass

Correct ! Money talks !

The people should  put questions like : "Who are the "ShitCore" devs? who is paying them?"

Don't tell me they are doing it for free for the Bitcoin benefit    There SO MANY interests in the BTC biz...

[Lauda]

No agreement, miners can do whatever they want, miners are doing whatever they want. Which is telling core devs to fuck off.

Yes there is an agreement. Those said individuals are to deliver a HF proposal as long as the other party doesn't violate their end. There was no talk about merging code.

Now tell me I'm a fool to discount your opinion, when you don't even want to *tell* me you're a decent coder.

So your own opinion and the opinion of your 'buddies' is also worthless. Good to know.

Imagine going under the knife, and the guy doing the surgery won't even tell you if he's really a surgeon or not?

Stating an opinion != taking action. False analogy.

1. You most certainly are on the payroll, Teymos pays you for being a mod on this forum.

I most certainly am not. This is not a "payroll" and is not relevant to personal views (e.g. HostFat).

2. You may claim that you are not biased, just as a prison guard on the warden's payroll or a Communist apparatchik on the Party payroll could: feel free to, but I ain't buying.

Then you're wasting my time talking nonsense without any evidence. How classic.

For someone/for anybody, if the "dead end" is millions of cash, it's VERY good. who cares what's happening with an e-currency(it does not matter the name; it could be Bitcoin) if I make millions NOW ?

There are people who wouldn't sell their soul for "millions" "now".

[AgentofCoin]

You have proven to be a dumbshit, as well it seems.

I'm arguing not to tell someone how to do their job.
Chinese Miner's are telling the Core Devs that they don't know what they are doing.

Well that's where the problem is, a misunderstanding.
No, the miners aren't telling the devs "that they don't know what they are doing." What they're telling them is they're not doing what they *promised to do*.
The interests of the miners are not the same as the interests of Core devs, see?

I'll give you an analogy, show you what I mean:
Let's say Core devs are building a railroad, and drawing pay from Mayor Mccheese.
The railroad can go through the plains, which will take it right through Hamburglar's Town, or it can go over the mountains, which would take it right through The city of Mccheese.

Now, many would argue that it makes more sense to build the railroad on the plains, because no need to blast. And many will tell you just the opposite, that the mountain route is better, because shorter.
Both are not wrong. But guess which way the railroad's gonna go tho?
See where this is going?

What if in your analogy there are bandits and blockades in the plains.
These bandits have the ability to stop the train, kill all the riders and destroy the train.
Do you still go through the plains knowing that?

I'm only telling you that the train is more likely to go through the mountains if Mccheese is paying the surveyors.
I'm probably not making myself clear, so here's what I'm really trying to say:
You think that there is a right way and a wrong way to build a railroad.
I'm telling you that there are *many* right ways to do it, and different people would profit depending on *which* right way is picked.
So it's not a question of "who is smarter, Core devs or miners, Mayor Mccheese or Hamburglar. It's a question of who would profit most from what route.

As I'm sure you are aware, you have been answering me under different usernames,
so either you are using multiple accounts or you guys keep answering and talking for each other (unlikely).
Either way, I do not really care since that is not important to the larger issue here. I'm just pointing that out.

I understand what you are saying in your analogy.
I think there is a right and wrong way, since the only right way is the way that protects the network from possible attacks.

Look, I don't know how to make it any simpler, but I'll try.
1. There are many right ways to build a railroad from NY to SanFran.
2. If you live in EastDmbfuck, WY, te right way *for you* is if that RR goes through EastDmbfuck, WY. Because then you wouldn't be EastDmbfuck, WY. anymore, you'd be Metropolis WY.
3. Routing RR through Armpit, KS, is not wrong, but it's wrong for EastDmbfuck, WY.
4. All of these routes could be made perfectly safe, that's not what this is abut.
5. Both Armpit, KS & EastDmbfuck, WY will give you a zillion reasons why their way is the best. It's in their enlightened self-interest to lie to you.

Back to Mayor Mccheese: City of Mccheese will shrivel up and die if RR don't go through it. It's banking on it. It bought all the properties that are in the right of way. It's desperate. But that's a tale for a later date.

P.S. Yes, I'm using multiple accounts. It serves MY enlightened self-interest.

It is a nice example, but there are too many issues from my view point.

First, there can not be multiple right ways. Only one way will lead to success and many will lead to extinction.
When railroads were created across the USA, they did not build multiple paths, there was one and it led to success.

Second, it is true that different towns will lie to me and want me to choose them, but then who do I choose?
I could choose the one that seems to favor my security and survive-ability.

I would have to choose the lesser of two potential evils. So which is less evil?
One side declares mass riders and carry shit tons of gold and the other says slow and steady and security.
I don't want to ride a train that will be blow off the rails by bandits and killed, I want security.
I do not believe you can have both within the same train or path.

Three, I understand that the Mayor bought all this land and wants the train to go through theirs,
but if the mayor is correct as to security and other important issues, compared to other Mayors who
don't worry about security and other issues, why is owning all that land a problem?

What land are you referring IRL? (since the only land that exists in Bitcoin is hodling bitcoins).

[AgentofCoin]

I'll give you an analogy, show you what I mean:
Let's say Core devs are building a railroad, and drawing pay from Mayor Mccheese.
The railroad can go through the plains, which will take it right through Hamburglar's Town, or it can go over the mountains, which would take it right through The city of Mccheese.

better analogy
public railroad engineers for 7 years had a railroad with a single track that tunnelled through a mountain to get to the town
everyone had to get on a train that only allowed 2500adults and 2000children onboard per train every 10 minutes
but the town wanted to expand
trying to change it so that the trains departed every 2 or 5 minutes was impossible and would break the rail road completely. no one would do that ever..for good reason

so the HARD option is to excavate the tunnel to allow a reinforced track that could cope with larger trains to allow 5000adults and 4000 children per train every 10 minutes
or the Soft option. to make a second track that goes around the mountain.
but to do this the trains needed to change to ensure it didnt damage the track.

the private company called secondrail wanted the soft option because later they could use the soft track to divert to other towns like lightnington or sidechaina
however this soft track only works with the adults getting on the main track and the children have to get on the new soft track. and would only see an overall capacity increase if the adults made a decision to separate from their children.

the private company called secondrail funded some of the public railroad engineers for the design, labour and construction of the soft track, adding a non-compete clause.
a couple public railroad engineers didnt sign and done other things one resigned and one set up his own track company that had plans for the Hard option
the private company called secondrail made some passenger concessions such as "children can have a free ticket" so the adults see a cost reduction. hoping it would please the passengers to agree
the private company called secondrail made some threats that if the soft track was not accepted by the town they would demolish the tunnel. to scare the town into agreeing

...

This is a lot to absorb.
But my question is, when did they threaten to demolish the tunnel?
Wouldn't it be more correct that they said widening the tunnel will cause a collapse and destroy the security of the rail?
So a soft rail needs to be created to protect the first rail from such a failure.

[Cuidler]

Do you have guarantees that Core Devs will continue to participate after such move?

I'm certain that it is likely that most of them would abandon their 'public' work for Bitcoin. Would you not do the same if you got 'stabbed in the back' after this much time?

I dont think life is fair anyway. What about Satoshi and his vision for Bitcoin to become world number one currency and continuously scaling up to a point only the dataceners could handle the load, not individual home PCs. Who stabbed in the back his vision, do we appreciate he started Bitcoin at all? Should not Bitcoin follow his vision, and some altcoin try a different, artifically limited bloksizes perfectly suitable for home PCs bought around year 2005, now and forever.

I dont follow the idea Bitcoin should end up on dataceners only, but I dont follow the idea we should allow minimum system requirements to be allowed to run full nodes for 10+ year old computers eighter, this is ridiculous and not helpfull at all to keep current artifically low limit. Who get most out of this low limit at all? Why we want 10+ year old computers to be compatible full nodes when its contra productive - we may get few more full nodes in rural areas, but at a cost of million users not able to use Bitcoin because of limited blocksize - prety bad trade off, out of the million new users you get more new full nodes who have decent computer. If someone cannot afford 2 year old computer and normal 5Mbps connection, why should he have right to run Bitcoin full node - and why someone needs to run the full node on 10+ year old computer is out of my mind.

It would be ridicilous if gaming industry followed current Core devs vision to make the games compatible with 10+ year old computers. Maybe good for few ones, but most people would not be happy.

[AgentofCoin]

Do you have guarantees that Core Devs will continue to participate after such move?

I'm certain that it is likely that most of them would abandon their 'public' work for Bitcoin. Would you not do the same if you got 'stabbed in the back' after this much time?

I dont think life is fair anyway. What about Satoshi and his vision for Bitcoin to become world number one currency and continuously scaling up to a point only the dataceners could handle the load, not individual home PCs. Who stabbed in the back his vision, do we appreciate he started Bitcoin at all? Should not Bitcoin follow his vision, and some altcoin try a different, artifically limited bloksizes perfectly suitable for home PCs bought around year 2005, now and forever.

...

It would be ridicious if gaming industry followed current core devs vision to make the games compatible with 10+ year old computers. Maybe good for few ones, but most would not be happy.

Satoshi didn't create Bitcoin to "become world number one currency". That doesn't exist in any of his writings.

As to node size/datacenter, Satoshi actually said that we should attempt to keep the system small as long a possible
and since that is still currently doable, we are still in accordance with Satoshi's original wishes.
He did state that one day we would need datacenters, but it does not need to be now.
That is the issue. People want it pushed into datacenters now, when Satoshi said hold out as long as possible.

Bitcoin was not created by Satoshi as a profit making corporation like the gaming industry.
It is not right to compare the node situation to such.

[PorkUsher]

You have proven to be a dumbshit, as well it seems.

I'm arguing not to tell someone how to do their job.
Chinese Miner's are telling the Core Devs that they don't know what they are doing.

Well that's where the problem is, a misunderstanding.
No, the miners aren't telling the devs "that they don't know what they are doing." What they're telling them is they're not doing what they *promised to do*.
The interests of the miners are not the same as the interests of Core devs, see?

I'll give you an analogy, show you what I mean:
Let's say Core devs are building a railroad, and drawing pay from Mayor Mccheese.
The railroad can go through the plains, which will take it right through Hamburglar's Town, or it can go over the mountains, which would take it right through The city of Mccheese.

Now, many would argue that it makes more sense to build the railroad on the plains, because no need to blast. And many will tell you just the opposite, that the mountain route is better, because shorter.
Both are not wrong. But guess which way the railroad's gonna go tho?
See where this is going?

What if in your analogy there are bandits and blockades in the plains.
These bandits have the ability to stop the train, kill all the riders and destroy the train.
Do you still go through the plains knowing that?

I'm only telling you that the train is more likely to go through the mountains if Mccheese is paying the surveyors.
I'm probably not making myself clear, so here's what I'm really trying to say:
You think that there is a right way and a wrong way to build a railroad.
I'm telling you that there are *many* right ways to do it, and different people would profit depending on *which* right way is picked.
So it's not a question of "who is smarter, Core devs or miners, Mayor Mccheese or Hamburglar. It's a question of who would profit most from what route.

As I'm sure you are aware, you have been answering me under different usernames,
so either you are using multiple accounts or you guys keep answering and talking for each other (unlikely).
Either way, I do not really care since that is not important to the larger issue here. I'm just pointing that out.

I understand what you are saying in your analogy.
I think there is a right and wrong way, since the only right way is the way that protects the network from possible attacks.

Look, I don't know how to make it any simpler, but I'll try.
1. There are many right ways to build a railroad from NY to SanFran.
2. If you live in EastDmbfuck, WY, te right way *for you* is if that RR goes through EastDmbfuck, WY. Because then you wouldn't be EastDmbfuck, WY. anymore, you'd be Metropolis WY.
3. Routing RR through Armpit, KS, is not wrong, but it's wrong for EastDmbfuck, WY.
4. All of these routes could be made perfectly safe, that's not what this is abut.
5. Both Armpit, KS & EastDmbfuck, WY will give you a zillion reasons why their way is the best. It's in their enlightened self-interest to lie to you.

Back to Mayor Mccheese: City of Mccheese will shrivel up and die if RR don't go through it. It's banking on it. It bought all the properties that are in the right of way. It's desperate. But that's a tale for a later date.

P.S. Yes, I'm using multiple accounts. It serves MY enlightened self-interest.

It is a nice example, but there are too many issues from my view point.

First, there can not be multiple right ways. Only one way will lead to success and many will lead to extinction.
When railroads were created across the USA, they did not build multiple paths, there was one and it led to success.

Second, it is true that different towns will lie to me and want me to choose them, but then who do I choose?
I could choose the one that seems to favor my security and survive-ability.

I would have to choose the lesser of two potential evils. So which is less evil?
One side declares mass riders and carry shit tons of gold and the other says slow and steady and security.
I don't want to ride a train that will be blow off the rails by bandits and killed, I want security.
I do not believe you can have both within the same train or path.

Three, I understand that the Mayor bought all this land and wants the train to go through theirs,
but if the mayor is correct as to security and other important issues, compared to other Mayors who
don't worry about security and other issues, why is owning all that land a problem?

What land are you referring IRL? (since the only land that exists in Bitcoin is hodling bitcoins).

You are still missing the point. There is no one railroad that lead to "success." The towns that got passed by died, railroad towns bloomed.

Most miners are mercenary. They don't give a rat's ass about Bitcoin's "success" if, in the process of succeeding, it impoverishes them.
They want to make money, which is well and good. But miners making money is not synonymous with Bitcoin being successful. The would like Bitcoin to succeed only as long as it makes them money.

The rest of your arguments -- you not wanting to ride unsafe trains, etc., are neither here nor there. If the miners make more money when BTC crashes and burns (hypothetical, but I can offer actual scenarios), that's what they will choose. It may not be a good thing for you as a BTC hodler, but that's how the cookie crumbles.

Again, miners are not in it to help us build a Bitcoin utopia -- they're businessmen, doing it to make money. They are free to (and will) do what they feel maximizes their profits. They might make mistakes, but they are a big, moneyed motherfucking thing. Huge money!
They got creditors watching over them and expensive advisors on their staff, so don't go Dunning-Krugering by thinking you know what's best for them.

[franky1]

This is a lot to absorb.
But my question is, when did they threaten to demolish the tunnel?

SHA3 (keccak)
Luke JR (the protagonist) wanted to drop the hashrate
other stuff luke suggesting moving over to sha 3 to render ASICs(mining) useless

Wouldn't it be more correct that they said widening the tunnel will cause a collapse and destroy the security of the rail?
So a soft rail needs to be created to protect the first rail from such a failure.

analogy is more like instead of the whole public rail engineers (ALL engineers paid or not) work together.. but secondrail just want a second track by using multiple threats and to leave the town with just independent metal workers to reinforce the tunnel.. basically scaring people to say it will collapse without "the big team"
basically blackmail

[franky1]

Are you telling me you're an expert coder? GitHub link?

I may or may not be. I have claimed neither.

for clarity of laudas dev skills and ability(lack) of reading bitcoin code

Whoever I've asked previously (as I don't do C++ myself) said that the complexity is overblown by a 'certain group'.

17th Jan 2016   20:24    Lauda    Bitcoin does not use Java right?

[albert11]

First proposal was 20MB, core didn't like it, then got down to 8MB, core still didn't like it, then went to 2MB and core still don't want it. People have been extremely patient but when things only go one side with censorship on top at some point people can't take it anymore.

So now what was inevitable happened, so we will see if core is ready to make the whole thing implode instead of making a compromise which is more than reasonable( not to mention that the block size will have to be increased at some point anyway when blocks are full of LN multi sig transac so this issue is not even a matter of if but when, so lets see if core will risk the whole thing collapse just because they their ego is too big to take rational economic decision.

[AgentofCoin]

You have proven to be a dumbshit, as well it seems.

I'm arguing not to tell someone how to do their job.
Chinese Miner's are telling the Core Devs that they don't know what they are doing.

Well that's where the problem is, a misunderstanding.
No, the miners aren't telling the devs "that they don't know what they are doing." What they're telling them is they're not doing what they *promised to do*.
The interests of the miners are not the same as the interests of Core devs, see?

I'll give you an analogy, show you what I mean:
Let's say Core devs are building a railroad, and drawing pay from Mayor Mccheese.
The railroad can go through the plains, which will take it right through Hamburglar's Town, or it can go over the mountains, which would take it right through The city of Mccheese.

Now, many would argue that it makes more sense to build the railroad on the plains, because no need to blast. And many will tell you just the opposite, that the mountain route is better, because shorter.
Both are not wrong. But guess which way the railroad's gonna go tho?
See where this is going?

What if in your analogy there are bandits and blockades in the plains.
These bandits have the ability to stop the train, kill all the riders and destroy the train.
Do you still go through the plains knowing that?

I'm only telling you that the train is more likely to go through the mountains if Mccheese is paying the surveyors.
I'm probably not making myself clear, so here's what I'm really trying to say:
You think that there is a right way and a wrong way to build a railroad.
I'm telling you that there are *many* right ways to do it, and different people would profit depending on *which* right way is picked.
So it's not a question of "who is smarter, Core devs or miners, Mayor Mccheese or Hamburglar. It's a question of who would profit most from what route.

As I'm sure you are aware, you have been answering me under different usernames,
so either you are using multiple accounts or you guys keep answering and talking for each other (unlikely).
Either way, I do not really care since that is not important to the larger issue here. I'm just pointing that out.

I understand what you are saying in your analogy.
I think there is a right and wrong way, since the only right way is the way that protects the network from possible attacks.

Look, I don't know how to make it any simpler, but I'll try.
1. There are many right ways to build a railroad from NY to SanFran.
2. If you live in EastDmbfuck, WY, te right way *for you* is if that RR goes through EastDmbfuck, WY. Because then you wouldn't be EastDmbfuck, WY. anymore, you'd be Metropolis WY.
3. Routing RR through Armpit, KS, is not wrong, but it's wrong for EastDmbfuck, WY.
4. All of these routes could be made perfectly safe, that's not what this is abut.
5. Both Armpit, KS & EastDmbfuck, WY will give you a zillion reasons why their way is the best. It's in their enlightened self-interest to lie to you.

Back to Mayor Mccheese: City of Mccheese will shrivel up and die if RR don't go through it. It's banking on it. It bought all the properties that are in the right of way. It's desperate. But that's a tale for a later date.

P.S. Yes, I'm using multiple accounts. It serves MY enlightened self-interest.

It is a nice example, but there are too many issues from my view point.

First, there can not be multiple right ways. Only one way will lead to success and many will lead to extinction.
When railroads were created across the USA, they did not build multiple paths, there was one and it led to success.

Second, it is true that different towns will lie to me and want me to choose them, but then who do I choose?
I could choose the one that seems to favor my security and survive-ability.

I would have to choose the lesser of two potential evils. So which is less evil?
One side declares mass riders and carry shit tons of gold and the other says slow and steady and security.
I don't want to ride a train that will be blow off the rails by bandits and killed, I want security.
I do not believe you can have both within the same train or path.

Three, I understand that the Mayor bought all this land and wants the train to go through theirs,
but if the mayor is correct as to security and other important issues, compared to other Mayors who
don't worry about security and other issues, why is owning all that land a problem?

What land are you referring IRL? (since the only land that exists in Bitcoin is hodling bitcoins).

You are still missing the point. There is no one railroad that lead to "success." The towns that got passed by died, railroad towns bloomed.

Most miners are mercenary. They don't give a rat's ass about Bitcoin's "success" if, in the process of succeeding, it impoverishes them.
They want to make money, which is well and good. But miners making money is not synonymous with Bitcoin being successful. The would like Bitcoin to succeed only as long as it makes them money.

The rest of your arguments -- you not wanting to ride unsafe trains, etc., are neither here nor there. If the miners make more money when BTC crashes and burns (hypothetical, but I can offer actual scenarios), that's what they will choose. It may not be a good thing for you as a BTC hodler, but that's how the cookie crumbles.

Again, miners are not in it to help us build a Bitcoin utopia -- they're businessmen, doing it to make money. They are free to (and will) do what they feel maximizes their profits. They might make mistakes, but they are a big, moneyed motherfucking thing. Huge money!
They got creditors watching over them and expensive advisors on their staff, so don't go Dunning-Krugering by thinking you know what's best for them.

Ok, well we disagree.

If Miner's do not care about future use, but only the now, then they wouldn't investment more money into hashing.
That increase in hash is a vote of confidence of the future.

If Miner's only believe in the now, they better jump ship now before they default and go bankrupt.
Bitcoin is not a ponzi, where it disappears overnight, but it seems the Miner's think so, in your opinion.

[PorkUsher]

No agreement, miners can do whatever they want, miners are doing whatever they want. Which is telling core devs to fuck off.

Yes there is an agreement. Those said individuals are to deliver a HF proposal as long as the other party doesn't violate their end. There was no talk about merging code.

Oh please. Tell me the miners believed they were signing an agreement with "individuals," tell me the press, this forum, r/bitcoin etc., celebrated the miners signing an agreement with "individuals." Show me how good you are at lying when it serves you.
 

Now tell me I'm a fool to discount your opinion, when you don't even want to *tell* me you're a decent coder.

So your own opinion and the opinion of your 'buddies' is also worthless. Good to know.

If I made a statement along the lines of

Classic Core developers are like high school programmers in comparison to the people working on Core Classic.

...and I had exactly zero clout as a coder?
And then I refused to even tell you if I could even code?!

Yeah, my opinion wouldn't be worth dick. If I did that, anyone with a shred of sanity and/or common sense would be absolutely obligated to point fingers and laugh at me.
But not you, oooh no... You'd just take my word for it, right?
You want to buy a nice bridge in NYC, Lauda?

[Cuidler]

People want it pushed into datacenters now, when Satoshi said hold out as long as possible.

No way. What blocksizes you need to move full nodes to datacenters, any study on this matter ?

Around 5 MB is safe for home PCs by 2 studies I read in the past, and found nothing wrong about the arguments (no links, toomin and cornwell univ study if I remember the names right).

What I hear is just politic about the matter from core supporters, zero data provided. We can hold out full node compatibility on decent home PCs and slightly increase blocksize today, no need to make full node compatible with 10+ year old computers and keep 1 MB blocksizes anymore. Thats my opinion and I hashing at slush pool with increasing blocksize option. I doing what I believe is safe and best for Bitcoin.