Bitcoin is being invaded by Leftists

[RealBitcoin]

I already did like 100x in other threads, I am tired of repeating myself and you seem like you enjoy asking the same questions over and over again that were already refuted many times.

your rhetoric as well as carltons for months now is of controversial and intentional splits and doomsdays. i asked you to stay with reality of consensus

How is it controversial when 87.57% of the community agrees with me:




source: https://coin.dance/nodes


It is you who is pushing for division with this Blockstream conspiracy scare tactics, while only 12.43% of the people agree with you. But you want your 2mb pushed through despite you only having 12.43% support.

[franky1]

love the numbers. but i also love how those numbers keep adding up without the context.

smart people have done actual counts, so in context
out of 4427 core node:
only 1615 desire segwit (0.13 flag)
the other 2812 break down as
only 1737 that agreed to the consensus round tables segwit then baseblock pledge(0.12 flag)
and 1075 have not decided anything in the last year.

out of 5276 network node:
only 1615 desire segwit (0.13 flag)

saying 1615 adamant about segwit, beats 2812 other nodes in the same camp.. is wrong on so many levels.
saying 1615 adamant about segwit, beats 3661 other nodes in the network.. is wrong on so many levels.

even funnier, even amungst those numbers desiring segwit some are hoping that core sticks to the pledge of eventually raising the base blocksize.
so if it was a segwit debate with no hope of base blocksize growth, its less than 1615 out of 5276 nodes.

but have a nice day with your brushed over numbers that does not explain reality.
much like saying someone is going to vote for hilary clinton because they have bumper sticker has been there since bill clintons era.

[pereira4]

Good post. Only idiots are supporting a blocksize increase, since they don't care about the fact that doing so would make running nodes pretty much impossible for the average person, which kills the network decentralization.

They don't give a fuck as long as the fees are cheap, that's all they care about. They have bricks for brains.

love the numbers. but i also love how those numbers keep adding up without the context.

smart people have done actual counts, so in context
out of 4427 core node:
only 1615 desire segwit (0.13 flag)
the other 2812 break down as
only 1737 that agreed to the consensus round tables segwit then baseblock pledge(0.12 flag)
and 1075 have not decided anything in the last year.

out of 5276 network node:
only 1615 desire segwit (0.13 flag)

saying 1615 adamant about segwit, beats 2812 other nodes in the same camp.. is wrong on so many levels.
saying 1615 adamant about segwit, beats 3661 other nodes in the network.. is wrong on so many levels.

even funnier, even amungst those numbers desiring segwit some are hoping that core sticks to the pledge of eventually raising the base blocksize.
so if it was a segwit debate with no hope of base blocksize growth, its less than 1615 out of 5276 nodes.

but have a nice day with your brushed over numbers that does not explain reality.
much like saying someone is going to vote for hilary clinton because they have bumper sticker has been there since bill clintons era.

So what will you say once segwit inevitably gets activated?

[Carlton Banks]

So what will you say once segwit inevitably gets activated?

he'll pretend it's what he always supported (he's already stopped attacking segwit with all the "incompatible with Bitcoin" and "altcoin" stuff).

[yaooke]

Leftism always ends up in big government. Big government has the potential to destroy bitcoin and altcoins by throwing regulation after regulation on it and thus making it inaccessible for the common man. Leftist ideology always achieves the opposite of what they want. The path to hell is paved with good intentions. The only way cryptocurrency can flourish is when government stays the heck away from it.

[franky1]

he'll pretend it's what he always supported (he's already stopped attacking segwit with all the "incompatible with Bitcoin" and "altcoin" stuff).

no
you flip flopping troll.
go learn the facts for once.
its obvious you dont know the facts because you are still ignorant about the 4mb part of it, by saying 2mb is "too much bloat" (i laugh each time you say it)
its obvious you dont know the facts because you are still ignorant about how it works.

segwit is not the perfect utopia your leader suggest. it has limitations and flaws. it like LN has a place, but it is not the CAPACITY solution.
go research and stop pretending that segwit is the only solution, when we all know its blockstream your defending.. not bitcoin
its why not even a third (1615 out of 5276) have opted for it, yet you pretend its a sure thing at the current 1mb base 4mb weight proposal.

have you really jumped back down deep into the dictatorial rabbit hole. or is it just a contractual obligation where you can be a libertarian at weekends (outside of contract hours)

[Carlton Banks]

Oh please Franky, you deliberately left out the inconvenient part of your "4MB bloatchain" nonsense, but I expect you've probably been thoroughly discredited for all to see now.


Without me, you barely have anyone to respond to you. Here's my offer: from now-on, you have to pay me to respond to your posts, per post. I'll accept offers by PM, and publish them in a thread on the Meta board. Have fun.



(oh and I only accept BTC. Keep "your monero", lol)

[franky1]

finally carlton agrees not to reply to me
im not paying so carlton should not reply
WIN WIN
lets hope carlton sticks to his rule of not replying

if carlton replies to my post without my expressly requiring him to answer
if carlton replies where my username appears in a post of his. or a quote of mine appears in his post
if carlton tries to bait me..
then carlton owes me.

now rational people can have conversations that include:
data, information, facts, statistics and logic.

unlike the unbacked up waffle from carlton.

have a nice day carlton.

[RealBitcoin]

love the numbers. but i also love how those numbers keep adding up without the context.

smart people have done actual counts, so in context
out of 4427 core node:
only 1615 desire segwit (0.13 flag)
the other 2812 break down as
only 1737 that agreed to the consensus round tables segwit then baseblock pledge(0.12 flag)
and 1075 have not decided anything in the last year.

out of 5276 network node:
only 1615 desire segwit (0.13 flag)

saying 1615 adamant about segwit, beats 2812 other nodes in the same camp.. is wrong on so many levels.
saying 1615 adamant about segwit, beats 3661 other nodes in the network.. is wrong on so many levels.

Nonsense, if people are against Core & Segwit then why dont they install the Classic or Unlimited clients?

You cant be against Segwit but pro Core , because Core = Segwit, and it's outlined perfecty:

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq/

So you are most likely talking nonsense.

[pawel7777]

Didn't check the entire thread, but in case no one brought it up:

@OP - what's your view on Theymos' idea of destroying Satoshi's coins (before someone steals them)?

Will you admit that your beloved censor is in fact a leftist himself, or will you go through mental gymnastics to prove that stealing/someone's property (and not just someone, the very creator of Bitcoin) for the benefit of the community is somehow in the spirit of libertarianism?

[RealBitcoin]

Didn't check the entire thread, but in case no one brought it up:

@OP - what's your view on Theymos' idea of destroying Satoshi's coins (before someone steals them)?

Will you admit that your beloved censor is in fact a leftist himself, or will you go through mental gymnastics to prove that stealing/someone's property (and not just someone, the very creator of Bitcoin) for the benefit of the community is somehow in the spirit of libertarianism?

I disagree on that particular issue. We cannot know if satoshi is alive or not, or if he wants to claim his coins or not, or if it is holding them longterm.

It is pretty unlikely that he has the keys to them, since he never moved it despite many many crypto vulnerabilities have been discovered since.

But still there is a chance that he still has them and holding on to them, so we should not steal that from him, even if somebody steals them it would be less than 6% of the market cap, and given the thief cant liquidate it instantly, so the price won't even drop 6% as a result, and maybe the thief will start investing it and not selling it.

So yeah its a bad idea, nobody is perfect, everyone can make some mistakes.

[Carlton Banks]

Will you admit that your beloved censor is in fact a leftist himself

Totally leading question. To answer, one must accept that they love Theymos and that Theymos indulges in censorship.

and implying that de-fusing the Satoshi coins is theft is just not tenable. "Property destruction" would be apt, but you're laying on far too much exaggeration and subversion for anyone to treat your trolling seriously

[franky1]

Nonsense, if people are against Core & Segwit then why dont they install the Classic or Unlimited clients?

You cant be against Segwit but pro Core , because Core = Segwit, and it's outlined perfecty:

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq/

So you are most likely talking nonsense.

you can run core without actually being pro core.
you can be against core and running it to test out vulnerabilities
you can be neutral and running it simply by not even caring about the 'band camps'.

but as you have shown.
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2015/12/23/capacity-increases-faq/  -v0.12 proposes eventual blocksize upgrade
click on roadmap.

Further out, there are several proposals related to flex caps or
incentive-aligned dynamic block size controls based on allowing miners
to produce larger blocks at some cost. These proposals help preserve
the alignment of incentives between miners and general node operators,
and prevent defection between the miners from undermining the fee

then v0.13 relates to segwit 1mb base 4mb weight

again
out of 4427 core node:
only 1615 desire segwit (0.13 flag)
the other 2812 break down as
only 1737 that agreed to the consensus round tables segwit.. then baseblock pledge(0.12 flag)
and 1075 have not decided anything in the last year.

so dont try saying ALL 4427 nodes want segwit 1mb 4mb. especially with all the flip flopping backtracks done by blockstream employed after december last year.
if you want segwit to be active. dont blame the 16% that are not core..
blame the 69% of the network that have not agreed. or even if you want to get to the point.
blame the 63% of core users that have not agreed to segwit

[pawel7777]

...
Totally leading question. To answer, one must accept that they love Theymos and that Theymos indulges in censorship.

and implying that de-fusing the Satoshi coins is theft is just not tenable. "Property destruction" would be apt, but you're laying on far too much exaggeration and subversion for anyone to treat your trolling seriously

Wrong. OP, to whom the question was addressed, took my 'trolling' seriously and provided serious reply.
Exaggeration was intentional in response to the (imo) exaggerated topic.
'Theft' may not be appropriate term, but I sense many/most libertarians would agree that destroying someone else's property with your own financial gain in mind (reduced supply + increase in value from removal of uncertainty) is equally bad as theft, if not worse (there's always a chance of recovering stolen goods).

...
I disagree on that particular issue. We cannot know if satoshi is alive or not, or if he wants to claim his coins or not, or if it is holding them longterm.

It is pretty unlikely that he has the keys to them, since he never moved it despite many many crypto vulnerabilities have been discovered since.

But still there is a chance that he still has them and holding on to them, so we should not steal that from him, even if somebody steals them it would be less than 6% of the market cap, and given the thief cant liquidate it instantly, so the price won't even drop 6% as a result, and maybe the thief will start investing it and not selling it.

So yeah its a bad idea, nobody is perfect, everyone can make some mistakes.

OK, at least you're somewhat consistent in your views, but since you seem to understand that not everything is black/white and on some subjects, you cannot really draw a clear line between leftists and libertarians, then why not having a constructive discussion on a specific subject (if you have anything new to add to it), rather than just taking short-cut by dismissing opposing side as 'leftists'.

[Carlton Banks]

...
Totally leading question. To answer, one must accept that they love Theymos and that Theymos indulges in censorship.

and implying that de-fusing the Satoshi coins is theft is just not tenable. "Property destruction" would be apt, but you're laying on far too much exaggeration and subversion for anyone to treat your trolling seriously

Wrong. OP, to whom the question was addressed, took my 'trolling' seriously and provided serious reply.
Exaggeration was intentional in response to the (imo) exaggerated topic.
'Theft' may not be appropriate term, but I sense many/most libertarians would agree that destroying someone else's property with your own financial gain in mind (reduced supply + increase in value from removal of uncertainty) is equally bad as theft, if not worse (there's always a chance of recovering stolen goods).

No, I was right.

Not only is theft not the appropriate term, but asset appreciation is not the intention behind the suggestion. So your whole post was irrelevant to this discussion, as a proposal to protect the value of the entire system has nothing to do with politics.

And so your intentions are laid bare: trolling this board, and trolling Bitcoin in general.

[RealBitcoin]

blame the 63% of core users that have not agreed to segwit

Abstinence from voting =/= a No vote

Did you know that many political votes have a turnout of less then 50%?

Just give them time, not everyone is uppgrading yet, they need to test the new wallet first and prepare for the uppgrades.


And this is actually good, it's good if not everyone uppgrades at the same time, so if a zero day bug is discovered, the entire network is not jeopardized.

But with a hardfork you have to uppgrade all at once, which puts the network to an enourmous risk.

[RealBitcoin]

OK, at least you're somewhat consistent in your views, but since you seem to understand that not everything is black/white and on some subjects, you cannot really draw a clear line between leftists and libertarians, then why not having a constructive discussion on a specific subject (if you have anything new to add to it), rather than just taking short-cut by dismissing opposing side as 'leftists'.

Yeah but if a guy is right on 99 things and wrong on 1 thing, I wont just abandon my support for him for 1 small mistake. Besides if the community responds to it, we can correct that mistake together. It's not like people here are fanatic about their beliefs, we all make mistakes, and we can all help to correct them.

However, I have demonstrated that leftist ideas are totalitarian and evil, and so far nobody gave solid evidence to refute my claims.

[Carlton Banks]

However, I have demonstrated that leftist ideas are totalitarian, and so far nobody gave solid evidence to refute my claims.

Sorry, but I have! Classical liberalism is considered left wing, and some left identifying people reject socialism and communism, they consider themselves liberal only. Libertarianism and classical liberalism share the same roots, the main difference is that libertarianism makes a case for removing government altogether, whereas classical liberalism argues for a minimal state.

[franky1]

And this is actually good, it's good if not everyone uppgrades at the same time, so if a zero day bug is discovered, the entire network is not jeopardized.

But with a hardfork you have to uppgrade all at once, which puts the network to an enourmous risk.

you had me at the first sentance and then you lost yourself with the second one.
right now BU, XT, classic, and all the others are RUNNING NOW
people can review the code now.

secondly to activate a rule upgrade, over 95% would be already running just to get the activation going. WHICH TAKES TIME

its not about everyone suddenly jumps onboard after activation. instead they would already be onboard before activation and the activation is simply then using the rules that are already available to the network

[RealBitcoin]

And this is actually good, it's good if not everyone uppgrades at the same time, so if a zero day bug is discovered, the entire network is not jeopardized.

But with a hardfork you have to uppgrade all at once, which puts the network to an enourmous risk.

you had me at the first sentance and then you lost yourself with the second one.
right now BU, XT, classic, and all the others are RUNNING NOW
people can review the code now.

secondly to activate a rule upgrade, over 95% would be already running just to get the activation going. WHICH TAKES TIME

its not about everyone suddenly jumps onboard after activation. they would already be onboard before activation and the activation is simply then using the rules that are already available to the network

You are truly a master of spinning words franky.

I am not talking about the consensus, but about uppgrading the clients simultaneously, in say 1-2 days. This would expose the network to an enourmous risk, since any hacker who has a zero day bug for that client, will be able to disrupt or destroy the network entirely.

So a gradual change from 0.12 to 0.13.1 is preferable in weeks or months ,so that everyone can test it.

However, I have demonstrated that leftist ideas are totalitarian, and so far nobody gave solid evidence to refute my claims.

Sorry, but I have! Classical liberalism is considered left wing, and some left identifying people reject socialism and communism, they consider themselves liberal only. Libertarianism and classical liberalism share the same roots, the main difference is that libertarianism makes a case for removing government altogether, whereas classical liberalism argues for a minimal state.

I would call that centrist , not leftist.

If somebody supports gay marriage that doesnt mean that they support 80% taxes too....