Bitcoin is being invaded by Leftists

[RealBitcoin]

To illustrate further:

Presumably, as someone who identifies with the right label, you're a big fan of:

• Monarchies Centralised development (literally the opposite of freedom and self determinism)
• Banning recreational drugs Outcries over modified code (wanna mess with the freedom of others, huh)
• Police state thuggery against vulnerable people Tirades against developers of alternative clients (but they're all criminals dictators just waiting to happen though, right?)
• Heavily patrolled national borders and restrictive policies for foreigners to cross Protectionism for "sovereign code" to deter competing protocols (tekkin' yer jobs code? What about the free-market?)

 

I can't think of one for "Traditional family values", anyone care to lend a hand?   

Something about fork proposals being a sin, perhaps.   

1) Centralized development of private property duh, the Core code is the property of their developers (and despite this you can use it for free under MIT license I believe). However they have the github keys, and the commit access. Sorry but they deserve that right. Make your own wallet if you dislike it.

2) No, it's the modified code that messes with the freedom of others. GAMBLING FILTER in Knots, and TRAFFIC SHAPING & Targeted Bloom Filters in Unlimited, is kinda fishy...

3) They want to take away the freedom from gamblers, and from the nodes (if 2mb is enforced, tons of nodes will leave)

4) Well yes, its their private property, duh...

[Carlton Banks]

●Banning recreational drugs (wanna mess with the freedom of others, huh)

Nope, not ban, but discourage. Drugs encourage degenerate behaviour, so it should not be promoted, but I would be in favor of legalizing it to stop this drug war mess.

Discourage? With what? Fines? Jail?

Recreational drugs can encourage positive behaviour as well as negative behaviour, responsible use leads simply to people having fun. Sometimes they can have significant cultural influence, like the effect MDMA had on shaping the electronic music scene in the 80's and 90's. It's sometimes suggested that psychoactives like mushrooms, cactii or cannabis may have played a role in the long term evolution of the hominid brain, although I'm don't totally subscribe to that theory.

And it seems that you're a little too interested in the lives of people that are otherwise simply choosing to do something that only really affects them. I accept that habitual use of extreme drugs like smoked meth or crack cocaine is unlikely to end well, but freedom includes the freedom to make mistakes.

●Police state thuggery against vulnerable people (but they're all criminals just waiting to happen though, right?)

Nope, if you have read my posts, you would know that i am anti-tyranny.

Yes, but I'm still interested to hear how it is you would like drugs to be discouraged without tyranny though!

●Traditional family values (it says in the Bible "let no man put asunder", therefore your divorce is a sin!)

Yep, divorce makes children unstable and traumatized. Of course I am anti -divorce.

In principle, me too. Should authorities be involved in either marriage or divorce though, that's what I'm really getting at. It's one thing to have an opinion, yours and mine are the same or similar. It's another thing to say what you think should happen about it.

How about this: why not let people get married and divorced without anyone to officiate? Who's business is it when two people wish to make a new family together, other than that of the spouses? Blockchain could do that job IMO

●Heavily patrolled national borders and restrictive policies for foreigners to cross (tekkin' yer jobs? What about the free-market?)

This depends. If we are talking about private property, then you obviously need to protect it. If a nation is a collective property of the citizens, then it needs to be defended.

I am not saying to build a huge wall ,or put sentry guns every 100 meters, but definitely a border security is needed.

Uh-oh, collectivist authoritarian detection! Nations are artificial to a large extent, and you can't be saying government is by nature oppressive and corrupt, and simultaneously grant  the same institution the power to police borders as a monopoly on force.

Let's put it another way: do you know which year national borders, and the passports needed to cross them, were introduced? Clue: not as long ago as you might think.

So as you can see, right-wing libertarianism is very possible, in fact it's the best system.

As opposed to left wing, entirely, it devours itself.

I fear you may never get it.

I'm trying to demonstrate to you that Libertariansim involves aspects of politics that the left and the right detests. What you're demonstrating is that you're not as Libertarian, or as rightist, as you would have us believe.

[RealBitcoin]

Discourage? With what? Fines? Jail?

Recreational drugs can encourage positive behaviour as well as negative behaviour, responsible use leads simply to people having fun. Sometimes they can have significant cultural influence, like the effect MDMA had on shaping the electronic music scene in the 80's and 90's. It's sometimes suggested that psychoactives like mushrooms, cactii or cannabis may have played a role in the long term evolution of the hominid brain, although I'm not totally subscribe to that theory.

And it seems that you're a little too interested in the lives of people that are otherwise simply choosing to do something that only really affects them. I accept that habitual use of extreme drugs like smoked meth or crack cocaine is unlikely to end well, but freedom includes the freedom to make mistakes.

No, there could be other solutions, like not promoting it in every fucking media outlet. Literally from degenerate hiphop music to hippy crap its all about drugs, and that gets annoying after a while.

Yea if people were responsible ,but they are not. Like how well it worked out with alcohol, 80% of teenagers are constantly drunk, and by the time they get old they get all sorts of liver and intestine problems.

Don't tell me drugs dont have side effects, after all they are far worse than you pimp them. I think it makes people zombies, all these drug addicts look like some mentally disabled zombies.

Yes, but I'm still interested to hear how it is you would like drugs to be discouraged without tyranny though!

By finding the root cause why people are addicts in the first place ,and eliminate that. Drug addicts, alcohol addicts, food addicts, video game addicts, sex addicts, etc etc...

They need therapy not prison. But above all we need to find out the causes why they are addicts ,and eliminate the causes.

Few of the reasons could be poverty, lack of discipline, bad education, abusive parents, etc...

In principle, me too. Should authorities be involved in either marriage or divorce though, that's what I'm really getting at. It's one thing to have an opinion, yours and mine are the same or similar. It's another thing to say what you think should happen about it.

How about this: why not let people get married and divorced without anyone to officiate? Who's business is it when two people wish to make a new family together, other than that of the spouses? Blockchain could do that job IMO

No but what is the point of marriage if it's not life long?

People should be careful who they choose. Marriage should not be a contract that you can just dissolve. It when you have a kid, you dont throw him away just because you dont like him. You stick with it until you die.

So people have to be very careful who they choose as partners.

I am tired of all this cheatings, divorces, cuckold couples, and other bullshit. The kids will suffer from this and become just as stupid as their parents.

Uh-oh, collectivist authoritarian detection! Nations are artificial to a large extent, and you can't be saying government is by nature oppressive and corrupt, and simultaneously grant  the same institution the power to police borders as a monopoly on force.

Let's put it another way: do you know what year national borders, and the passports needed to cross them, were introduced? Clue: not as long ago as you might think.

So is your property, but that doesnt mean you wont defend it. Who cares if it's artificial, its your culture and your neighborhood or your way of life.

Who said anything here about a government? Why cant the border security be a competitive thing? Just as bodyguards or private security could be an alternative to police, we could see similar things for border security.

Yeah because people realized that immigration can bring down empires, it brough down the Roman Empire and just look at Europe now, do you like it?

I fear you may never get it.

I'm trying to demonstrate to you that Libertariansim involves aspects of politics that the left and the right detests. What you're demonstrating is that you're not as Libertarian, or as rightist, as you would have us believe.[/list][/list]

I perfectly know what I am talking about, I have researched every social aspect of this ,and i found the conclusion that this is the best system for prosperity and minimal government.

But sure why not try the left? After all it just murdered 200 million people, what could go wrong?

[chennan]

The left/right isn't a political spectrum, it's a divide and conquer tactic, whereby liberalism gets split into economic liberalism and social liberalism, and then one side is fed arguments about why the other is the source of all problems.

The best approach is to never use the left/right concept, as you're always going to look like a reflexive partisan, one step away from using the non-argument "you're just one of them!"

This is why libertarianism and the various other anarchy inspired political ideologies are popular among Bitcoiners; they appear to be left-right blind, taking ideas from the left or the right as long as they promote liberty.

As I see it, it is pretty safe to say that the reason why libertarianism is popular among cryptocurrency users is because you are free to do what you want in life (socially leftish), while understanding how economics should work in a capitalistic society with limited government regulations (economically right).

Do I think capitalism is necessary at this stage of technological advancement we have in society already? Honestly, no... I don't think there is any "-ism" that satisfies what a nation (or everyone on planet earth) should follow; because all of those "-ism's" were created in an era where the industrial revolution was just kicking off.  This was during a time where there was still a high demand of people needed for farming and that sort of thing... obviously something we don't think about any more while food is in abundance (in wealthier countries).

We are WAY beyond what the current political ideologies tell us how to function as a society... As a human species, we need to go back to the drawing board and figure out the best way to live peacefully and work towards advancing human well being even further.

[Barbut]

Why always someone need to relate almost everything on this planet with politic? I`m against all politic, for me all politicians are bad people. They don`t know how to do anything, they are just good at one thing and it`s talking.
Bitcoin is payment system and I think that democracy is the worst thing that can happen with bitcoin, but not just that, everything else involved with politics can be bad thing for bitcoin. Bitcoin is currency, and bitcoin needs to have one role and that is to make things easier for people. We all know what is fiat, and where it comes from, bitcoin system is much better from my perspective.

[DooMAD]

This is what's so ridiculous about both his and your position; there's nothing wrong with increasing the blocksize in principle, but

only at the right moment in time to suit what the software, the Bitcoin network and the underlying internet infrastructure can support.

2015 was not the right time, and neither was it this year. So that means that software imporvements to increase the capcity of the network are needed, not crude increases in resource usage that threaten the network.

I know you refuse to see that this is the sensible option, but the 25+ Core devs don't see it that way. About 3-4 devs see it your way, and the reasoning hasn't convinced anyone to take a risk on their (literally) backwards schedule to implement scaling up transaction capacity. Like you say, you're welcome to argue or code as you please, but this business of using nothing but bad arguments makes you look like bad losers, at best.

This is probably the most reasonable argument you've presented so far, so I don't know why you couldn't open with that, heh.

It should be noted that SegWit wasn't even on the table when concerns over the maximum throughput first arose, but now that it is, I am quite happy for us to experiment with that.  Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't implement Segwit and other optimisations.  I'm happy to have Lightning available as an option for those who wish to use it.  But I am absolutely adamant that the average user shouldn't be forced into using Lightning, or worse still, forced off-chain into some hideous realm of digital IOUs, because the main chain becomes an exclusive, elitist club for the new one-percenter-wanabees.  

I don't see that as a "bad argument".  I honestly and passionately believe that would be genuinely damaging to Bitcoin if it were to happen.  As such, I will continue to campaign vociferously against that potential outcome.  Contrary to popular belief, I don't want to see the Bitcoin network fall over because no one is able to run a node.  But at the same time, I believe it's quite reasonable to assume that two-thirds of a floppy disk won't be enough to cover an entire globe's worth of transactions in the space of ~10 minutes for many years to come.  There are no guarantees that SegWit, Lightning and other such proposals will solve the scaling issues.  I hope they do.  But I still want the option of a blocksize increase if they don't.  If I have to rely on an alternative client for that option to be available, so be it.    

So, with this in mind, I'm quite horrified by the increasing barrage of authoritarian attitudes towards development and the way in which people perceive network "governance".  I actually agree that changes should be made (at the risk of misquoting you) "at the right moment in time to suit what the software, the Bitcoin network and the underlying internet infrastructure can support", but I would simply add afterwards: I trust the market to decide when that time is and what code should regulate it.  If I didn't, I wouldn't have any money in it.

In fairness to you, I'll happily concede there are people making arguments that "blockstream are the devil, so we should fork yesterday" or "100mb blocksize, plz" or some other such silliness.  I'm not actually one of those people, though.  You might recall my amended BIP106 proposal, which I thought was pretty damn moderate, personally.  And your post in August last year about BIP106, where you were initially drawn to the idea, leaves me wondering how we keep butting heads over this matter and how I keep being personified as some sort of militant loon.

//EDIT:  Okay, before you say it, granted, I'm prone to making somewhat troll-ish bait posts, but only when I think you're being unreasonable.  

[rizzlarolla]

This is what's so ridiculous about both his and your position; there's nothing wrong with increasing the blocksize in principle, but

only at the right moment in time to suit what the software, the Bitcoin network and the underlying internet infrastructure can support.

2015 was not the right time, and neither was it this year. So that means that software imporvements to increase the capcity of the network are needed, not crude increases in resource usage that threaten the network.

I know you refuse to see that this is the sensible option, but the 25+ Core devs don't see it that way. About 3-4 devs see it your way, and the reasoning hasn't convinced anyone to take a risk on their (literally) backwards schedule to implement scaling up transaction capacity. Like you say, you're welcome to argue or code as you please, but this business of using nothing but bad arguments makes you look like bad losers, at best.

This is probably the most reasonable argument you've presented so far, so I don't know why you couldn't open with that, heh.

It should be noted that SegWit wasn't even on the table when concerns over the maximum throughput first arose, but now that it is, I am quite happy for us to experiment with that.  Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't implement Segwit and other optimisations.  I'm happy to have Lightning available as an option for those who wish to use it.  But I am absolutely adamant that the average user shouldn't be forced into using Lightning, or worse still, forced off-chain into some hideous realm of digital IOUs, because the main chain becomes an exclusive, elitist club for the new one-percenter-wanabees.  

I don't see that as a "bad argument".  I honestly and passionately believe that would be genuinely damaging to Bitcoin if it were to happen.  As such, I will continue to campaign vociferously against that potential outcome.  Contrary to popular belief, I don't want to see the Bitcoin network fall over because no one is able to run a node.  But at the same time, I believe it's quite reasonable to assume that two-thirds of a floppy disk won't be enough to cover an entire globe's worth of transactions in the space of ~10 minutes for many years to come.  There are no guarantees that SegWit, Lightning and other such proposals will solve the scaling issues.  I hope they do.  But I still want the option of a blocksize increase if they don't.  If I have to rely on an alternative client for that option to be available, so be it.    

So, with this in mind, I'm quite horrified by the increasing barrage of authoritarian attitudes towards development and the way in which people perceive network "governance".  I actually agree that changes should be made (at the risk of misquoting you) "at the right moment in time to suit what the software, the Bitcoin network and the underlying internet infrastructure can support", but I would simply add afterwards: I trust the market to decide when that time is and what code should regulate it.  If I didn't, I wouldn't have any money in it.

In fairness to you, I'll happily concede there are people making arguments that "blockstream are the devil, so we should fork yesterday" or "100mb blocksize, plz" or some other such silliness.  I'm not actually one of those people, though.  You might recall my amended BIP106 proposal, which I thought was pretty damn moderate, personally.  And your post in August last year about BIP106, where you were initially drawn to the idea, leaves me wondering how we keep butting heads over this matter and how I keep being personified as some sort of militant loon.

You make a lot of sense.
Don't be to forgiving and fair with him, you will get none back.

[RealBitcoin]

Why always someone need to relate almost everything on this planet with politic? I`m against all politic, for me all politicians are bad people. They don`t know how to do anything, they are just good at one thing and it`s talking.
Bitcoin is payment system and I think that democracy is the worst thing that can happen with bitcoin, but not just that, everything else involved with politics can be bad thing for bitcoin. Bitcoin is currency, and bitcoin needs to have one role and that is to make things easier for people. We all know what is fiat, and where it comes from, bitcoin system is much better from my perspective.

Because this is how humans organize.

I am laughing when people say, why do politics count and things like that ,like everything is just mixed together, and all will be good.

You have to realize that we need clear definitions, and boundaries. Yes bureocracy sucks, that is why it should be done in an automatic matter.


And woila, blockchain is born, you can kick out all your financial regulators and bankers, because now we can do money automatically. But we still need a clear and precise set of rules: the bitcoin source code.

You will always need laws/rules, the only question is how you enforce them? With guns? Or with computers?

[Carlton Banks]

The left/right isn't a political spectrum, it's a divide and conquer tactic, whereby liberalism gets split into economic liberalism and social liberalism, and then one side is fed arguments about why the other is the source of all problems.

The best approach is to never use the left/right concept, as you're always going to look like a reflexive partisan, one step away from using the non-argument "you're just one of them!"

This is why libertarianism and the various other anarchy inspired political ideologies are popular among Bitcoiners; they appear to be left-right blind, taking ideas from the left or the right as long as they promote liberty.

As I see it, it is pretty safe to say that the reason why libertarianism is popular among cryptocurrency users is because you are free to do what you want in life (socially leftish), while understanding how economics should work in a capitalistic society with limited government regulations (economically right).

Yes, I can agree with that. I'd point out too that what you said makes equal sense if you replace the words "leftish" and "rightish" with "permissive" or "liberal" (and I would tend to argue it would make more sense, but I'm slightly obsessed with the notion that the right-left paradigm is a meta-political control device to shepherd the serfs into the soft-authoritarianism of Western democracies)

Do I think capitalism is necessary at this stage of technological advancement we have in society already? Honestly, no... I don't think there is any "-ism" that satisfies what a nation (or everyone on planet earth) should follow; because all of those "-ism's" were created in an era where the industrial revolution was just kicking off.  This was during a time where there was still a high demand of people needed for farming and that sort of thing... obviously something we don't think about any more while food is in abundance (in wealthier countries).

We are WAY beyond what the current political ideologies tell us how to function as a society... As a human species, we need to go back to the drawing board and figure out the best way to live peacefully and work towards advancing human well being even further.

Concurring here also, it's notable that these ideological concepts accompanied another era that resembles the type of major societal flux we're in today. And the evidence that those ideologies have failed is, of course, manifest. It's possible that some of these concepts will stand the test of this new era, but it's not easy to predict that without feeling very confident about what the planet will be like by the time this latest frontier of flux is behind us.

Could commerce become obsolete because of (effectively) infinite resources? Could politics be eliminated as a result of that over-abundance? Could death be outpaced forever with healthcare tech? Could technology come to life and dispense with us before that? Could (and should) we merge with engineered intelligence and/or mechanics to avoid that outcome? What will happen when technology can do so much of it's own re-design, that humans don't understand the technology the machines produce?

I suspect one certainty: genuine anarchy will become a reality at some point during all of this tumult.

[Backside walkaround]

Well that's what happens when you let the whole effing world in on the secret...what did you expect, comrade?

But seriously, does it really matter all that much who uses bitcoin?  It's kinda like being concerned that terrorists are buying stocks in the bull market.  Who gives a crap?  Everyone is welcome to do as they please!

[RealBitcoin]

But seriously, does it really matter all that much who uses bitcoin? 

I dont care as much about who uses bitcoin, if it were not for political power.

Whenever a group of people overtakes another group, they will push their own view from then on.

So if bitcoin is overtaken by socialists, expect wealth redistribution hardforks.

[rizzlarolla]

But seriously, does it really matter all that much who uses bitcoin? 

I dont care as much about who uses bitcoin, if it were not for political power.

Whenever a group of people overtakes another group, they will push their own view from then on.

So if bitcoin is overtaken by socialists, expect wealth redistribution hardforks.

You and Core and segwit are safe and nice and right.
Others and bigger blocks are dangerous and bad and wrong.

RealBitcoin, not.

[Carlton Banks]

This is what's so ridiculous about both his and your position; there's nothing wrong with increasing the blocksize in principle, but

only at the right moment in time to suit what the software, the Bitcoin network and the underlying internet infrastructure can support.

2015 was not the right time, and neither was it this year. So that means that software imporvements to increase the capcity of the network are needed, not crude increases in resource usage that threaten the network.

I know you refuse to see that this is the sensible option, but the 25+ Core devs don't see it that way. About 3-4 devs see it your way, and the reasoning hasn't convinced anyone to take a risk on their (literally) backwards schedule to implement scaling up transaction capacity. Like you say, you're welcome to argue or code as you please, but this business of using nothing but bad arguments makes you look like bad losers, at best.

This is probably the most reasonable argument you've presented so far, so I don't know why you couldn't open with that, heh.

Well, I'm glad that you're happy to demonstrate good faith in being constuctive in debate. It seems that not all the fork-happy contigent share your stance.

It should be noted that SegWit wasn't even on the table when concerns over the maximum throughput first arose, but now that it is, I am quite happy for us to experiment with that.  Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't implement Segwit and other optimisations.  I'm happy to have Lightning available as an option for those who wish to use it.  But I am absolutely adamant that the average user shouldn't be forced into using Lightning, or worse still, forced off-chain into some hideous realm of digital IOUs, because the main chain becomes an exclusive, elitist club for the new one-percenter-wanabees.

I agree entirely with everything you say there. The "all-or-nothing" absolutist position of saying all transactions should suddenly only be handled by payment channel hubs is something that Franky has managed to drum into everyone's head. The trouble is, I've never actually seen a single example of anyone saying it, not even Poon and Dryffas who conceived the LN concept.

On chain transactions are always going to be more suitable for high-ish ticket one-off purchases, it's difficult to imagine the channel routing that could aggregate a payment like that into something more efficient; those with average or below average wealth make that kind of purchase more than often enough that they will need that facility. And the same is true of LN transactions, tiny repetitive payments make the most use of the Lightning structure, less so the less frequent they are. I'm more than happy to consider whatever other new innovations can be conceived, on their merits. And there's nothing wrong with increasing the blocksize, as we seem to agree, at the right time. Maybe we might still disagree as to when that is, this story is by no means over, but we're at least agreeing on the basics.

I don't see that as a "bad argument".  I honestly and passionately believe that would be genuinely damaging to Bitcoin if it were to happen.  

I feel the same as you did: why didn't you just say it like this before?!

As such, I will continue to campaign vociferously against that potential outcome.  Contrary to popular belief, I don't want to see the Bitcoin network fall over because no one is able to run a node.  But at the same time, I believe it's quite reasonable to assume that two-thirds of a floppy disk won't be enough to cover an entire globe's worth of transactions in the space of ~10 minutes for many years to come.  There are no guarantees that SegWit, Lightning and other such proposals will solve the scaling issues.  I hope they do.  But I still want the option of a blocksize increase if they don't.  If I have to rely on an alternative client for that option to be available, so be it.

Ditto. That's my exact position right there.    

So, with this in mind, I'm quite horrified by the increasing barrage of authoritarian attitudes towards development and the way in which people perceive network "governance".  I actually agree that changes should be made (at the risk of misquoting you) "at the right moment in time to suit what the software, the Bitcoin network and the underlying internet infrastructure can support", but I would simply add afterwards: I trust the market to decide when that time is and what code should regulate it.  If I didn't, I wouldn't have any money in it.

In fairness to you, I'll happily concede there are people making arguments that "blockstream are the devil, so we should fork yesterday" or "100mb blocksize, plz" or some other such silliness.  I'm not actually one of those people, though.  You might recall my amended BIP106 proposal, which I thought was pretty damn moderate, personally.  And your post in August last year about BIP106, where you were initially drawn to the idea, leaves me wondering how we keep butting heads over this matter and how I keep being personified as some sort of militant loon.

//EDIT:  Okay, before you say it, granted, I'm prone to making somewhat troll-ish bait posts, but only when I think you're being unreasonable.  

The problem is how badly the debate has been polarised, but you've really got to look at the way the "2MB yesterday" crowd have been behaving to see how that situation has arisen. The whole cast; Peter Rizun, Franky, VeritasSapre etc just refused to behave like adult debaters. They indulged in nothing but troll debating, every trick there is, they used it. It's not easy to be restrained with people that are only interested in being disruptive, and it's therefore all too easy to mistake someone trying to genuinely argue something ill-conceived for someone trying to make bad arguments disingenuously.

So, we're proving here we can have a productive discussion about this, that we agree on more than we disagree, and that we've been talking past each other a fair amount. What was the point again, lol

[franky1]

I agree entirely with everything you say there. The "all-or-nothing" absolutist position of saying all transactions should suddenly only be handled by payment channel hubs is something that Franky has managed to drum into everyone's head. The trouble is, I've never actually seen a single example of anyone saying it, not even Poon and Dryffas who conceived the LN concept.

lol firstly lets correct who started the drumming and provoking
this next quote is just on example of carltons drumming that started the beat off

I cannot see why we cannot do both? You could have the Core protocol serving as the settlement layer and a side chain doing the Payment network.
We already have off-chain service providers doing a good job at handling the payment side.

This.

perhaps you can tell me in what manner you think LN contributes to decentralization. The way I see it, it will inevitably end up a hub/spoke system - meaning more centralization. Also with node and path discovery being mediated by (other?) centralized actors.

I agree, although I think it's not the correct to say that the overall network topology will be be more centralised, just that one task the network performs will be divided into 2 layers (the miners on one layer finalising tx's, lightning hubs one layer below setting all the transactions up). And it's pretty much true that miners and exchanges could easily become the dominant players in lightning hubs, but it can't stay that way forever, because neither exchanges or miners will be around in large numbers 20 years from now.

tl;dr all Lightning does is split the transaction market up, not much point complaining that the same big Bitcoin companies will get all the business, because they do already now.

theres loads of examples of carlton and his ilk talking about the blockchain "layer" as the settlement and then offchain/sidechain "layer" as the payment

anyway lets put a line through that
onto the more important part i noticed
carltons comments today have left me positively shocked and amazed.

firstly that carltons own words defeated him.. but secondly.. and more importantly
carlton suddenly today has had an epiphany and suddenly wised up to what others have been saying to him since last year
(though i feel its just another flip-flop bait and switch, wolf in sheeps clothing, short term thing)

finally carlton, after about a year of saying the opposite, he has finally actually opening his mind and accepting onchain capacity needs to grow to allow freedom to use for onchain transactions and not just using the space for settlements.
i say this with genuine admiration, thank you carlton for waking up.

i hope this new epiphany also includes no longer having rage debates where onchain TX fee wars are good and should raise the price of a tx.
i hope this new epiphany also includes no longer having rage debates where the blockchain should just be a 'reserve currency'/settlement for offchain/sidechains to be the payments.
(as displayed above about )

its good to see you are finally this very day showing you may actually drop your 'dictatorship desires off offchain being the future direction of capacity,' to instead think of bitcoin as an open network for anyone to use requiring actual onchain growth.

i applaud you for seeing the light.may you continue learning and actually seeing what many others have seen last year. and realise that your old mindset should be left in the past.

but please while your at this realization. do not try pretending you have not been the drum beater with all your involvement in "2mb is an altcoin", "bigblockers are invading", "R3KT campaigning", "2mb F-off", all evident you previously did not want more tx onchain capacity and instead wanted that limited onchain space used for LN settlements, aswell as demonstrated by fighting the bad fight to try getting segwit popularized to head in that direction.

but as i say i am glad you are now accepting that onchain capacity should grow to allow freedom of choice.
lets just hope you stay on this new 'eyes opened' mindset and you dont retreat back to your bad habits of the last 10-14 months

please dont go back to the dark side. otherwise today has been a waste of time for you if you are just baiting and switching.

[Carlton Banks]

theres loads of examples of carlton and his ilk talking about the blockchain "layer" as the settlement and then offchain/sidechain "layer" as the payment

And this differs from what me and DooMAD said, how, exactly?



You're a funny man Franky, you're all too aware of the poor faith tactics you're using to make non-arguments with, and you cheefully label me as the ad hominem user, the strawman artist or the bait and switch king. The irony of that is not going to be lost on anyone with reading comprehension.

You know what it's called wen you accuse others of your own bad behaviours, pretending you never engaged like that in the first place? Trolling. Seriously, you're never going to make any friends here or get anyone real to listen to you if you're so blatant.

At least others here are capable of being reasonable.

realbitcoin.. seriously

if a right wing liberals is a left wing authoritarian
if a left wing liberals is a right wing authoritarian

then you are not making a point
can you stop using wings out of context..
im actually going to say before carlton meandered off topic he had an earlier rational point

Thank you Franky, that's unusually kind of you. Seems like you might have rushed those first two, er, let's call them lines.

Are you being conciliatory because you mean it, or because you want me and RealBitcoin to have an argument? Agreeing with that particular point is a little strange for you, it makes you sound thoughtful, and like you might be more than capable of being a reasonable person. I'd so like not to be disappointed here, are you telling me that you really agree? Surely this reasonable streak is just you toying with us all again?

Tell us more

(oh, and stop meandering off topic, lol)

[franky1]

my comments about your apparent flip from:
the authoritarian monarchistic dictatorship of wanting blockstreams dream of offchain as the payment layer, onchain as the settlement layer
to
the liberal freedom that people should have freedom of choice by expanding onchain capacity, to allow choices to expand unhindered
is on topic.

and if your sudden realization and epiphany is genuine, then i sincerely applaud it.
though i still have a feeling its just a temporary ruse. and only time and your future comments about your ideals can uphold your new mindset, or reveal it to have been temporary.

i have the feeling its a subtle plan to make a later point, that your change of mind cannot be defined in the left or right category, which even "realbitcoin" cannot define as 2 separate states.

but i truly do hope you are genuinely dropping your authoritarian monarchistic dictatorship. and if so. i truly and sincerely applaud your realization

[Carlton Banks]

Franky, there has to be a monarchy in Bitcoin development, there cannot be more than one set of rules running simultaneously. Saying that off-chain and on-chain are in competition with one another as scaling solutions defies your own laboured rhetoric that on-chain works for some transaction types and off-chain for others (commit-aggregated or pre-chain is a better label for what actually happens in Lightning, anyway).

No-one except you is presenting the false dichotomy that a scaling solution should be either the one or the other.

Arguing for changing the leadership is legitimate. Spreading lies about the present leadership is not a legitimate way to achieve that, if the truth isn't good enough, then you lost.

[franky1]

Franky, there has to be a monarchy in Bitcoin development, there cannot be more than one set of rules running simultaneously. Saying that off-chain and on-chain are in competition with one another as scaling solutions defies your own laboured rhetoric that on-chain works for some transaction types and off-chain for others (commit-aggregated or pre-chain is a better label for what actually happens in Lightning, anyway).

No-one except you is presenting the false dichotomy that a scaling solution should be either the one or the other.

Arguing for changing the leadership is legitimate. Spreading lies about the present leadership is not a legitimate way to achieve that, if the truth isn't good enough, then you lost.

leadership?
seriously you running back down the (centralized, authoritarian, monarchistic, dictatorship) rabbit hole soo soon.

here, this may recover your epiphany.
dictatorship:
1 guy/corp makes the rules and the sheep have to blindly follow or move away never to use bitcoin.

consensus:
there are many rules (proposals) but unless there is general agreement by the indepenadant-open network. the rules dont activate
this requires the several implementations and thousands of nodes and dozens of pools to come to compromises until there is general agreement across the network, for the network to then grow

EG 2mb base 4mb weight
is a compromise where everyone wins

separately,

i would have said you were just authoritarian(until u mentioned leadership).
EG whoever agrees to the rules equally has authority to use whats within the rules. making consensus(the protocol) the authority, owned by no-one but used by anyone where independent compromise, results in eventual general agreement(consensus) to make changes.

but you presume ownership. not just authorisation(example: your github argument)
EG saying that core should be the only decision makers and own bitcoin outright and everyone should blindly just follow core. this is not a libertarian ideal. its a dictatorship ideal

in short when something is suppose to be international, without borders and has an ethos of decentralization. claiming outright ownership by just one corporation is the opposite of that ethos.

please dont run back down the dictatorship rabbit hole

[Carlton Banks]

the usual repeating-repeating-repeating from Franky

You know that's a hallmark of propagandists, don't you Franky? Just tell the lie ("I Franky, present to you the only viable compromise") over and over and over again....



You're the most uncompromising person on the board, and you apply that to your only reason to post: disparaging Core. You don't post for any other reason than that, it's plain for all to see.

You know that you're the best advertisement for Bitcoin Core that exists, right?

[LWYRUP]

@RealBitcoin: First of all, you should understand that leftists aren't all communists or fans Lenin. You should really start re-thinking your biases you have in your mind. There is nothing wrong about being left at all.