JayJuanGee
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4158
Merit: 12594
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to "non-custodial"
|
 |
January 02, 2016, 12:36:27 AM |
|
I do not feel like I have much of a stake in either direction, but it is possible that I am siding a bit with the concept that there is some legitimacy to maintaining the status quo, and accordingly the burden is on those who want to change it to convince the rest to change and how to change, etc etc....
The status-quo so far is that (other than on certain occasions) there has been plenty of space for all transactions that needed to get into a block without needing excessive fees. Full blocks is something that the bitcoin ecosystem is not familiar with and will be a big change in operational status. Heady times for a simple gentleman. Yes. We are going to have to see how a lot of this evolves, and there is certain utility to specialization; however, in forums like these, we can often times gain exposure and learn a bit more about various specialties that people have and varying ways that people from varying backgrounds consider "problems"
|
|
|
|
BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1116
|
 |
January 02, 2016, 12:39:38 AM |
|
I do not feel like I have much of a stake in either direction, but it is possible that I am siding a bit with the concept that there is some legitimacy to maintaining the status quo, and accordingly the burden is on those who want to change it to convince the rest to change and how to change, etc etc....
The status-quo so far is that (other than on certain occasions) there has been plenty of space for all transactions that needed to get into a block without needing excessive fees. Full blocks is something that the bitcoin ecosystem is not familiar with and will be a big change in operational status. Heady times for a simple gentleman. Yes. We are going to have to see how a lot of this evolves, and there is certain utility to specialization; however, in forums like these, we can often times gain exposure and learn a bit more about various specialties that people have and varying ways that people from varying backgrounds consider "problems" Lol. You said it brother. 
|
|
|
|
ChartBuddy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2618
Merit: 2292
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
|
 |
January 02, 2016, 01:02:45 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
AlexGR
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1049
|
 |
January 02, 2016, 01:31:20 AM |
|
In that regard, there is no problem having varying opinions about the direction forward, but when several large block proponents argue like spoiled children regarding having to do x "right now," or everything is going to go to hell in a handbasket, it comes off as short-sighted at best and disingenuous at worse, because bitcoin is not broken at the moment, even though plans and measures do need to take place in order to scale and prepare for the future seemingly inevitable increases in transaction volume.
Meh, the big-blockers are mostly putting forward arguments and trying to actually do something about things. Changing a variable from 1MB to 2MB or 20MB is not "work" per se. It's a few bytes of code change. Trying to fit more data into the same 1MB is work. Trying to offload txs until they self-cancel, so that the network can scale better is work. Just upping a number is lame. If the xt team actually wanted to make bitcoin scale better they should more actively develop solutions that allow this to happen by increasing transactions fitted per mb and it would probably be hailed by everyone (if it's safe and doesn't break everything). Raising the variable, I mean that's stuff that an automated shitcoin generator could be programmed to do on its own. How can that even classify as some kind of serious work. "Please tell us the name of the shitcoin you are going to make" "Please choose a hashing algorithm" "Please choose block times" "Please choose max number of coins" "Please choose initial coins per block" "Please choose how often subsidy will be cut by 50%" "Please choose block size limit" Voila.
|
|
|
|
notme
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1002
|
 |
January 02, 2016, 01:41:35 AM |
|
In that regard, there is no problem having varying opinions about the direction forward, but when several large block proponents argue like spoiled children regarding having to do x "right now," or everything is going to go to hell in a handbasket, it comes off as short-sighted at best and disingenuous at worse, because bitcoin is not broken at the moment, even though plans and measures do need to take place in order to scale and prepare for the future seemingly inevitable increases in transaction volume.
Meh, the big-blockers are mostly putting forward arguments and trying to actually do something about things. Changing a variable from 1MB to 2MB or 20MB is not "work" per se. It's a few bytes of code change. Trying to fit more data into the same 1MB is work. Trying to offload txs until they self-cancel, so that the network can scale better is work. Just upping a number is lame. If the xt team actually wanted to make bitcoin scale better they should more actively develop solutions that allow this to happen by increasing transactions fitted per mb and it would probably be hailed by everyone (if it's safe and doesn't break everything). Raising the variable, I mean that's stuff that an automated shitcoin generator could be programmed to do on its own. How can that even classify as some kind of serious work. "Please tell us the name of the shitcoin you are going to make" "Please choose a hashing algorithm" "Please choose block times" "Please choose max number of coins" "Please choose initial coins per block" "Please choose how often subsidy will be cut by 50%" "Please choose block size limit" Voila. Lightening as a network doesn't work without keeping private keys online. That has always worked out so well.
|
|
|
|
jbreher
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3080
Merit: 1689
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
|
 |
January 02, 2016, 01:51:21 AM |
|
Can someone explain to me how different implementations can/are supposed to co-exist?
Why would they not? The protocol is what is important. If one abides by the protocol, your counterparty cannot tell whether or not you are running the same implementation that they are. Seems to work for TCP/IP stacks.
|
|
|
|
jbreher
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3080
Merit: 1689
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
|
 |
January 02, 2016, 01:54:51 AM |
|
Changing a variable from 1MB to 2MB or 20MB is not "work" per se. It's a few bytes of code change. How can that even classify as some kind of serious work.
The value is not in the "work" per se. The value is in the result.
|
|
|
|
ChartBuddy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2618
Merit: 2292
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
|
 |
January 02, 2016, 02:02:12 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
Cconvert2G36
|
 |
January 02, 2016, 02:17:36 AM |
|
In a stunning display of courage, and with an unwavering commitment to the forging of the truth in the crucible of the dialectical method... Our friend, and highly qualified mentor, has graciously offered to continue the debate of these important ideas rather than retreat like a coward to the wizard's irc clubhouse. Like those who have not #ragequit under adversity before... may his example continue to inspire us in our efforts to fully realize the potential of this bottom-up, community driven effort towards changing the world through a fully decentralized, dialup and raspberryPi compatible, layer 1 settlement network. This, gentlemen is the curtain call. After much consideration I've decided to turn the page on this thread in light of the most recent developments but also so that it stops paying lip service to the lying fraudster above and his cohort of deception artists. (Remind me not to ever create another thread without making it self-moderated) It is clear that we now have a path forward out of this arguable gridlock thanks to the hard work of knowledgeable but most importantly resilient people. ( https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases) Although it was never a consideration that a merry bunch of loud mouths with no authority could hijack the project and hardfork Bitcoin into inexistence the schism was of a great service to everyone involved with Bitcoin in that it help identify the malicious actors and to some extent purge them from the ecosystem. The leaders of this governance coup are now nowhere to be seen, Mike Hearn having revealed themselves as the villain he always was is now gone working full time for the bankers he had probably always been in cahoots with. Gavin Andresen has taken residency over at a forum populated by notorious scammer cypherdoc and dangerous, sociopath, charlatan Peter R. After previously advocating for what was deemed a "safe" immediate increase to 20MB, he is now figuratively begging on his knees for 2MB "compromise" only for the sake of forcing a contentious hard fork on Bitcoin in order to undermine the trust of investors in what projects to be the most important year for Bitcoin yet. As for the groups of shills they've spawned their "community" is in shambles largely because of the self-admitted fractious tendencies. In what proved to be its strongest menace to date it is now safe to say Bitcoin has once again demonstrated its value and the strength of its antifragile nature. Seeing as I can't bother responding anymore to the endless barrage of lies and deception spewed here by the shills (and I certainly understand why others have already given up) it would be a disservice to more naive & gullible individuals to leave the thread open and provide a stage for these scammers. Nonetheless it was a good ride and proved to be a most informative experience. I'd like to thank all of the honest contributors who've helped separate the wheat from the chaff (you know who you are). A special mention for iCEBREAKER for being the originator of the #REKT movement. It was an honor to carry the torch. To the rest of you contemptible, lying ph0rkers understand that by the grace of the internet your performances and subsequent downfall will forever be preserved for posterity and serve as a tell-tale of the consequences of going against Bitcoin. May your souls rest in peace. Long live Bitcoin!
|
|
|
|
Arcteryx
|
 |
January 02, 2016, 02:34:51 AM |
|
Changing a variable from 1MB to 2MB or 20MB is not "work" per se. It's a few bytes of code change. How can that even classify as some kind of serious work.
The value is not in the "work" per se. The value is in the result. Words of wisdom that I have heard all year, congrats on that  Value is measured by the work put in as I like to point out. But that is not what we are striving here at this time. It is uncertain where it will go as of now.
|
|
|
|
Fatman3001
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1554
Merit: 1014
Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC
|
 |
January 02, 2016, 02:42:53 AM |
|
In a stunning display of courage, and with an unwavering commitment to the forging of the truth in the crucible of the dialectical method... Our friend, and highly qualified mentor, has graciously offered to continue the debate of these important ideas rather than retreat like a coward to the wizard's irc clubhouse. Like those who have not #ragequit under adversity before... may his example continue to inspire us in our efforts to fully realize the potential of this bottom-up, community driven effort towards changing the world through a fully decentralized, dialup and raspberryPi compatible, layer 1 settlement network. This, gentlemen is the curtain call. After much consideration I've decided to turn the page on this thread in light of the most recent developments but also so that it stops paying lip service to the lying fraudster above and his cohort of deception artists. (Remind me not to ever create another thread without making it self-moderated) It is clear that we now have a path forward out of this arguable gridlock thanks to the hard work of knowledgeable but most importantly resilient people. ( https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases) Although it was never a consideration that a merry bunch of loud mouths with no authority could hijack the project and hardfork Bitcoin into inexistence the schism was of a great service to everyone involved with Bitcoin in that it help identify the malicious actors and to some extent purge them from the ecosystem. The leaders of this governance coup are now nowhere to be seen, Mike Hearn having revealed themselves as the villain he always was is now gone working full time for the bankers he had probably always been in cahoots with. Gavin Andresen has taken residency over at a forum populated by notorious scammer cypherdoc and dangerous, sociopath, charlatan Peter R. After previously advocating for what was deemed a "safe" immediate increase to 20MB, he is now figuratively begging on his knees for 2MB "compromise" only for the sake of forcing a contentious hard fork on Bitcoin in order to undermine the trust of investors in what projects to be the most important year for Bitcoin yet. As for the groups of shills they've spawned their "community" is in shambles largely because of the self-admitted fractious tendencies. In what proved to be its strongest menace to date it is now safe to say Bitcoin has once again demonstrated its value and the strength of its antifragile nature. Seeing as I can't bother responding anymore to the endless barrage of lies and deception spewed here by the shills (and I certainly understand why others have already given up) it would be a disservice to more naive & gullible individuals to leave the thread open and provide a stage for these scammers. Nonetheless it was a good ride and proved to be a most informative experience. I'd like to thank all of the honest contributors who've helped separate the wheat from the chaff (you know who you are). A special mention for iCEBREAKER for being the originator of the #REKT movement. It was an honor to carry the torch. To the rest of you contemptible, lying ph0rkers understand that by the grace of the internet your performances and subsequent downfall will forever be preserved for posterity and serve as a tell-tale of the consequences of going against Bitcoin. May your souls rest in peace. Long live Bitcoin! 
|
|
|
|
ChartBuddy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2618
Merit: 2292
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
|
 |
January 02, 2016, 03:02:11 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
sAt0sHiFanClub
|
 |
January 02, 2016, 03:17:46 AM Last edit: January 02, 2016, 03:34:28 AM by sAt0sHiFanClub |
|
In a stunning display of courage, and with an unwavering commitment to the forging of the truth in the crucible of the dialectical method... Our friend, and highly qualified mentor, has graciously offered to continue the debate of these important ideas rather than retreat like a coward to the wizard's irc clubhouse. Like those who have not #ragequit under adversity before... may his example continue to inspire us in our efforts to fully realize the potential of this bottom-up, community driven effort towards changing the world through a fully decentralized, dialup and raspberryPi compatible, layer 1 settlement network. This, gentlemen is the curtain call.
Waaah! Waaah! Waaah! Waaah! Waaah! Waaah!
Long live Bitcoin!
That was quite a moment. I'm guessing that New Year alcohol consumption was responsible for the odd behaviour of brg444 over the last 24h. edit: And the parody renamed thread here was censored almost immediately and moved off to the altcoin section.
|
|
|
|
gentlemand
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2604
Merit: 3089
Welt Am Draht
|
 |
January 02, 2016, 03:47:27 AM |
|
Well, I for one will sleep an awful lot better knowing such luminaries are watching over me tonight. My cockles are so warm they melted my undergarments and fell through onto the floor.
|
|
|
|
ChartBuddy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2618
Merit: 2292
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
|
 |
January 02, 2016, 04:02:12 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
ChartBuddy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2618
Merit: 2292
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
|
 |
January 02, 2016, 05:02:21 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
Richy_T
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2842
Merit: 2530
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
|
 |
January 02, 2016, 05:38:49 AM |
|
Trying to fit more data into the same 1MB is work. Trying to offload txs until they self-cancel, so that the network can scale better is work. Just upping a number is lame.
TIL Rube Goldberg has descendants. Why do something the easy way when you can complicate things and introduce risks of failure? That it *is* lame and it *is* trivial is what makes it so exasperating that the opposition to it works so hard against it. It can be phased in, like: if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
|
|
|
|
Richy_T
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2842
Merit: 2530
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
|
 |
January 02, 2016, 05:44:35 AM |
|
In a stunning display of courage, and with an unwavering commitment to the forging of the truth in the crucible of the dialectical method... Our friend, and highly qualified mentor, has graciously offered to continue the debate of these important ideas rather than retreat like a coward to the wizard's irc clubhouse.
Like those who have not #ragequit under adversity before... may his example continue to inspire us in our efforts to fully realize the potential of this bottom-up, community driven effort towards changing the world through a fully decentralized, dialup and raspberryPi compatible, layer 1 settlement network.
Not fair! I'm still recovering from new years and now I have to open a bottle of Champagne this soon?
|
|
|
|
ChartBuddy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2618
Merit: 2292
1CBuddyxy4FerT3hzMmi1Jz48ESzRw1ZzZ
|
 |
January 02, 2016, 06:02:20 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
AlexGR
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1049
|
 |
January 02, 2016, 06:06:23 AM |
|
Changing a variable from 1MB to 2MB or 20MB is not "work" per se. It's a few bytes of code change. How can that even classify as some kind of serious work.
The value is not in the "work" per se. The value is in the result. The result is that Bitcoin still does the same txs per kb as before. There is no actual improvement in scaling, more like a tradeoff where decentralization and network vulnerability to bloat attacks are tuned to "worse" so that more low-to-zero fee txs can go through. Additionally, the underlying issues that prompted the 1MB limit have not been solved. You have a vulnerability => you issue a patch to defend against the attack vector => without resolving the issue you go ahead and bypass / remove the defense mechanism. And you do that, while blocks aren't even full and by claiming that the sky is falling and that Bitcoin must ...fork in a kind-of-power grab situation. This is lame (in terms of programming) and beyond absurd in terms of the ecosystem and broader dynamics. I'd like to see some work on how to solve the attack vectors, how to make blockchain use more efficient, how to make the network propagate information faster - stuff like that which represent actual advances.
|
|
|
|
|