Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell

[traincarswreck]

democracy is about anyone having the power to vote.
bitcoin is about everyone running a node having a say. that includes merchants and pools
it costs nothing to run a node. you are not asked to pay to be a member/voter/VIP

core want dictatorship with the fake pretence of democracy...

turning bitcoin into a quasi dictatorship with a gesture of democracy... but in reality its a meritocracy

dont let core turn bitcoin into a centralised TIER network

bitcoin works better as a diverse decentralised per network

PURE democracy is a terrible solution to governance problems which is why the American electoral college exists.  People that don't understand this were crying that Hilary should have won the election because she technically had more votes.  Pure democracy is inferior to this system which is why it was created by the founding fathers of it.

bitcoin is about nodes but there is also CORE and the proposal process, and the miners, and the exchanges, and the investors, and the users, each of which are incentivized as selfish participants to serve as the checks and balances that secure the system from instability and damaging change-not to choose and change its future fate or parameters.

The whole purpose of the set up is so that a person like Ver and a faction like BU supporters CAN'T usurp the security of the system.  Call it not a meritocracy but a part republic.

To give the steering wheel to nodes and especially the whims of users would be to destroy the system.

[traincarswreck]

he must be a paid troll..

Do they really pay trolls? Or, is that a myth? What is the pay rate and where do we apply? I don't own any bitcoin yet but working as a troll might be a safe way to gain entry.

There are two general reasons people call others trolls.  One is because they person being called a troll refuses to properly participate in the discussion and is only interested in perpetuating debate and conflict and never brings any reasonable argument to the table.  They mostly use semantics to obfuscate and confuse the discussion that is taking place.  They never use words with the accepted definitions and this allows them to argue in circles.

The other time people call someone a troll is when they have no counter argument so they just retort "you are a troll".

he must be a paid troll..

yes. He creates a lot of noise on the threads with nonsense and things completely unrelated with OP subject.
And this should be a good reason to ban him.
Meanwhile we should do like jonald and put him on ignore list.
He cares so much about number of comments, then maybe he is trying to reach 1000.

I don't think its a bannable offense to be participating in discussion especially when the subject is the validity of core's stance and I am explaining it. And ignoring someone just because their view is different is pretty much the definition of ignorance.

If you have something scientific to say, please say so, and please present the foundation for your argument.  I would be happy to read and address it.

[Alex.BTC]

Clear evidence of Blockstream controlling the Core code base to prevent block size increase can be seen here,  someone offered to help increasing the blocksize, but the issue was closed immediately by sipa (Pieter Wuille, Blockstream co-founder):
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10028

You can see Pieter Wuille closed the issue immediately but then try to justify it with the usual corporate double speak by claiming the issue is up to the community and out of his hand.

This is what we call 'lying'.

If we're talking about increasing block size from 4MB to 8MB, there maybe some room for debate.

But nothing can justify not going form 1MB to 2MB, there is a real backlog and the safety limit is above 4MB.

Blockstream is clearly holding the bitcoin code base hostage.

Here is another pull request for block size increase, closed immediately without any comment:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10014

[traincarswreck]

Clear evidence of Blockstream controlling the Core code base to prevent block size increase can be seen here

I'm not sure anyone is arguing against the claim that core or blockstream is trying to prevent, especially, a hard fork increase.  Although they are probably calling for scaling but at a far slower pace than you think is safe and correct.

But nothing can justify not going form 1MB to 2MB, there is a real backlog and the safety limit is above 4MB.

Actually there IS something that can justify NOT doing this.  By changing the transaction capacity in this way you change bitcoin's value proposition and you destroy its digital gold properties (ie an inflation hedge). This would tank the system.  And also by doing so you open up these qualities and parameters to perpetual political debate which everyone agrees would be terrible for the long term health of the system.

More importantly though, you need a founded scientific argument to propose the system in order to change it, and since there isn't one, there is no hope of you getting your way.  The entire security of the system is held together by science and guarded by (computer) scientists.

[xman89]

 
 It's so simple actually, Bitcoin needs bigger blocks, just make bigger blocks. Don't implement it, stall forever, wait, try to use sidechains, you have little time, Bitcoin is still big, whales feed of it. But they would soon starve, no mining support and no user support, Bitcoin becomes leaner and meaner again, with bigger blocks and new developers, Core no more to stop it. Everybody happy, big CoreCoin supporting whales sad  .

[traincarswreck]

 It's so simple actually, Bitcoin needs bigger blocks, just make bigger blocks.

This is definitely the prevailing opinion from the Ver brigade and r/btc (to which this thread has been linked to and upvoted by the faction).  But its not at all founded in an economic theory.  It's just an opinion asserted over and over by vocal proponents of it. This makes it effectively a sybil attack on intelligent and scientifically based dialogue.

[iamnotback]

It's so simple actually, Bitcoin needs bigger blocks, just make bigger blocks.

This is definitely the prevailing opinion from the Ver brigade and r/btc (to which this thread has been linked to and upvoted by the faction).  But its not at all founded in an economic theory.  It's just an opinion asserted over and over by vocal proponents of it. This makes it effectively a sybil attack on intelligent and scientifically based dialogue.

@xman89 it is not so simple. You are not studying the details and the devil is in the details. You are trying to simplify it in your mind and the result is nonsense comes back from your mind.

They won't listen to the reality until it bankrupts them.

You're probably wasting your time trying to educate them.

[Killerpotleaf]

will we ever get bigger blocks with segwit or EC?

this is taking way to long...

[traincarswreck]

They won't listen to the reality until it bankrupts them.

You're probably wasting your time trying to educate them.

It seems quite obvious to me we are (quickly) headed for a situation of equilibrium in regard to mutually assured destruction where all parties will simply veto any proposal that radically changes the system and specifically the IMPLIED value proposition.

You and everyone else here seems to have the attitude that such an equilibrium will destroy the system, based on the tacit assumption that bitcoin's value comes from its transactions per second, when the only possible founded argument is that bitcoin's value comes from its gold-like characteristics that are related to the reason we value gold so highly.

We don't value gold for its transactability, we have many other systems that are far better for this. It's valuable for a wholly different reason and so is bitcoin.

There is no scientifically based argument that suggests otherwise and if there is then bring it forth.

[iamnotback]

They won't listen to the reality until it bankrupts them.

You're probably wasting your time trying to educate them.

It seems quite obvious to me we are (quickly) headed for a situation of equilibrium in regard to mutually assured destruction where all parties will simply veto any proposal that radically changes the system and specifically the IMPLIED value proposition.

I ask you to click the link I provided and comprehend it.

The whales are superior and they know it.

I suppose the miners could realize they are slaves and behave?

You are correct we can have cooling off and continue with Core if the miners realize they can't win.

I am not partial to one side or the other, I am just speaking about the reality. The whales are superior to the miners. That is a fact. Can't be changed. There is no action that "we the people" can do to change it. Period.

[franky1]

train car wrck.

gold is not valued simply because its valued.

gold is valued because it has UTILITY

lets halt golds utility and make it so its only useful as jewellery.. thats right no electronic component utility because thats outside of its original utility. so lets limit it to just jewellery like it used to be

then go check your value because it has value stupid reasoning

[Oznog]

The entire security of the system is held together by science and guarded by (computer) scientists.

You must change your mind at the speed of lightning.

The developers are scientists, but above all they are human.
Humans are the root of almost every conflict.

Satoshi's master solution was to mitigate it based only on computing power.
This forces a strong investment whose profit depends on the future market price.

[Alex.BTC]

Actually there IS something that can justify NOT doing this.  By changing the transaction capacity in this way you change bitcoin's value proposition and you destroy its digital gold properties (ie an inflation hedge). This would tank the system.  And also by doing so you open up these qualities and parameters to perpetual political debate which everyone agrees would be terrible for the long term health of the system.

More importantly though, you need a founded scientific argument to propose the system in order to change it, and since there isn't one, there is no hope of you getting your way.  The entire security of the system is held together by science and guarded by (computer) scientists.

If you think changing the block size limit from 1MB to 2MB will 'tank the system', you simply don't understand the Bitcoin design at all.

Satoshi designed Bitcoin with no block size limit, he later added a temporary 1MB limit to prevent spam, it was set to 1MB because it was 2010 and the average block size was less than 1k, he clearly stated this 1M limit was temporary and should be removed in the future.

In October 2010, two months before Satoshi vanished he talked about increasing the block size limit, he actually talked about it on this forum:

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.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

Satoshi believed block size should increase after block number 115,000.
We are now 7 years later at block number 459,111.

Nothing can justify keeping block size limit at 1M.

Stop pretending you're smarter than Satoshi, you're not. This reply alone shows me you don't even know the basics of Bitcoin.

You share the same problem with Lauda: Your mouth keep moving but your brain can't catch up. You are forced to make replies but you run out of things to say, so you try too hard and end up going off on a tangent and become white noises.

[iamnotback]

Nothing can justify keeping block size limit at 1M.

You can't do a damn thing about it.

The whales are superior. You don't get a vote.

You can write until you are blue in the face and it won't matter. The economics are the economics. You are wasting your time typing.

No personal offense. I am not partial to either side. I am just telling you the facts.

[Alex.BTC]

Nothing can justify keeping block size limit at 1M.

You can't do a damn thing about it.

The whales are superior. You don't get a vote.

You can write until you are blue in the face and it won't matter. The economics are the economics. You are wasting your time typing.

No personal offense. I am not partial to either side. I am just telling you the facts.

By that logic, you're going to die anyway, so why do you continue to live, today?

[iamnotback]

By that logic, you're going to die anyway, so why do you continue to live, today?

Find a way to win, instead of humping a tree stump full of maggots.

Facts are facts. Study the technical facts. I provided a link.

The decision is yours. I've tried to explain. I'm out.

[Killerpotleaf]

I'm out.

[iamnotback]

Peace bro. 

[traincarswreck]

train car wrck.

gold is not valued simply because its valued.

gold is valued because it has UTILITY

lets halt golds utility and make it so its only useful as jewellery.. thats right no electronic component utility because thats outside of its original utility. so lets limit it to just jewellery like it used to be

then go check your value because it has value stupid reasoning

Very little of the total value of gold is made up by its utility as an electronic component as evidenced by the little amount of it that is used for that (and the correlation of being a hedge in unstable times to a dramatic rise in its price). http://www.numbersleuth.org/worlds-gold/

What gives gold its high value is its suitable nature for being an inflation hedge (historically).  A counter-argument might be that its main use is jewelry but this doesn't account to its transactability either.

[traincarswreck]

If you think changing the block size limit from 1MB to 2MB will 'tank the system', you simply don't understand the Bitcoin design at all.

Satoshi designed Bitcoin with no block size limit, he later added a temporary 1MB limit to prevent spam, it was set to 1MB because it was 2010 and the average block size was less than 1k, he clearly stated this 1M limit was temporary and should be removed in the future.

In October 2010, two months before Satoshi vanished he talked about increasing the block size limit, he actually talked about it on this forum:

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.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

Satoshi believed block size should increase after block number 115,000.
We are now 7 years later at block number 459,111.

Nothing can justify keeping block size limit at 1M.

Stop pretending you're smarter than Satoshi, you're not. This reply alone shows me you don't even know the basics of Bitcoin.

I understand the system well enough and there is no scientific argument that not removing the limit will tank the system. And you have grossly misinterpreted what you have quoted.  He did not state the bold and there is nothing in his quote that is such a statement.  He said "it can" and then gave an example.  

No one else will agree with you that he was saying the exact block that we should change the limit at, you are alone in this, no one wants to be caught lying about a quote like you.

You share the same problem with Lauda: Your mouth keep moving but your brain can't catch up. You are forced to make replies but you run out of things to say, so you try too hard and end up going off on a tangent and become white noises.

I've said and addressed nothing tangential, every point I have made is perfectly relevant. And I am not claiming to be smarter than Satoshi or claiming that Satoshi is wrong in any way.  I am pointing out that what you are saying he said isn't the truth, and we can call read that I am correct to point out that your interpretation of what was actually said is bias and untrue.