The Lunacy of BTU Supporters

[jonald_fyookball]

I debated many people a few years ago about PoS and NaS.  

NaS never been solved, sorry.  In practical terms might be hard to execute but theoretically a risk.

You never Debated me,  there is nothing to solve.
Here are my responses again,
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1709776.msg17135430#msg17135430
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1709776.msg17136990#msg17136990

In theory a black hole might appear in your living room, I doubt that keeps you from using your living room.  


 

well if you want to turn this into a NaS thread, i'll play along until I get bored.

here's a snippet of your argument:

Which means by trying to stake on both blocks at the Same Time, all he did was Negate his Staking Power by adding to Both

This is like saying having 2 raffle tickets negates each other since you can only win once.  (You still have twice as many
chances to win as the guy with one raffle ticket.)

IOW, when you attempt to stake on multiple forks, you're not negating your own staking power, you're simply giving yourself
more opportunities to be on the winning chain.   

[FiendCoin]

Also interesting that you are all so stupid that you don't realize that segwit & LN gives Blockstream complete control of BTC
by allowing them the Power to LOCK every single BTC in place onchain where no onchain transactions could take place for those coins and deny the transactions fee to the miners, ergo forcing them out of business. (Which is a stated Goal of keeping all transactions offline, if you read the LN Whitepaper.)

I'll be honest, I have no clue WTF you're talking about? Lock coins on the main chain so miners can't mine? Can you provide some proof? This sounds ridiculous.

Edit: BTW I'm against BTU for the stated reasons I have made, I don't care about the technicals, I care about the centralization in China. I am neutral towards Segwit, leaning towards being against it too and Core if they can't get their shit together. Honestly, I am against any small group getting control of Bitcoin and centralization anywhere.

Read the LN WhitePaper, You have to be able to understand it or you will be forever lost in this discussion.

Here is a link to a short reference on it.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1831643.msg18260156#msg18260156

I'm not reading through all that shit, if you can't quote the relevant parts here don't bring it up. Please provide proof to your arguments, go look it up is a bullshit answer.

[kiklo]

well if you want to turn this into a NaS thread, i'll play along until I get bored.

here's a snippet of your argument:

Which means by trying to stake on both blocks at the Same Time, all he did was Negate his Staking Power by adding to Both

This is like saying having 2 raffle tickets negates each other since you can only win once.  (You still have twice as many
chances to win as the guy with one raffle ticket.)

IOW, when you attempt to stake on multiple forks, you're not negating your own staking power, you're simply giving yourself
more opportunities to be on the winning chain.   

See that is the other issue why only 2 forks, every fork gives additions forks.
Each fork would hold the opportunity for another fork.
Like so
Fork
2
4
8
16
32
64
128
256
512
1024
2048
4096
8192
16384
32768

That is only 15 blocks, and you guys think that won't draw more resources.  

Fact of the matter it is alot easier to just place all of my coins in 1 block and stake the one block , it proof of hash will stop any coins from overwriting it.
proofhash< coinage * target

 

[kiklo]

I'm not reading through all that shit, if you can't quote the relevant parts here don't bring it up. Please provide proof to your arguments, go look it up is a bullshit answer.

Dumbass that link was the short version, go play with your Legos.
Sorry you have proven yourself too stupid too comprehend.   


 

[Variogam]

This is a direct attack into bitcoin. Bitcoin chinese mining centralization was always a problem, we should have never allowed ASICs to happen. The only solution I see now is to change the PoW algo into something else that invalidates Jihan's ridiculous monopoly, but then again, who is to say new ASIC-like technologies will not arise causing the monopoly all over again?

Stop spreading misinformation about Chinese mining centralization. Mining is spread over the whole world, estimated 100.000 small miners included. If you look at Antpool pool servers, half of the hashrate going from China, the other half from USA. If you mean centralization of ASIC production, then we should replace all computers as well because all computer component production is centralized as well. The only attack on Bitcoin is the one comming from the ones who argue to change Bitcoin PoW.

[MissGrey]

If we think better about the consequences of BTU, we would realize the best is not to activate it, here is an article about possible consequences called A fork in the road, by Vinny Lingham

https://vinnylingham.com/a-fork-in-the-road-70288fd3c046#.e5beuqhoc

[MegaDice]

So this BTU thing causes the bitcoin price to decrease.
I`ve never been vary familiar with all this block size,scaling,LN,blocktream shit,but it`s obvious that some people want to profit from destroying bitcoin and replacing it with some fake altcoin pretending to be btc.

Satoshi had no block limit in the initial version and was later talking about increasing block limit gradually on this very forum. Bitcoin allowing bigger blocks isn't exactly "a new altcoin".

[kiklo]

If we think better about the consequences of BTU, we would realize the best is not to activate it, here is an article about possible consequences called A fork in the road, by Vinny Lingham

Man , are you serious?

1. He is Segwit's Bitch because he is frighten of a hard fork

Put on your Big Boy Pants, and get ready for BTU.

I’m not going to go into the technical details around this debate for this post

let’s please just adopt Segwit.

Segwit supporters have resorted to Begging, Sad , Pathetic and Lame.

Maybe if he squeezes out a tear , because his jammies don't fit.

 

[jonald_fyookball]

well if you want to turn this into a NaS thread, i'll play along until I get bored.

here's a snippet of your argument:

Which means by trying to stake on both blocks at the Same Time, all he did was Negate his Staking Power by adding to Both

This is like saying having 2 raffle tickets negates each other since you can only win once.  (You still have twice as many
chances to win as the guy with one raffle ticket.)

IOW, when you attempt to stake on multiple forks, you're not negating your own staking power, you're simply giving yourself
more opportunities to be on the winning chain.   

See that is the other issue why only 2 forks, every fork gives additions forks.
Each fork would hold the opportunity for another fork.
Like so
Fork
2
4
8
16
32
64
128
256
512
1024
2048
4096
8192
16384
32768

That is only 15 blocks, and you guys think that won't draw more resources.  
 

Right... You can use computational power to do this, but it is exponentially cheaper than mining, totally outcompeting those who play the game honestly.  If taken to extremes, and everyone starts throwing massive computing power to game the system, then your supposed PoS system turns into PoW indirectly, which kind of defeats the point of PoS in the first place.

[FiendCoin]

I'm not reading through all that shit, if you can't quote the relevant parts here don't bring it up. Please provide proof to your arguments, go look it up is a bullshit answer.

Dumbass that link was the short version, go play with your Legos.
Sorry you have proven yourself too stupid too comprehend.   


 

With your low IQ I know you may have a hard time understanding this so I will put this into words your pea brain may be able to comprehend...

Listen up dipshit, back your shit up or get the fuck out.

I'm not doing your work for you. You want to win people over to your side, stop being an asshole and make compelling arguments with evidence not bullshit speculations or whatever it is you're trying to say. Being an asshole and name calling is not going to win you more supporters. However, If that is how you want to proceed I can oblige you numbnuts.

This is a direct attack into bitcoin. Bitcoin chinese mining centralization was always a problem, we should have never allowed ASICs to happen. The only solution I see now is to change the PoW algo into something else that invalidates Jihan's ridiculous monopoly, but then again, who is to say new ASIC-like technologies will not arise causing the monopoly all over again?

Stop spreading misinformation about Chinese mining centralization. Mining is spread over the whole world, estimated 100.000 small miners included. If you look at Antpool pool servers, half of the hashrate going from China, the other half from USA. If you mean centralization of ASIC production, then we should replace all computers as well because all computer component production is centralized as well. The only attack on Bitcoin is the one comming from the ones who argue to change Bitcoin PoW.

Antpool is ran by Jihan Wu who also runs Bitmain, both from China. I don't care if Antpool has a mine set up on the moon, its still centralized in China. Just because some mining equipment may be hosted outside of China does not mean its decentralized, the people still behind it are from China. How the hell can you defend that as decentralized? You fucking shills are something else 

[pbleak]

It's an odd situation.

OK, one can admit that the pools are heavily centralised and the miners have exceptionally sway.

Yet, one must also surely admit it is odd that BU is essentially developed by Stone, a guy with about 100 twitter followers, and most of the discussion on its forum is pretty light.

You'd think with the Chinese money - and other sources... - they could hire 10 real world devs?

[dinofelis]

It's an odd situation.

OK, one can admit that the pools are heavily centralised and the miners have exceptionally sway.

Yet, one must also surely admit it is odd that BU is essentially developed by Stone, a guy with about 100 twitter followers, and most of the discussion on its forum is pretty light.

You'd think with the Chinese money - and other sources... - they could hire 10 real world devs?

No, because they don't need it.  Just any code that counters segwit is good enough.  They will never activate it.
That said, measuring people's capacity to modify a code by the number of Twitter followers is doubtful. 

[pbleak]

It's an odd situation.

OK, one can admit that the pools are heavily centralised and the miners have exceptionally sway.

Yet, one must also surely admit it is odd that BU is essentially developed by Stone, a guy with about 100 twitter followers, and most of the discussion on its forum is pretty light.

You'd think with the Chinese money - and other sources... - they could hire 10 real world devs?

No, because they don't need it.  Just any code that counters segwit is good enough.  They will never activate it.
That said, measuring people's capacity to modify a code by the number of Twitter followers is doubtful. 

Heh on the last point. I suppose what I mean is they could have looked around for someone high end or even outside Bitcoin but with exceptional skill for the job.

[dinofelis]

Heh on the last point. I suppose what I mean is they could have looked around for someone high end or even outside Bitcoin but with exceptional skill for the job.

The code must not work.  Well, it must work like the old core code, and say it is "BU".  That's all that it must do.  There doesn't need to be any really working BU code inside.  Just old core code, that doesn't signal that way.

[andron8383]

***
FYI:
The fact is if someone pissed off the combined 67% of Chinese Mining Pools,
they could 51% attack the BTC chain all day, and that is not theory, but the reality we live in.

All cry BTC is decentralized but is HIGH centralized in mining and any changes have to go truth that centralized miners Chinese government cool.
Allso ASICs bring new era of centralization and monopoly on market.
THey called Asics "security" now those Asics are putting gun on users head.
Lucky users have place to go in alts which are evolving.

If some morons believe that high hash rate makes BTC price are so DUMP or Retarded
BTC price rise because there is USER demand for BTC and price attract new miners.
If price was dictated by miners that will never fall down and why have like 2 years corrections then.
Some miners logic is mind blowing.

[leopard2]

I doubt that Roger Ver is supporting the Chinese government though...

[plexasm]

Eventually Bitcoin will need to change the PoW algo to an ASIC-resistant one. People like Jihan are simply too dangerous to the space once they own the amount of hash power he does.

Miners should get 3-4 years of notice before this happens however.

[mr.mister]

I would highly recommend that if you are against BU, pull out of all the exchanges that support it. Don't give them the business. For example Hashnest, and the Antpool. They are heavy supporters of BU, and have gone as far as to call core supporters crazy. Fuck that Chi*k

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

I know I am not a normal person.

I do support BU. Am I a lunatic?

Well there are several indications that I might be.

I'm a heterosexual male with a masculine name yet I like to be called Alice.

I would rather look for frogs and snakes than mingle with people, often ending up covered in snake musk with mud around my pant legs, and then wonder why the chicks I do try to mingle with avoid me.

I get stuck on a concept, not as in can't understand it, but can't stop thinking about it to save my life.

So yes, I suppose many would classify me as a lunatic.

That doesn't mean I shouldn't have a voice or that my opinion is worthless. Only bigots thinks that way.

[Tesorex]

If BU forks the network there will be no coming back to main chain later, they will lose their grip if stop mining on main chain for more than 10 minutes.