Post your SegWit questions here - open discussion - big week for Bitcoin!

[chadtn]

Market has changed. We understand it. But is it real to predict if to compare with last segwit?

[1714909626]

1714909626

[1714909626]

1714909626

[1714909626]

1714909626

[1714909626]

1714909626

[JayJuanGee]

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.

Bitcoin isn't like any existing system we've ever had.  It's pretty self-evident by this point that they don't have to persuade anyone to create a hardfork.  That's not changing the system unless users voluntarily follow.  If users don't follow, it's just another altcoin.  Who is arguing the status quo can't continue?  I'm only arguing they should have the option to find out if they want to.

In case I'm not making myself clear, I'm not saying that users *should* want this 2x fork, just that it has a right to exist and see who it may or may not attract.  I only care about preserving the permissionless aspect of Bitcoin and, increasingly, it feels like some users would happily throw that under the bus if it meant they could prevent this or other forks.  

We seem to be devolving into quite other topics than we started upon.   If I characterize the 2x fork as a rogue attack, I am not trying to stop them from doing it, I am just calling them a bunch of dweebs... more or less.

As I suspect most other participants will naturally be doing, I'll be sticking on the chain that has the greatest alignment of incentives.  You've already made your mind up which chain that is.  I'm open to finding out first hand by seeing them both up and running in the wild.

What the fuck do I know about what is going to happen in the future and if the segwit2x fork is going to be successful.  I merely stated that to me it seems to have a pretty low chance of being the successful one that takes over the system and it is pretty likely that the existing bitcoin is going to continue as the dominant one.  Whether there is any value going through the process, I don't try to frame it as some kind of rosie picture, as you seem to be doing, or to try to conceptualize them as some kind of equal playing field, because the attack vector is coming from a bunch of emotionally self-interested and seemingly irresponsible dweebs.

 

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

I'm pretty sure quite a few of these miners have been around for a while.  I'm still not sure where this notion comes from that they're somehow separate from the rest of the community.  Are they really outsiders?  Or is that just another failed attempt to dictate an ever-faltering narrative about external threats?  

I don't know how you go from a person, such as me, commenting on a bitcoin thread to be "dictating."  You seem to be assuming that all the miners are in lock step, perhaps based on segwit2x signaling of intention, and we likely already realize that signaling of intention and actually running software are not going to be equal things... so we cannot necessarily lump the behavior of all miners, and even if there were to be 90% of miners going over to hardforked segwit2x, I am not sure whether that is going to be any kind of deal breaker.  We would just have to see how it plays out and if such economic incentives were to follow such direction, which I doubt.. but willing to see how it plays out... even though I am going to projectingly complain that it is unnecessarily disruptive bullshit to experiment in those kinds of ways on a live network - not that my comments are going to change what people (including miners) do.

 

As stated previously, I see this purely as two (or effectively up to four now) sides of the community going their separate ways over irreconcilable differences.  If a bank or some major corporation ever launched a Bitcoin wallet, maybe then we could agree on the "outsider" part.  Until then, we're at an impasse on that one.

Whatever.  You can characterize it however you like.  A lot of the folks who support some stupid ass fork of bitcoin are not going to completely give up their bitcoins, but instead are likely going to hedge in various ways, so these supposed four communities are overlapping in a lot of ways more than your conceptualization.. same with your concept of miners wearing more than one hat.
 

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.

If I conveniently forgot all the other stuff I've seen you say during my time on these boards, you might have a point.

O.k.. you are vague, and trying to act like you have some kind of evidence to support your nonsensical personal attack to suggest that I have some kind of power or that I am some kind of dictator, besides expressing my opinion.  Yeah.. I will call out a nutjob, but so what?  That behavior does not cause me to be a dictator..  Do what you like, you BIG block forkers, but instead you don't really want to do what you like and build some other coin and attract customers through a better product, instead you want to whine, complain, sabotage and then try to act like you are engaged in god's work with the greater vision of satoshi..   and some other similar distractions  
 

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

No, I think we got our wires crossed there somehow.  What I mean to say is that enough people are now convinced that SegWit is a vital step that they have included it in their proposed fork, hence not just using BCH.  I'm entirely on board with SegWit being an available option for those who wish to take advantage of it.  No dispute there.

O.k.... So part of the justification that segwit2x is necessary is because BCH is not enough because it had removed segwit, therefore, segwit2x would be the superior way.  Seems like a bunch of attempts at shifting justifications to me, and that if there is any tiny difference of opinion or view, then we are going to create a renegade hardfork to attempt to accomplish that mission rather than figuring out ways to work within bitcoin... yeah.. do whatever the fuck you think you want to do, but I don't need to consider your game and the game of the various hardforkers to be legitimate attempts at improving rather than destroying, diluting and confusing matters based on stupid ass small tweaks here and there.
 

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..  

"It can exist if people want it to" is pretty much the sum of my argument.  You're the one having the shit-fit.

Your the one who is jumping in on a conversation in which I asked the newbie to clarify his position and you jumped in with the multitude of additional topics.  I had been just attempting to respond to your various quasi-connected stream of consciousness in support of the BIG blocker hardforker theories.

 

You are framing some kind of whiny issue that core doesn't want big blocks wei whei wei..  

 

Nope.  All dev team are free to code whatever they please.  Permissionlessness in action.  Why would I whine about a dev team coding what they want?  That's the precise opposite of my stance.

Well, we may be getting too much into the weeds with our back and forth, here, but my understanding is that you are engaged in an attempt to justify segwit2x because core does not believe 2x is needed and even asserting that core might never get around to 2x, and 2x is actually needed and is urgent, therefore, segwit2x is justified to take place ASAP.  Yeah, you have also added some additional arguments about the freedom to fork.. blah blah blah... with maybe some starry-eyed rationalizations that these rogue hardforks are good for everyone and let the free market decide blah blah blah.. Of course, we all believe in the benefits of the free market and survival of the fittest, blah blah blah..  much of which seems to be post-hoc attempts to justify nonsense renegade and unjustified attacks on bitcoin.
 

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 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?  

Again with the misunderstanding.  I'm talking about the 2x fork, not the SegWit-Only chain.  How, exactly, are users supposed to have the innate freedom to transact on the forked chain if the miners don't fork to begin with?  It makes no sense to call it an attack if it's something you believe everyone is free to use.  The miners have to create the fork in order for users to have that freedom.

Right  sounds like an unjustifiable experimentation to me... of some small group supposedly "creating an option" which is really sloppy, ill-thought-out and irresponsibly reckless.
 

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.

Okay, cool.  I didn't think that was so much to ask.  The "so what?" part is it's not an act of force like you claim.  I thought I made that pretty clear.

Again.  you seem to be acting like this is some kind of beneficial free market experiment that is all fair in love and war... blah blah blah.
 

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.

If you're convinced that the goal is to sink the ship, then I guess there's not much I can do about that.  All I see is some people who want to try something different.  Maybe they are as bad as you claim.  You might be proven right in the end.  But I can't, in good conscience, condemn them to "outside attacker" status based on nothing more than the largely generalised accusations of some butthurt smallblockers.

Don't fucking try to act as if I am pigeon-holing all BIG blockers into the same category - I understand that there is a diverse group of fuck-jobs that are engaged in bitcoin sabotage efforts, and sure it is quite likely that several of those fuck jobs really believe that they are engaged in god's work - meaning that they have good intentions blah blah blah.

 

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.

I also think Bitcoin is great.  I just happen to also think it's resilient enough not to be killed by a true test of its consensus mechanism.  And what "tactic"?  They did try to change it from within, but that was unsuccessful.  And fair enough.  So it was naturally time for some developers to start doing their own thing.  There is no other way to create what they want to create without a hardfork.  It's the only option left open to them.  

 That's crazy  if you really believe that there are no other options... fucking crazy.

Again, they can't remain on the current chain if their ideas are incompatible with yours.  

Don't be fucking ridiculous.  There can be all kinds of differences of opinion and still remain on the same chain.  The nutjobs are just creating excuses to be incompatible and now that a "successful" hardfork has been carried out, feel like the tactic de jure is to hardfork over every minor thing while describing every minor thing as a irreconcilable and material difference.

 

It's cause and effect, not part of some sort of sordid battleplan.

And for the record, my preferred solution doesn't actually involve "big" blocks.

Well, I actually understand that there is some need to go with context and whatever is the practice of the day, and these days the upcoming trend is to attempt to get airdrops through hardforks.  So, yeah, it is likely that we will see a variety of alts created or attempted through such new and "acceptable" methodologies.  Does not mean that I need to praise such new methodologies... so we are going to have DooBitcoin^tmMAD coming out soon, too?

[homculus]

Not to mention that even if you could find addresses, if the block reward went to zero TODAY without a billion people using Bitcoin, even today's minute amounts of transaction fees would still be worth more per cpu/gpu/fpga cycle than if you'd spent that same cycle looking for populated addresses. Given that the same equipment you'd use in such an address search should, because of the similarity of the tasks, be capable of mining as well, it would be more profitable to use that equipment for mining purposes.

[DooMAD]

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

I'm pretty sure quite a few of these miners have been around for a while.  I'm still not sure where this notion comes from that they're somehow separate from the rest of the community.  Are they really outsiders?  Or is that just another failed attempt to dictate an ever-faltering narrative about external threats?  

I don't know how you go from a person, such as me, commenting on a bitcoin thread to be "dictating."  You seem to be assuming that all the miners are in lock step, perhaps based on segwit2x signaling of intention, and we likely already realize that signaling of intention and actually running software are not going to be equal things... so we cannot necessarily lump the behavior of all miners, and even if there were to be 90% of miners going over to hardforked segwit2x, I am not sure whether that is going to be any kind of deal breaker.  We would just have to see how it plays out and if such economic incentives were to follow such direction, which I doubt.. but willing to see how it plays out... even though I am going to projectingly complain that it is unnecessarily disruptive bullshit to experiment in those kinds of ways on a live network - not that my comments are going to change what people (including miners) do.

What are you waffling on about now?  My point was that the people you've taken exception to are not "outside" the system, except possibly by your own unique definition.  These people are very much involved in the Bitcoin space.  You merely choose to define anyone who doesn't agree with a certain dev team as an "outsider" and you're trying to make others do the same by attempting to control the narrative.

No, I think we got our wires crossed there somehow.  What I mean to say is that enough people are now convinced that SegWit is a vital step that they have included it in their proposed fork, hence not just using BCH.  I'm entirely on board with SegWit being an available option for those who wish to take advantage of it.  No dispute there.

O.k.... So part of the justification that segwit2x is necessary is because BCH is not enough because it had removed segwit, therefore, segwit2x would be the superior way.  Seems like a bunch of attempts at shifting justifications to me, and that if there is any tiny difference of opinion or view, then we are going to create a renegade hardfork to attempt to accomplish that mission rather than figuring out ways to work within bitcoin... yeah.. do whatever the fuck you think you want to do, but I don't need to consider your game and the game of the various hardforkers to be legitimate attempts at improving rather than destroying, diluting and confusing matters based on stupid ass small tweaks here and there.

So what it boils down to is:  You're not happy when the "Big Blockers" won't listen to reason and take notice of the technical merits of SegWit.  And you're not happy when they do listen to reason and take notice of the technical merits of SegWit.  Awesome.

"It can exist if people want it to" is pretty much the sum of my argument.  You're the one having the shit-fit.

Your the one who is jumping in on a conversation in which I asked the newbie to clarify his position and you jumped in with the multitude of additional topics.

You were being kind of a dick to them, though.  Play nice with the newbies.

You are framing some kind of whiny issue that core doesn't want big blocks wei whei wei..  

 
Nope.  All dev team are free to code whatever they please.  Permissionlessness in action.  Why would I whine about a dev team coding what they want?  That's the precise opposite of my stance.

Well, we may be getting too much into the weeds with our back and forth, here, but my understanding is that you are engaged in an attempt to justify segwit2x because core does not believe 2x is needed and even asserting that core might never get around to 2x, and 2x is actually needed and is urgent, therefore, segwit2x is justified to take place ASAP.  Yeah, you have also added some additional arguments about the freedom to fork.. blah blah blah... with maybe some starry-eyed rationalizations that these rogue hardforks are good for everyone and let the free market decide blah blah blah.. Of course, we all believe in the benefits of the free market and survival of the fittest, blah blah blah..  much of which seems to be post-hoc attempts to justify nonsense renegade and unjustified attacks on bitcoin.

My stance is that "justify" doesn't even come into it.  It's not a thing.  I do find it interesting that you used the word "justify" (or a variation of it) no less than 4 times in that paragraph, though.  You seem to feel strongly that there should be a reason or some sort of rationalisation for every single act in Bitcoin, but in my mind, that's actually incompatible with the more important aspect of permissionless.  What happens when something isn't justified?  Who decides when that's the case?  What are the consequences?  Who enforces that?  It all starts to sound a bit permissioned when the topic of justification crops up.  

If Bitcoin insisted on justification, there would have to be someone in charge to approve things.  That would be a weakness in my view.

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 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?  

Again with the misunderstanding.  I'm talking about the 2x fork, not the SegWit-Only chain.  How, exactly, are users supposed to have the innate freedom to transact on the forked chain if the miners don't fork to begin with?  It makes no sense to call it an attack if it's something you believe everyone is free to use.  The miners have to create the fork in order for users to have that freedom.

Right  sounds like an unjustifiable experimentation to me... of some small group supposedly "creating an option" which is really sloppy, ill-thought-out and irresponsibly reckless.

You are welcome to that opinion.  But given the choice between "attackers" creating "sloppy, ill-thought-out and irresponsibly reckless" forks, or having someone in charge to prevent people from doing that, which are you going to pick?  There are always worse options.  Be careful what you wish for.

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.

Okay, cool.  I didn't think that was so much to ask.  The "so what?" part is it's not an act of force like you claim.  I thought I made that pretty clear.

Again.  you seem to be acting like this is some kind of beneficial free market experiment that is all fair in love and war... blah blah blah.

If by "acting like" you mean "accepting the reality" because this is how it is and can't work any other way while still being permissionless, then sure.  Not only can you not prevent it, you shouldn't even want to prevent it, because being able to prevent it means something is broken and someone is in a clear position of control.  I mean, fuck, people in 2010 had a firmer grasp of this shit than you do.  Then again, the forum was primarily comprised of free-thinking people with technical backgrounds then, so it's not surprising.  These days the forum is just full of closed-minded Luddites who want to destroy anything that isn't what they already know.

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.

I also think Bitcoin is great.  I just happen to also think it's resilient enough not to be killed by a true test of its consensus mechanism.  And what "tactic"?  They did try to change it from within, but that was unsuccessful.  And fair enough.  So it was naturally time for some developers to start doing their own thing.  There is no other way to create what they want to create without a hardfork.  It's the only option left open to them.  

That's crazy  if you really believe that there are no other options... fucking crazy.

Okay, let's see:  

Step 1 - submit pull request for larger base blocksize - rejected
Step 2 - ...

Help me out here?  What's the next option?  Bow down and accept not having it?  And "options"?  Plural?  This should be good.  Let's see the list, then.  Name all the ways you can add a larger base blocksize to Bitcoin without you throwing your toys out of the pram.  Go.

Again, they can't remain on the current chain if their ideas are incompatible with yours.  

Don't be fucking ridiculous.  There can be all kinds of differences of opinion and still remain on the same chain.  The nutjobs are just creating excuses to be incompatible and now that a "successful" hardfork has been carried out, feel like the tactic de jure is to hardfork over every minor thing while describing every minor thing as a irreconcilable and material difference.

So the blocksize debate that has been raging for years is now a "minor thing" in your eyes?  Interesting framing of the issue to say the least.  Plus, plenty of smallblockers have been telling them to fork off, so they can't really complain when it actually happens.  How, exactly, do you propose we all get along when we can't agree?  Would the answer sound something like your desired outcome and nothing at all like the desired outcome of those you disagree with?  As far as I can see, you're not offering any ground here.  What compromises are you willing to make in order for us to all move forward together as one?  Because if you aren't willing to concede any ground and they aren't willing to concede any ground, that sounds like a deadlock to me.

Sure, there can be all kinds of verbal disagreements, but we can all stay on the same chain as long as everyone bows down and does what they're told.  Because that's how Bitcoin is supposed to work...  

Does that about sum it up?

It's cause and effect, not part of some sort of sordid battleplan.

And for the record, my preferred solution doesn't actually involve "big" blocks.

Well, I actually understand that there is some need to go with context and whatever is the practice of the day, and these days the upcoming trend is to attempt to get airdrops through hardforks.  So, yeah, it is likely that we will see a variety of alts created or attempted through such new and "acceptable" methodologies.  Does not mean that I need to praise such new methodologies... so we are going to have DooBitcoin^tmMAD coming out soon, too?

Not unless someone codes it for me.    

[JayJuanGee]

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

I'm pretty sure quite a few of these miners have been around for a while.  I'm still not sure where this notion comes from that they're somehow separate from the rest of the community.  Are they really outsiders?  Or is that just another failed attempt to dictate an ever-faltering narrative about external threats?  

I don't know how you go from a person, such as me, commenting on a bitcoin thread to be "dictating."  You seem to be assuming that all the miners are in lock step, perhaps based on segwit2x signaling of intention, and we likely already realize that signaling of intention and actually running software are not going to be equal things... so we cannot necessarily lump the behavior of all miners, and even if there were to be 90% of miners going over to hardforked segwit2x, I am not sure whether that is going to be any kind of deal breaker.  We would just have to see how it plays out and if such economic incentives were to follow such direction, which I doubt.. but willing to see how it plays out... even though I am going to projectingly complain that it is unnecessarily disruptive bullshit to experiment in those kinds of ways on a live network - not that my comments are going to change what people (including miners) do.

What are you waffling on about now?

It is NOT called "waffling."  It is called responding to your various points.
  

My point was that the people you've taken exception to are not "outside" the system, except possibly by your own unique definition.  

 
That seems to be a product of your own construction, to assert that I am defining attackers as "outsiders."  Merely that I denigrate the motives of attackers does not mean the same thing as defining them as outsiders, as you seem to be ascribing to me for some seemingly self-serving and perhaps simplification of my arguments reasons.

These people are very much involved in the Bitcoin space.  You merely choose to define anyone who doesn't agree with a certain dev team as an "outsider" and you're trying to make others do the same by attempting to control the narrative.

Again, you are mischaracterizing and also seem to be ascribing me more power than I have... thanks for that... NOT.  
  

No, I think we got our wires crossed there somehow.  What I mean to say is that enough people are now convinced that SegWit is a vital step that they have included it in their proposed fork, hence not just using BCH.  I'm entirely on board with SegWit being an available option for those who wish to take advantage of it.  No dispute there.

O.k.... So part of the justification that segwit2x is necessary is because BCH is not enough because it had removed segwit, therefore, segwit2x would be the superior way.  Seems like a bunch of attempts at shifting justifications to me, and that if there is any tiny difference of opinion or view, then we are going to create a renegade hardfork to attempt to accomplish that mission rather than figuring out ways to work within bitcoin... yeah.. do whatever the fuck you think you want to do, but I don't need to consider your game and the game of the various hardforkers to be legitimate attempts at improving rather than destroying, diluting and confusing matters based on stupid ass small tweaks here and there.

So what it boils down to is:  You're not happy when the "Big Blockers" won't listen to reason and take notice of the technical merits of SegWit.  And you're not happy when they do listen to reason and take notice of the technical merits of SegWit.  Awesome.

What it boils down to is that you are mischaracterizing my assertions, again.  What else is new?
  

"It can exist if people want it to" is pretty much the sum of my argument.  You're the one having the shit-fit.

Your the one who is jumping in on a conversation in which I asked the newbie to clarify his position and you jumped in with the multitude of additional topics.

You were being kind of a dick to them, though.  Play nice with the newbies.

So fucking what?  Are you a white knight?   If we wanted, we can go back and look at my inquires to see that I asked some questions and made a few clarification assertions to attempt to clarify, but Newbie did not clarify and instead comes off as a troller, but instead, you consider it as an opportunity to jump into the argument and to support the trolling... You are doing a great service, here.... .NOT.  
  

You are framing some kind of whiny issue that core doesn't want big blocks wei whei wei..  

 
Nope.  All dev team are free to code whatever they please.  Permissionlessness in action.  Why would I whine about a dev team coding what they want?  That's the precise opposite of my stance.

Well, we may be getting too much into the weeds with our back and forth, here, but my understanding is that you are engaged in an attempt to justify segwit2x because core does not believe 2x is needed and even asserting that core might never get around to 2x, and 2x is actually needed and is urgent, therefore, segwit2x is justified to take place ASAP.  Yeah, you have also added some additional arguments about the freedom to fork.. blah blah blah... with maybe some starry-eyed rationalizations that these rogue hardforks are good for everyone and let the free market decide blah blah blah.. Of course, we all believe in the benefits of the free market and survival of the fittest, blah blah blah..  much of which seems to be post-hoc attempts to justify nonsense renegade and unjustified attacks on bitcoin.

My stance is that "justify" doesn't even come into it.  It's not a thing.  I do find it interesting that you used the word "justify" (or a variation of it) no less than 4 times in that paragraph, though.  You seem to feel strongly that there should be a reason or some sort of rationalisation for every single act in Bitcoin, but in my mind, that's actually incompatible with the more important aspect of permissionless.  What happens when something isn't justified?  

Again, you seem to be overstating the case..
  

Who decides when that's the case?  What are the consequences?  Who enforces that?  It all starts to sound a bit permissioned when the topic of justification crops up.  

Yes, you are attributing too much power to my making comments in a bitcoin thread.  

  

If Bitcoin insisted on justification, there would have to be someone in charge to approve things.  That would be a weakness in my view.

 
Yeah, make up shit and then argue the counter-case until you are blue, it does not matter.

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 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?  

Again with the misunderstanding.  I'm talking about the 2x fork, not the SegWit-Only chain.  

How, exactly, are users supposed to have the innate freedom to transact on the forked chain if the miners don't fork to begin with?  It makes no sense to call it an attack if it's something you believe everyone is free to use.  The miners have to create the fork in order for users to have that freedom.

Right  sounds like an unjustifiable experimentation to me... of some small group supposedly "creating an option" which is really sloppy, ill-thought-out and irresponsibly reckless.

You are welcome to that opinion.  But given the choice between "attackers" creating "sloppy, ill-thought-out and irresponsibly reckless" forks, or having someone in charge to prevent people from doing that, which are you going to pick?  There are always worse options.  Be careful what you wish for.

 
You are making shit up.  I did not say that I was wishing for someone to stop the fucking forkers... I was just denigrating the forkers and saying that they are not justified... so fucking what?  These are not the same things, so stop conflating the significants of what some random person (me) says in a thread as having some kind of prohibition weight when it does not... it merely has a denigration and criticism weight.

By the way, I just noticed that even your labels are misleading...

Yeah, there is a 2x fork, and the other one is called "bitcoin"   Have you heard of bitcoin?  There is only one bitcoin, and your attempt to give bitcoin some other label, is mischaracterizing bitcoin since all of these other imitators are attacks on bitcoin (they are not equivalents to bitcoin even though they suck off of the bitcoin titty to get benefits).

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.

Okay, cool.  I didn't think that was so much to ask.  The "so what?" part is it's not an act of force like you claim.  I thought I made that pretty clear.

Again.  you seem to be acting like this is some kind of beneficial free market experiment that is all fair in love and war... blah blah blah.

If by "acting like" you mean "accepting the reality" because this is how it is and can't work any other way while still being permissionless, then sure.  Not only can you not prevent it, you shouldn't even want to prevent it, because being able to prevent it means something is broken and someone is in a clear position of control.  I mean, fuck, people in 2010 had a firmer grasp of this shit than you do.  Then again, the forum was primarily comprised of free-thinking people with technical backgrounds then, so it's not surprising.  These days the forum is just full of closed-minded Luddites who want to destroy anything that isn't what they already know.

Another tangent from you. Great.
  

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.

I also think Bitcoin is great.  I just happen to also think it's resilient enough not to be killed by a true test of its consensus mechanism.  And what "tactic"?  They did try to change it from within, but that was unsuccessful.  And fair enough.  So it was naturally time for some developers to start doing their own thing.  There is no other way to create what they want to create without a hardfork.  It's the only option left open to them.  

That's crazy  if you really believe that there are no other options... fucking crazy.

Okay, let's see:  

Step 1 - submit pull request for larger base blocksize - rejected
Step 2 - ...

Help me out here?  What's the next option?  

Fix the pull request and submit it again.  provide facts and/or arguments that would get more support for the unneccesary position, and maybe some time down the road, your position will be adopted when it becomes justified by facts and/or logic.
  

Bow down and accept not having it?  And "options"?  Plural?  This should be good.  Let's see the list, then.  Name all the ways you can add a larger base blocksize to Bitcoin without you throwing your toys out of the pram.  Go.

I have no reason to go through some silly exercise like this to make some list of your imagination.  NOT necessary..
  

Again, they can't remain on the current chain if their ideas are incompatible with yours.  

Don't be fucking ridiculous.  There can be all kinds of differences of opinion and still remain on the same chain.  The nutjobs are just creating excuses to be incompatible and now that a "successful" hardfork has been carried out, feel like the tactic de jure is to hardfork over every minor thing while describing every minor thing as a irreconcilable and material difference.

So the blocksize debate that has been raging for years is now a "minor thing" in your eyes?

Yes.. raging by a bunch of attackers making up shit... There mere facts that they yell and scream about it and more time has passed with such repeated yelling and screaming does not cause such lame ass arguments and lacking of facts situation to become justified merely with the passage of time.  
  

 Interesting framing of the issue to say the least.  Plus, plenty of smallblockers have been telling them to fork off, so they can't really complain when it actually happens.

Put the blame of renegade attacks on small blockers..   o.k..  That makes a lot of sense..
  

 How, exactly, do you propose we all get along when we can't agree?  

Everybody does not need to agree.  The ways of the world remains that people do not necessarily agree on things and there are a variety of ways to still get along without making every little thing a supposed "deal breaker"  In other words there are moderate positions regarding lots of topics.
  

Would the answer sound something like your desired outcome and nothing at all like the desired outcome of those you disagree with?  As far as I can see, you're not offering any ground here.  What compromises are you willing to make in order for us to all move forward together as one?  

There is no need to compromise on the small blocker arguments, at this time, under these facts and logic, merely because people are making unjustified whining and attacking...  At least does not seem so to me, but I am just one voice on a Bitcointalk thread... so why does it matter what I think?
  

Because if you aren't willing to concede any ground and they aren't willing to concede any ground, that sounds like a deadlock to me.

could be.
  

Sure, there can be all kinds of verbal disagreements, but we can all stay on the same chain as long as everyone bows down and does what they're told.  Because that's how Bitcoin is supposed to work...  

No one is saying bow down, but sometimes, certain things are not justified to make into a deal breaker.
  

Does that about sum it up?

How could it sum it up, when you are not really saying anything that engages with my points... and seems we are not really making any progress anyhow, here.
  

It's cause and effect, not part of some sort of sordid battleplan.

And for the record, my preferred solution doesn't actually involve "big" blocks.

Well, I actually understand that there is some need to go with context and whatever is the practice of the day, and these days the upcoming trend is to attempt to get airdrops through hardforks.  So, yeah, it is likely that we will see a variety of alts created or attempted through such new and "acceptable" methodologies.  Does not mean that I need to praise such new methodologies... so we are going to have DooBitcoin^tmMAD coming out soon, too?

Not unless someone codes it for me.    

Great.  One less shitcoin, then.

[DooMAD]

My point was that the people you've taken exception to are not "outside" the system, except possibly by your own unique definition.  

 
That seems to be a product of your own construction, to assert that I am defining attackers as "outsiders."  Merely that I denigrate the motives of attackers does not mean the same thing as defining them as outsiders, as you seem to be ascribing to me for some seemingly self-serving and perhaps simplification of my arguments reasons.

Then you've either got a short memory or a screw loose:

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

This is you calling them outsiders.  You draw a clear line of distinction between people who work within "the system" (or at least what your warped definition of "the system" is, but I'll come to that later) and those who develop their own clients or declare hashrate for alternative client forks.  

These people are very much involved in the Bitcoin space.  You merely choose to define anyone who doesn't agree with a certain dev team as an "outsider" and you're trying to make others do the same by attempting to control the narrative.

Again, you are mischaracterizing and also seem to be ascribing me more power than I have... thanks for that... NOT.  

Nope, we clearly saw you say that.  Here it is again:

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.

Anyone who doesn't play nice with your preferred gatekeepers are outsiders and attackers.  This is clearly how you see it.  Why deny it when it's what you really think?  You can't say it on two separate occasions and then deny saying it.  

Well if you are going to work outside of the system and attack the system, then you can do whatever the fuck you want

Whoops, make that three separate occasions.  But sure, this is all just "a product of my own construction".   

My stance is that "justify" doesn't even come into it.  It's not a thing.  I do find it interesting that you used the word "justify" (or a variation of it) no less than 4 times in that paragraph, though.  You seem to feel strongly that there should be a reason or some sort of rationalisation for every single act in Bitcoin, but in my mind, that's actually incompatible with the more important aspect of permissionless.  What happens when something isn't justified?  

Again, you seem to be overstating the case..
  

Who decides when that's the case?  What are the consequences?  Who enforces that?  It all starts to sound a bit permissioned when the topic of justification crops up.  

Yes, you are attributing too much power to my making comments in a bitcoin thread.  
  

If Bitcoin insisted on justification, there would have to be someone in charge to approve things.  That would be a weakness in my view.

 
Yeah, make up shit and then argue the counter-case until you are blue, it does not matter.

What's this clusterfuck of selective quoting?  And I'm not "making shit up", I'm pointing out the sheer, abject futility of you asking for justification in a permissionless system.  Maybe if you stopped deconstructing every paragraph and taking every single sentence out of context that might have made sense to you (but everyone watch as you do it again in your next post).  The only "justification" anything needs is the market itself.  If there is a gap in the market, someone will naturally step in to fill that gap.  Hence multiple competing clients.  They don't all have to meet your lofty standards or have one particular dev team's approval to "justify" their existence.

I also think Bitcoin is great.  I just happen to also think it's resilient enough not to be killed by a true test of its consensus mechanism.  And what "tactic"?  They did try to change it from within, but that was unsuccessful.  And fair enough.  So it was naturally time for some developers to start doing their own thing.  There is no other way to create what they want to create without a hardfork.  It's the only option left open to them.  

That's crazy  if you really believe that there are no other options... fucking crazy.

Okay, let's see:  

Step 1 - submit pull request for larger base blocksize - rejected
Step 2 - ...

Help me out here?  What's the next option?  

Fix the pull request and submit it again.  provide facts and/or arguments that would get more support for the unneccesary position, and maybe some time down the road, your position will be adopted when it becomes justified by facts and/or logic.

Exactly.  Keep asking for permission in a permissionless system.  Get approval from that centralised GitHub in a decentralised system.  It's only consensus when that one particular dev team say it is, right?  Don't you get it?  Your warped definition of the Bitcoin "system" has a controlling central power that makes all the decisions.  Everyone who doesn't agree with those decisions is apparently an "outsider".  That's not how this is supposed to work.  Fuck your "challenges from within and from without" idiocy.  They are within the system.  You just don't understand the system.  It's open source.  There are no attackers and no outsiders.  Only contributors.  Not everyone has to contribute to the same GitHub, though.  It's one big open free-for-all.  Anyone can do anything.  Either accept it, or fork off and close your source.
  

[JayJuanGee]

My point was that the people you've taken exception to are not "outside" the system, except possibly by your own unique definition.  

 
That seems to be a product of your own construction, to assert that I am defining attackers as "outsiders."  Merely that I denigrate the motives of attackers does not mean the same thing as defining them as outsiders, as you seem to be ascribing to me for some seemingly self-serving and perhaps simplification of my arguments reasons.

Then you've either got a short memory or a screw loose:

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

This is you calling them outsiders.  You draw a clear line of distinction between people who work within "the system" (or at least what your warped definition of "the system" is, but I'll come to that later) and those who develop their own clients or declare hashrate for alternative client forks.

Hahahahaha   Thanks for the reference DooMAD... Now I see from where you get some of your MADness.

Merely because I am suggesting that people should attempt change from within the system, you then translate that into me calling them outsiders?    You are fucking nutso.    

If you think about it, I am criticizing their action and not making any kind of claim about their existential status. You seem to be attempting to extract way too much technicalities from my words, which gives me the sense that you are being less than genuine in your attempts to interact with me on this topic.  If you fucking blow up every comment that I make into some kind of self-selected reading, then how the fuck are we going to get anywhere in our discussion of this topic, when all you seem to want to do is spin.

These people are very much involved in the Bitcoin space.  You merely choose to define anyone who doesn't agree with a certain dev team as an "outsider" and you're trying to make others do the same by attempting to control the narrative.

Again, you are mischaracterizing and also seem to be ascribing me more power than I have... thanks for that... NOT.  

Nope, we clearly saw you say that.  Here it is again:

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.

Anyone who doesn't play nice with your preferred gatekeepers are outsiders and attackers.  

Again.. I am talking about actions not persons... so get a fucking grip and stop trying to distract and to make more out of the situation than it is.

This is clearly how you see it.  Why deny it when it's what you really think?  You can't say it on two separate occasions and then deny saying it.  

I am not going to deny saying anything that you quote me as saying..... but seems quite apparent that you want to read it within your own fantasy context... in order to attempt to make this some kind of argument about characters rather than actual substance and possible meaningful discussions.

Well if you are going to work outside of the system and attack the system, then you can do whatever the fuck you want

Whoops, make that three separate occasions.  But sure, this is all just "a product of my own construction".   

Seems that you want to construct more meaning into something than it deserves in order to lose sight of the forest for the trees.

My stance is that "justify" doesn't even come into it.  It's not a thing.  I do find it interesting that you used the word "justify" (or a variation of it) no less than 4 times in that paragraph, though.  You seem to feel strongly that there should be a reason or some sort of rationalisation for every single act in Bitcoin, but in my mind, that's actually incompatible with the more important aspect of permissionless.  What happens when something isn't justified?  

Again, you seem to be overstating the case..
  

Who decides when that's the case?  What are the consequences?  Who enforces that?  It all starts to sound a bit permissioned when the topic of justification crops up.  

Yes, you are attributing too much power to my making comments in a bitcoin thread.  
  

If Bitcoin insisted on justification, there would have to be someone in charge to approve things.  That would be a weakness in my view.

 
Yeah, make up shit and then argue the counter-case until you are blue, it does not matter.

What's this clusterfuck of selective quoting?  And I'm not "making shit up", I'm pointing out the sheer, abject futility of you asking for justification in a permissionless system.  

Yeah.. you also seem to be distracted in attempts to personalize matters that do not need to be personalized and to get into a broad array of irrelevance.    Go figure.

Maybe if you stopped deconstructing every paragraph and taking every single sentence out of context that might have made sense to you (but everyone watch as you do it again in your next post).  

I am just responding within your comments, so anyone who wants to go back and read your full comment can do so.  i am not changing the substance of what you said... just responding point by point... to the extent that you might possibly say something relevant somewhere along the way...      

By the way, there does not really seem to be any reason for us to continue this discussion because we are either just repeating ourselves and not really talking about anything useful any more.  Correct?

In other words, we can agree to disagree and move on, no?

I made my "good" points, and you made your "lame" points.    and we don't agree.... so fine.. let's move on.

The only "justification" anything needs is the market itself.  If there is a gap in the market, someone will naturally step in to fill that gap.  Hence multiple competing clients.  They don't all have to meet your lofty standards or have one particular dev team's approval to "justify" their existence.

Again, what power do I have regarding my supposed "lofty standards" besides stating my opinion in a bitcoin thread?

I also think Bitcoin is great.  I just happen to also think it's resilient enough not to be killed by a true test of its consensus mechanism.  And what "tactic"?  They did try to change it from within, but that was unsuccessful.  And fair enough.  So it was naturally time for some developers to start doing their own thing.  There is no other way to create what they want to create without a hardfork.  It's the only option left open to them.  

That's crazy  if you really believe that there are no other options... fucking crazy.

Okay, let's see:  

Step 1 - submit pull request for larger base blocksize - rejected
Step 2 - ...

Help me out here?  What's the next option?  

Fix the pull request and submit it again.  provide facts and/or arguments that would get more support for the unneccesary position, and maybe some time down the road, your position will be adopted when it becomes justified by facts and/or logic.

Exactly.  Keep asking for permission in a permissionless system.  

Could be that we are misunderstanding some parts.  The system might be permissionless, but governance has some permissioned aspects, but that does not screw up the whole system.  

Anyhow, we seem to be talking past each other in terms of what we consider acceptable processes and procedures for proposing change within the system and the importance of such processes and procedures.

Get approval from that centralised GitHub in a decentralised system.  

I think that there is a process and procedure and there are comments and folks in that system decide.. here are not one decider or even a small group of deciders, although some folks do have more credibility and weight within that participatory system (process)

It's only consensus when that one particular dev team say it is, right?  Don't you get it?

You are coming off as some kind of patronizing goofball who supposedly sees the light better than anyone else.  My understanding is that the bitcoin core hub is open to anyone to participate and to propose ideas, but of course, you could end up burning your bridges if you come in there attacking, acting like an asshole and threatening to burn the place down. If you do that, then others are not going to want to listen to your stupid-ass, non-factual, lacking in logic and emotional rants, right?

 Your warped definition of the Bitcoin "system" has a controlling central power that makes all the decisions.

I don't claim to know everything about bitcoin or the bitcoin system ?  I am just trying to suggest that from my understanding there is a process in place.  Apparently you know more about the whole process and why the whole process is supposedly broken in your own warped view attack of it..and your rationalization that all is fair in love and war... so let's blow the place up.

YOU are the reason that we cannot have nice things.        

Everyone who doesn't agree with those decisions is apparently an "outsider".  That's not how this is supposed to work.  

Again.. you are emphasizing points of your own wrong-headed extrapolation.

Fuck your "challenges from within and from without" idiocy.  They are within the system.  

Yeah, for you, nothing matters, and logic does not matter, and everything is fair.  Good luck in your conceptual living like that.

You just don't understand the system.  It's open source.  

Yeah, let's mix and conflate all ideas together in order to make everything open source and chaos.. that makes sense.  

There are no attackers and no outsiders. Only contributors.  

Not everyone has to contribute to the same GitHub, though.  It's one big open free-for-all.  Anyone can do anything.  Either accept it, or fork off and close your source.

Yeah.. let's throw out all definitions of anything and do whatever the fuck we want and don't prejudge anything.  Everyone is a winner!!!!!!   You are surely a free range thinker and not going to get caught in any boxes, right?  LET'S do stream of consciousness on everything!!!!!

By the way, you understand that at some point, we have to embrace some systems and get beyond the stream of consciousness bullshit?

[Gimpeline]

Could you two please get back to the topic. Its not a single question about segwit in any of your posts.
Start your own thread

[Spendulus]

Could you two please get back to the topic. Its not a single question about segwit in any of your posts.
Start your own thread

I tried and failed to make any sense of this discussion. Way way too long and convoluted posts.

[achow101]

This thread has been derailed for quite a while now so I will be locking it.