You want to justify why segwit2x is needed? What points do you want to make that are supposedly going to inform this conversation?
Not particularly. The only point that needs to be made is that open source and permissionless means no one has to justify anything.
Well if you are going to work outside of the system and attack the system, then you can do whatever the fuck you want... that is correct.
If you want to persuade within the system, then you gotta convince people based on logic and/or facts. Good luck with attempting to build based on renegade behaviors.
What the fuck are you talking about? Do you understand what is consensus? Do you understand what is working within the system to attempt to persuade and to make changes? Do you understand that segwit2x is an attempt to avert the system and to destroy it and to create another system? The current system is not broken nor authoritarian, it is largely merit based, so if you have arguments and evidence that have merits then you can present and propose such arguments and evidence in order to attempt to change the system.. that is not despotism.. that is open to allowing facts and logic to affect change that possibly could achieve consensus if the fact and logic are sufficiently persuasive to enough peeps.
Do you understand consensus? It certainly doesn't mean everyone has to play nice and agree all the time.
You know better. I am talking about whether you want to build within bitcoin's existing system. Yeah, if you want to just attack bitcoin then sure... do the fuck whatever you want and find out how big of a following you get with those kinds of approaches (that kind of seem as desperate ways of going about it to me, but what do I know?)
It means the exact opposite of that. It means anyone can run the software they want to run and they will be synchronised with users who agree with them. Consensus is participatory, not coerced. Your definition of consensus is everyone has to agree with you all the time. That's a pretty flawed definition.
Could be that we are talking about slightly different stages of consensus.. about the process of attempting to achieve consensus as compared with once consensus has been achieved.
And, possibly it does not matter too much regarding overall points regarding our differing and theoretical descriptions in this regard --- in other words we seem to be getting a bit off topic into irrelevant possible distinctions without a difference.
The status quo is that bitcoin is not broken, and accordingly, if you want to change bitcoin, then you have burdens to present evidence and logic to show how improvements can be made..
Show me in the code where it says that.
Who the fuck is talking about code? I am talking about any kind of existing system, and if you want to change the system, then you have to persuade - by hook or by crook the status quo stake holders to change the system, to the extent that you are proposing to change the system.... If you cannot persuade them to change, then the status quo continues or whatever changes are based on proposals that come from others who are able to accomplish such persuasion.
You can invent whatever constantly moving goalposts your imagination can muster, but it's all just words at the end of the day. There's no burden on anyone to present anything. Stop talking out of your arse.
I am not inventing anything. If you ever lived in the real world and move out of your mom's basement, then you might come to understand that there are certain principles that guide human behavior and system dynamics... So, yeah, maybe there are going to be instances in which changes from the outside (by force) are successful - however, I am referring to systems, such as bitcoin, that have been maintaining.. and there are challenges from within and from without - however the hardfork that we are referring to is a challenge from without.. and yeah, there would not necessarily be any rules for that, if you are successful in achieving your goals by force. Good luck. (.. .hahahahahahaha
NOT
)
and there is nothing near consensus regarding the 2x part ... so attempts to force 2x without consensus remains a renegade attack.
What force? Show me where this supposed force is, exactly.
I heard that there is going to be a hardfork in mid november... seems like force to me. How is that not force? Small group of people attempting to sabotage (or they say "change" bitcoin").
A hardfork is categorically neither force nor sabotage. If they were to perpetrate a 51% attack on your preferred chain,
that would be an act of sabotage. There's willful malice involved in such an act. Until then, it clearly isn't sabotage. Forking away is not an act of force.
O.k.. whatever. Seems that we might have differing conceptions in this regard.
Insisting that they do what you want them to do and giving them no freedom to choose for themselves would be an act of force, so it's fortunate you aren't in any position to do that. I'm sure you'd love to if you could, though.
Again, look at yourself... a fucking nutjob in your attempt to ascribe some kinds of motives to me that do not exist. I am a fucking commenter in a bitcoin related thread ... and you are making up some kind of argument and framework that has not even been part of the point of the conversation besides your making it out to be such.
To me, it looks like two groups willingly going their own separate ways because they are unable to reconcile their differences, except that one group seems to be bitching about it a whole lot more than the other.
BCH is not good enough? Oh you want another fork because BCH does not seem to be working? Each or these seem to be various minority and loud mouth whiner attacks, rather than genuine attempts to create a better bitcoin.
Maybe you shouldn't have done such a great job at selling the benefits of SegWit. Talk about victim of your own success.
What a fucking crying baby you sound like. Segwit is barely in the starting phase, and you fucking BIG blocker nutjobs are so fucking desperate that you are trying to write it off as some kind of negative phenomenon before it even hardly gets a chance to get started or to emerge out of its infancy. You want to suffocate and kill segwit in its infancy before it becomes too powerful to either injure or kill..... good luck with that (NOT)...
I agree that segwit does seem to be great and it does seem to bring a lot of power to bitcoin in a lot of ways, and we seem to have a lot to look forward to with segwit and the various powers that it brings to bitcoin (the real one.)...
I honestly don't see how it's such a stretch of the imagination that someone might want to create a fork to try out SegWit with a larger blocksize. It's hardly revolutionary thinking. And at the end of the day, it's all useful data going forward.
Get a fucking grip. You are trying to justify the destructive behavior of yourself and your fellow BIG blockers (I will concede that you may not be doing any action yourself beyond whining about it).... Anyhow, this particular premature attempt at segwit (with the addition of larger blocks) is not all useful data, because it is fucking completely unnecessary and unwanted, except for by bitcoin sabateurs and bitcoin naysayers..
You are framing some kind of whiny issue that core doesn't want big blocks wei whei wei..
but in the end, I doubt that core is really against big blocks if they ever become justifiable.. possible in 5 years or something like that. Right now they are fucking not needed and they likely would not be needed for several years, absent some amazing exponential growth that could, perhaps, justify such.. perhaps 5 years is a stretch, but perhaps 2 years or 3 years, there could develop some possible justification, perhaps? perhaps?
You are free to transact on whatever chain you please.
Thanks for permission, and who is even talking about that kind of freedom to transact and freedom to chose chains, except for your just raising this issue now? Actually freedom to transact and to chose chains is a given
So if that's "
a given" (which I agree with), how do you logically also argue that the freedom for users and miners to secure a chain you don't agree with is an attack?
I am not going to argue it. You can try to frame it as some kind of wishful thinking friendly event all that you like, and it seems a waste of time for me to go down this nonsense and seemingly obvious path with a person, such as yourself, who does not appear to be ready, willing or able to engage in a conversation that is based on reality rather than your pure fantastical attempts to frame renagade conduct as "friendly."
I mean, you can't transact on a chain that no one is securing. I know you're not that dumb. So how do we have this naturally given right to transact on a proposed chain which you can't abide any miners securing? Chicken or egg much?
Don't be ridiculous. currently bitcoin has well over 100x of the mining power that it had a few years ago, so it can function securely off of a fraction of the current hash power.. and you are doing a lot of speculation if you believe that the original chain is not going to inspire any miners to continue mining on it.
More fantasy, from you... who would have thunk?
No one can "force" you to be on a chain you don't want to be on.
Huh? Of course, there can be various kinds of forced changes in all kinds of ways in this world of ours, and in the end we make choices about how we want to deal or not deal with the various changes whether the changes are forced or not. So possibly in the end, I am not referring to anything about myself being forced, and in that regard, you seem to be changing the topic and engaging in a bit of red herring argumentation.
used the word "force" in specific regard to the fork:
so attempts to force 2x without consensus remains a renegade attack.
likely we are delving into the weeds.. and there is no confusion regarding what I said or meant... unless you just want to get in the weeds and spin wheels to no avail? Which could be a goal of yours.. trolls frequently enjoy going all over the fucking place and on tangents.
If you have mining gear, you can point it wherever you damn well please. It's not an act of force for them to point it at a chain you don't personally approve of. They don't owe you anything. Your opinions don't factor into their decision making process, only your fees do.
Yes.. probably a large majority of miners are going to migrate to the most profitable chain... o.k. and so what?
The most profitable chain will likely be a combination of hashrate and users on the chain who are willing to pay fees, and again, so what? let's see how your currently theoretical renegade fork plays out when push comes to shove.
So it's up to you and the participants of your preferred chain to make it worth their attention if you don't like the sound of their new chain. I keep hearing talk about the certainty of this "economic majority", so surely that in and of itself should be sufficient, right? The miners will naturally be drawn to the most profitable chain. If you're so certain that's your chain, you have absolutely nothing to worry about. They're going to waste their hashpower pursuing a completely worthless chain. Right? So what's the problem?
yes, we are likely saying the same thing in terms of how motivations and incentives are likely going to play out during the disruptive process... so, yes, we could have hours of disruption or weeks of disruption or months... we will have to see how it plays out.
regarding a problem... .yeah, do whatever the fuck you want... and you may be a snotty 14 year old trying to have a revolution without anything to lose by disruption... and there are folks with millions of dollars invested in a system that is being attacked.. so the folks with more value might have to diversify and take different precautions from the snotty nosed 14 year old. NO offense to all 14 year olds who happen to not be snotty nosed.
The hardforker attackers are lacking in facts or logic to merit their attack and they are not willing or able to work within the existing bitcoin system, and therefore they are set upon attacking from without while attempting to act as if they are the "saviors of bitcoin." Again, more nonsense.
What's nonsense is the insane notion that when they don't agree with you, they're still wrong to leave. How do you square that decidedly circular logic? I'm serious about this one.
You are serious.. o.k.. great.. you can leave, and take the ship down with you... good luck (NOT)... sometimes it would be nice if the various renegade hardforkers or big blockers would just leave, but the will keep coming back so long as the main bitcoin continues to have more value than the various other shit networks that they create and they attempt to dilute bitcoin with such shit networks.
It's by far the biggest logical fallacy in your arguments. How do you honestly propose they work within the system if their ideas are inherently incompatible with it? Explain that. Please.
I don't need to explain it. I think that I have already sufficiently referred to the difference between trying to change matters from within or trying to change systems by attacking. You are correct in one sense that either method could be valid in the sense that "all is fair in love and war," and so if you warring and trying to destroy, then you can do whatever the fuck you like... does not mean that I need to agree or accept your chosen tactic... because I think that bitcoin is great and is on a great path..and is likely to persevere through out these nonsense renegade attacks, and the market seems to be a bit inclined in the same direction and that is why we continue to have upwards price pressures on our golden goose that you and your irrational BIG blocker nutjob buddies seem to be inclined to attempt to kill.
