Stop fuckin' around, fork the son-of-a-bitch already.

[VeritasSapere]

I think that this debate is being abused by people who could be damaged by Bitcoin's success. They could easily abuse it by paying people to "infiltrate" each side and keep inciting war, flame and hatred on each other.

And this is what Veritas Sapere represents.

It's the most twisted debater I've happened upon for a while. Above, it falsely asserts I'm using strawman arguments, then goes on to unleash a panoply of strawman arguments using my recent replies.

I have not used any strawman arguments, you are saying that I am using fear because according to Hearn and Andresen, Bitcoin should have imploded by now. To be clear I did not say that at all, you are literally using a strawmen argument, this should be obvious to you and everyone here.

You are indeed correct in your recommendation Lauda to fork off, that is exactly what I think will happen soon. Though there is a chance that in the future you might regret not being more compromising on this issue.

I thought you said promoting fear was a hallmark of propaganda? And, hmmmmmm, isn't that exactly what the forkists have always argued with, fear based arguments? According to Hearn and Andresen, Bitcoin should have imploded by now. Yet the real Bitcoiners won the debate, and you're coming back for more. Ok.

Every single Veritas Sapere argument is couched in deceit. It always has to lie or manipulate to make a point, because it doesn't have any actual arguing points.

You are just attacking me here, you can not prove I am deceitful or that I am lying.

I've already debunked it's nonsense assertions that Peter Todd's malleability vuln has in fact been patched. And there's more.... it claims above that SegWit transactions are larger than standard transactions, but of course, this is only true if one is carefully selective with which facts one presents and which one does not (another classic Veritas Sapere strategy, it literally behaves as if inconvenient facts do not exist).

I did not realize that particular vulnerability has been fixed, this was less then a month ago, it does not exactly inspire confidence in the code so close to when it is supposed to be released on the Bitcoin network.

If Veritas wasn't being so self-servingly selective, it would report that SegWit transactions are being rolled out in 2 stages - to begin with, they're wrapped in ordinary Bitcoin P2PKH or P2SH formats, and this makes them larger than standard Bitcoin transactions today. But the 2nd stage involves invoking native P2WPKH and P2WSH, which will be more compact than regular transactions. Hence, Veirtas Sapere is lying by omission.

You are actually just confirming what I am saying here, I was correct in saying that the first version of segwit that will be rolled out on the Bitcoin network if Core gets its way will make transactions less efficient, I am also correct in saying that doing segwit as a hardfork makes it much more efficient. Since this P2WPKH and P2WSH will require a hard fork in order to implement as far as I understand it, since it is not backwards compatible.

But of course, it will return fire without mentioning a word about it's deception and manipulation.

If that was your objective you have failed, you have repeated many times that I am deceptive and manipulative supposedly,

Interesting how the personality of this particular troll is "honest and straightforward", but you don't have to dig hard to discover that it is in fact the polar opposite: deceitful and tortuous. And I've demonstrated that as a fact. (not Ad Hominem when it's a fact, getting too used to the "tactics" already lol)

I have not attacked you a single time and it seems like you are the one employing the Ad Hominem here continuously. Rather ironic really considering what you are accusing me of doing. Thanks for describing me as "honest and straightforward" I guess, I did not mind the other insult either of using a mixture of reason and "debating tactics".

[Carlton Banks]

You're just asserting all that without providing examples, and lying about what you said about Segwit transaction types in the expectation that no-one can be bothered to traverse your overcomplicated posts to find it.

Your objective is so incredibly obvious: falsehood trolling. That is, carefully constructed lies that sound very similar to what happened, but subtly (and sometimes nakedly) distort what actually happened. Bear in mind that this doesn't resemble Socratic dialogue technique at all as you claimed earlier (which involves a process of asking leading questions, not making statements).

[CarrollFilms]

Can they hardfork the ability for Node hosts to get a small reward? It would be nice to upgrade my Raspberry Pi.

[Lauda]

I am also correct in saying that doing segwit as a hardfork makes it much more efficient.

This would take a lot more time, and wouldn't be "much more efficient" in it's current state. Deploying it with a hard fork isn't even a big change. There was a post by maaku on reddit stating that it's rather just a few lines of code.

Can they hardfork the ability for Node hosts to get a small reward? It would be nice to upgrade my Raspberry Pi.

A hard fork can pretty much change anything. However, the question is always "Should we change that?". The answer to your suggestion is a clear: Not likely going to happen.

[VeritasSapere]

I think that are specifically wrong in saying that you are anti controversial hard forks, I think that increasing the blocksize will always be controversial because of the culture of believe that has now been build up in the Bitcoin community, according to that reasoning we should therefore never increase the blocksize limit? I think this is fundamentally flawed, especially considering how important a parameter this blocksize limit actually is. I think part of the difference in our opinion is that you are also not taking the competition into account.

No, that's not what a controversial hard fork is. A consensus based upgrade (via a HF) of the block size limit is very possible. A controversial fork would be one trying to push only up to a certain percent of miners, which make up a 'majority' or even a minority, which is far different from upgrades based on consensus.

Of course it is possible but whether something is practically attainable within a reasonable time frame is a different question. I understand the difference between a consensus based hard fork and a controversial hard fork. My point is that is that this entire subject has become controversial and there are some very staunch defenders of the blocksize limit, even within the Core development team itself. It would only take one of these developers to veto the code in order to block the change. Since any code that does not come from core would be regarded as controversial? I could see this taking years if any change is even achieved at all, there is a good reason why large democracies vote by a simple majority and not consensus, consensus in the literal sense of the word is almost impossible to achieve among large groups of people.

I can see Bitcoin easily being overtaken during this period, this is one of the reasons I am also invested in the altcoins. Bitcoin truly seems stagnant in comparison to me, the alternatives are able to innovate much faster and already have much greater transactional capacity then Bitcoin.

My argument stands on its own, if Core simply increased the blocksize limit to two megabytes it would reunite much of the community and Bitcoin would not be currently suffering from a congested network, which is currently causing transaction delays, increased fees and unreliability.

We have been down this path before, it is unsafe to do so. Just because you may not know or understand why that is, that doesn't make it any less true. There may even be security issues at 1 MB that are not publicly disclosed for the obvious purposes. Whoever you ask about such, I doubt that they would disclose them outside of their 'inner' circles due to safety reasons.

I think it is ridiclous for you to say that 2MB is not safe. We have discussed the reosons for this extensivly already, for anyone intrested just look at our post histories.

I am presently mining 17MB blocks on the testnet using Bitcoin Unlimited.

I know you like to paint me as being an extremely unreasonable person, however what I am proposing here is very reasonable, most people outside of this field would recognize that the small blockist are taking an extreme and fundamentalist position. Most big blockist are applying pragmatic rationalism. Ideally I would just remove the blocksize limit completely or use an adaptive blocksize, as a compromise we proposed the mechanism within Classic, for an increase to two megabytes, we went from 20MB to 8MB and finally to 2MB, and I could argue using Bitcoin Unlimited we could even agree to a 1.1MB blocksize limit. There has been zero compromise from the small block camp, after 18 months. There is not even a blocksize limit increase on the Core road map.

As soon as the quadratic validation time problem has been solved, I see a semi-near future in which it is possible to increase the block size to a total of ~3-4 MB (includes the base expected amount that Segwit should provide, which is around 180%, i.e. 1.8 MB). However, the parameters are certainly going to be much different that you guys are expecting them to be. Doing a HF, which requires ALL custom implementations to be upgraded (this takes time for big businesses) just for a block size limit upgrade is also inefficient. The next HF should be optimally carry desired changes that require a HF in addition to a capacity increase with a grace period of 6-12 months.

So one year from the time that it is announced, and it has not even been announced yet and probably will not be any time soon. Great, lots of luck with that, I would advise you and everyone here to diversify their investments, this is the reason why Bitcoin has become stagnant.

Fortunately there are many alternatives to Bitcoin out there, I personally like Dash, and its solutions to governance, Ethereum and Monero are also both good cryptocurrencies, all of these cryptocurrencies do not have problems with scaling, Dash has a second tier, incentivized and collateralized voting full nodes that can handle a much greater load, because of the build in incentive. Ethereum already has far greater capacity then Bitcoin and it will have even more in following releases. Monero simply has an adaptive blocksize, with some very interesting incentive structures to keep the blocks from becoming to large.

I am pointing this out, because I think that you are underestimating the competition and overestimating the network effect of Bitcoin. Waiting several years for a simple capacity increase while the network is congested with all of its negative consequences is terrible for mass adoption, meanwhile the market share of Bitcoin is now 79.6%, there is a good reason for that and the trend will most likely continue as Bitcoin will continue to lose market cap to its competition.

[Carlton Banks]

What's wrong with selling all your Bitcoin (prove it IMO) for altcoins, Veritas? Why would you stick around on the ostensibly sinking Bitcoin ship, if you really believe what you're saying?

[VeritasSapere]

You're just asserting all that without providing examples, and lying about what you said about Segwit transaction types in the expectation that no-one can be bothered to traverse your overcomplicated posts to find it.

I actually got the information about backwards compatiblity from the github. It says it right there in the wiki:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0142.mediawiki

Your objective is so incredibly obvious: falsehood trolling. That is, carefully constructed lies that sound very similar to what happened, but subtly (and sometimes nakedly) distort what actually happened. Bear in mind that this doesn't resemble Socratic dialogue technique at all as you claimed earlier (which involves a process of asking leading questions, not making statements).

It started with leading questions, I obviously also do not consider what I say to be lies either. Which you seem to keep accusing me off.

[Lauda]

I can see Bitcoin easily being overtaken during this period, this is one of the reasons I am also invested in the altcoins. Bitcoin truly seems stagnant in comparison to me, the alternatives are able to innovate much faster and already have much greater transactional capacity then Bitcoin.

Stagnant based on what, having the highest market capitulation since late 2013/early 2014, having the higher number of transactions per day than it ever did, having the by far(!) the best development team in the ecosystem? Please tell me what's the "stagnation here". Hint: Not being able to process a number of TXs that you want != stagnation.

I think it is ridiclous for you to say that 2MB is not safe. We have discussed the reosons for this extensivly already, for anyone intrested just look at our post histories.

I'd use a nice word that I use for people that usually say this, but then you'd cry out to ad hominem. 2 MB is not safe, not matter how you put it, no matter what you say, it doesn't change that since it's a fact. Obviously you can use 2 MB safely if you create normal transactions. However, it's just a matter of time until someone starts constructing TXs that will DOS the whole network as validation will take too long.

I am presently mining 17MB blocks on the testnet using Bitcoin Unlimited.

I couldn't care if it were a million TB blocks, that doesn't change the fact that they're inherently unsafe and carry a huge security risk (disregarding the fact that such blocks would kill decentralization very quickly).

Fortunately there are many alternatives to Bitcoin out there, I personally like Dash, and its solutions to governance, Ethereum and Monero are also both good cryptocurrencies, all of these cryptocurrencies do not have problems with scaling, Dash has a second tier, incentivizing collateralized full nodes that also vote and can handle greater load. Ethereum already has far greater capacity then Bitcoin and it will have even more in following releases. Monero simply has an adaptive blocksize, with some very interesting incentive structures to keep the blocks from becoming to large.

Dash has a very shady history behind it, I know since I was an early adopter. ETH is neither a immutable, censorship resistant nor decentralized. Additionally, they've had very troubling security problems with the DAO and now with geth. Monero will likely end up being illegal if it picks up. Don't even get my started on the transaction volume on those chains. Anything else?

[VeritasSapere]

What's wrong with selling all your Bitcoin (prove it IMO) for altcoins, Veritas? Why would you stick around on the ostensibly sinking Bitcoin ship, if you really believe what you're saying?

One of the main reasons I am holding Bitcoin now is because I am interested in the cryptocurrencies that will be spawned from Bitcoin, the spin off chains or genesis chains. Or in the unlikely event that Core sees reason and increases the blocksize limit, but I suppose we can both now agree that this is unlikely to happen any time soon.

Diversifying our investments at such a time does seem wise to me. Maybe when enough people leave Bitcoin, the small blockists might then finally be able to reach consensus.

EDIT. I misread your message, I have rewritten it

[Carlton Banks]

So you're pretending to answer a point that I didn't even make. That's called a strawman argument, remember?

[VeritasSapere]

I can see Bitcoin easily being overtaken during this period, this is one of the reasons I am also invested in the altcoins. Bitcoin truly seems stagnant in comparison to me, the alternatives are able to innovate much faster and already have much greater transactional capacity then Bitcoin.

Stagnant based on what, having the highest market capitulation since late 2013/early 2014, having the higher number of transactions per day than it ever did, having the by far(!) the best development team in the ecosystem? Please tell me what's the "stagnation here". Hint: Not being able to process a number of TXs that you want != stagnation.

First of all, the transaction rate of Bitcoin has historicly been increasing, untill it hit the blocksize limit, I do not consider that to be a positive thing, literal stagnation because of a restriction in the code.

Secondly, Bitcoin is stagnating technologically, when compared to the alternative cryptocurrencies.

Thirdly as I proved earlier in this thread Bitcoin has been losing market share steadily over the last two years, while the altcoin market share is growing consistently.

Fortunately there are many alternatives to Bitcoin out there, I personally like Dash, and its solutions to governance, Ethereum and Monero are also both good cryptocurrencies, all of these cryptocurrencies do not have problems with scaling, Dash has a second tier, incentivizing collateralized full nodes that also vote and can handle greater load. Ethereum already has far greater capacity then Bitcoin and it will have even more in following releases. Monero simply has an adaptive blocksize, with some very interesting incentive structures to keep the blocks from becoming to large.

Dash has a very shady history behind it, I know since I was an early adopted. ETH is neither a immutable, censorship resistant nor decentralized change. Additionally, they've had very troubling security problems with the DAO and now with geth. Monero will likely end up being illegal if it picks up. Anything else?

I can give you many examples, and I support all three of the projects I just mentioned, I could go into defending each of them on their merits, but I am busy enough attempting to defend the original principles of Bitcoin here on this forum.

[Lauda]

Secondly, Bitcoin is stagnating technologically, when compared to the alternative cryptocurrencies.

No, that's definitely a false statement. Bitcoin has the most advanced and developed protocol. Most of the shitcoins haven't even patched up the security exploits up until the latest versions.

Thirdly as I proved earlier in this post Bitcoin has been losing market share steadily over the last two years, while the altcoin market cap is growing consistently.

That doesn't matter since the market cap of Bitcoin has been growing. It has been the highest it's even been since early 2014. Besides, we all know who's behind the altcoin pumping schemes. Hint: The last name starts with a "V".

I can give you many examples, and I support all three of the projects I just mentioned, I could go into defending each of them on their merits, but I am busy enough attempting to defend the original principles of Bitcoin here on this forum.

You can say why you like them, or why they may be good but you can't change any of the things that I've said because they're facts. There's no need to sugar-coat it.

[Carlton Banks]

EDIT. I misread your message, I have rewritten it

Why do you misread so many messages where your reply bears no relation to what you are responding to?

[BTC Loading]

i prefer to wait a bit longer

[illyiller]

Secondly, Bitcoin is stagnating technologically, when compared to the alternative cryptocurrencies.

Fortunately there are many alternatives to Bitcoin out there, I personally like Dash, and its solutions to governance, Ethereum and Monero are also both good cryptocurrencies, all of these cryptocurrencies do not have problems with scaling, Dash has a second tier, incentivized and collateralized voting full nodes that can handle a much greater load, because of the build in incentive. Ethereum already has far greater capacity then Bitcoin and it will have even more in following releases. Monero simply has an adaptive blocksize, with some very interesting incentive structures to keep the blocks from becoming to large.

Sigh...this guy again? Back pumping DASH: totally expected. Presenting Ethereum's mutable bloatchain as a goal: standard. VeritasSapere, give it up. Nobody who has read more than a handful of your posts will ever again subject themselves to your tortured logic, your rationalization upon rationalizations which are completely divorced from the subject at hand---always. Take your shitcoin pumping to the altcoin forum or r/btc, please.

How Bitcoin is developed should not depend on altcoins. Altcoins are testnets for Bitcoin. You've been saying this same shit ("Bitcoin stagnating, alts are the future") for over a year now. Why haven't you left yet?

[CarrollFilms]

What's wrong with selling all your Bitcoin (prove it IMO) for altcoins, Veritas? Why would you stick around on the ostensibly sinking Bitcoin ship, if you really believe what you're saying?

Why do you believe Bitcoin is sinking?

[franky1]

What's wrong with selling all your Bitcoin (prove it IMO) for altcoins, Veritas? Why would you stick around on the ostensibly sinking Bitcoin ship, if you really believe what you're saying?

Why do you believe Bitcoin is sinking?

dont worry about carlton he is cheek to cheek with greg maxwell who wants monero to be the next big thing.
carlton doesnt care about bitcoin(decentralized/not controlled).
in short he defends core not bitcoin, because he wants core to control bitcoin(centralized mindset), thus defending core is defending bitcoin in his eye

he wants core to twist bitcoin, to stagnate bitcoin with fee wars and nodes that dont validate(if its not core) or store transaction history(if its cores pruned mode) so that his favorite monero can grow.
i highly doubt carlton can have a logical debate about bitcoin without it sounding like defending core.

[CarrollFilms]

What's wrong with selling all your Bitcoin (prove it IMO) for altcoins, Veritas? Why would you stick around on the ostensibly sinking Bitcoin ship, if you really believe what you're saying?

Why do you believe Bitcoin is sinking?

dont worry about carlton he is cheek to cheek with greg maxwell who wants monero to be the next big thing.
carlton doesnt care about bitcoin(decentralized/not controlled).
in short he defends core not bitcoin, because he wants core to control bitcoin(centralized mindset), thus defending core is defending bitcoin in his eye

he wants core to twist bitcoin, to stagnate bitcoin with fee wars and nodes that dont validate(if its not core) or store transaction history(if its cores pruned mode) so that his favorite monero can grow.
i highly doubt carlton can have a logical debate about bitcoin without it sounding like defending core.

Anyone that believes an alt will surpass Bitcoin any time soon is extremely delusional

[VeritasSapere]

Secondly, Bitcoin is stagnating technologically, when compared to the alternative cryptocurrencies.

No, that's definitely a false statement. Bitcoin has the most advanced and developed protocol. Most of the shitcoins haven't even patched up the security exploits up until the latest versions.

I find this statement rather amusing, I hope you do realize that a clone of Bitcoin is considered not be innovative at all within the altcoin world, that should tell you something, any altcoin that is worth anything improves on Bitcoin in some way.

I suppose you can keep telling your self that 10min block times and a one megabyte blocksize limit with a transparent blockchain are the perfect parameters, this is Bitcoin maximilism I suppose, it would be healthier to at least acknowledge the innovation that is occurring in the altcoin space.

Thirdly as I proved earlier in this post Bitcoin has been losing market share steadily over the last two years, while the altcoin market cap is growing consistently.

That doesn't matter since the market cap of Bitcoin has been growing. It has been the highest it's even been since early 2014. Besides, we all know who's behind the altcoin pumping schemes. Hint: The last name starts with a "V".

You can joke all you want, but Bitcoin is still losing market share to the alternative cryptocurrencies and that is a fact.

I can give you many examples, and I support all three of the projects I just mentioned, I could go into defending each of them on their merits, but I am busy enough attempting to defend the original principles of Bitcoin here on this forum.

You can say why you like them, or why they may be good but you can't change any of the things that I've said because they're facts. There's no need to sugar-coat it.

Most of your critisisms of these cryptocurrencies are not facts but opinions, I will prove that you now:

Dash has a very shady history behind it

I am familiar with the history of Dash, I do not consider it to fundementally undermine the currency of Dash today. I can agree that the history is "shady" but whether that effects the viability of the currency today is again an opinion.

ETH is neither a immutable, censorship resistant nor decentralized.

This statement is just not true, at least not in the way that I suspect you mean it. I supported the ETH hard fork, and I am actually more bullish now then I was before on ETH. First of all in terms of its "immutability" and censorship resistance it is no different to Bitcoin in terms of normal blockchain transactions, it is equally immutable and censorship resistant, it is equally difficult to roll back transactions on Bitcoin compared to Ethereum, a state change to the contract layer is different to actually rolling back transactions on the blockchain, I have noticed many Bitcoiners equate these two things as if they where the same thing, it is not, this is mostly likely because they are thinking of this event in Bitcoin terms when there are some very important differences in the design. It was only possible to return peoples funds because it existed within a smart contract, something that would not even be possible within Bitcoin.

Arguably Ethereum is presently more decentralized then Bitcoin because it uses an ASIC resistant mining algorithm.

Maybe it is best not to get into a full discussion of the pros and cons of these events and of the design of Ethereum and Bitcoin, but as proof of work blockchains their governance, and transaction immutability are actually identical on a technical level at least. So my point is that your opinion on these altcoins are an opinion and not a fact.

Monero will likely end up being illegal if it picks up.

Monero will become illegal if it picks up, and you know this as a fact? Again I would argue that this is just an opinion, this is classic Bitcoin maximalism, completely disregarding and not taking the competition into account at all, even being dismissive of their achievements and innovations.

Don't even get my started on the transaction volume on those chains. Anything else?

The transaction volume on these chains is obviously much lower, but the transactional capacity of these chains is much much higher. It seems like a strange argument to use against these altcoins when Bitcoins transaction volume is presently restricted, which means one of these altcoins could easily overtake the transaction volume of Bitcoin one day, as long as Bitcoins transaction volume remains restricted.

[Carlton Banks]

What's wrong with selling all your Bitcoin (prove it IMO) for altcoins, Veritas? Why would you stick around on the ostensibly sinking Bitcoin ship, if you really believe what you're saying?

Why do you believe Bitcoin is sinking?

You've got the same problem as Veritas and Franky: I didn't say that. To understand why, you need to know what "ostensibly" means, which is: according to your/the story