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

[JaredR26]

How about we break the cycle of mudflinging and insults - against both sides - and go back to searching for a compromise solution.

I proposed one today after days of research and refinement and weeks of toying with the idea.  I would like some rational feedback:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1844059.0

The infighting and mudflinging is hurting all of us.

[1713882205]

1713882205

[1713882205]

1713882205

[1713882205]

1713882205

[1713882205]

1713882205

[1713882205]

1713882205

[1713882205]

1713882205

[traincarswreck]

No coin can have as stable of a value proposition or the empirical evidence of security as bitcoin.  The coin's you are quoting are not intended to have these qualities.   Ethereum hasn't even decided its inflation schedule as I understand and litecoin has a $200 million cap right now.  You are calling me religious for making well reasoned claims but you are simultaneously speaking to future scenario that doesn't exist today.

Bitcoin offers these things that no other proposal can, and an increased transaction capacity and low fees is not a valuable solution as evidenced by the market cap of the many coins that offer it.

Bitcoin isn't valued because its cheap and fast, its valued bitcoin its value proposition is secure in other words its a digital gold/inflation hedge.

[traincarswreck]

How about we break the cycle of mudflinging and insults - against both sides - and go back to searching for a compromise solution.

I proposed one today after days of research and refinement and weeks of toying with the idea.  I would like some rational feedback:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1844059.0

The infighting and mudflinging is hurting all of us.

The Bitcoin blocksize debate is giving altcoins their golden opportunity to break Bitcoin's dominance, primarily because several extreme ideological factions are completely unwilling to compromise with the opposing side, and now frequently promote drastic threats against the other side.

1. No Blocksize increases: Those favoring no blocksize increases at all are in the extreme minority.  Refusing to compromise may result in even bigger blocks than would be possible by compromising, after significant damage from a contentious hardfork.  Refusing to compromise hurts all Bitcoin holders, miners, users, and developers.

I welcome any rational feedback.  Thanks.

Your proposal is based on the tacit assumption that increasing the block size is necessary and valuable which is based on the tacitly held assumption that increasing the tps solve a significant problem.  These assumptions are not based on any accepted economic theory, they are simply perpetuated by people that don't understand the foundation for reason.

The people that are in favor of either very slow scaling or none at all are the ones that are most educated and read on related economic theory.  They are the one's quoting peer reviewed papers.

That there is a whole faction of people trying to steer bitcoin in a certain direction does not at all give validity to their argument and there is no reason at all to compromise with such irrational behavior.  The system was clearly designed to resist tyranny of the majority.

Core's resistance to hasty scaling and any significant change is simply an extension of Satoshi's designed of a system that cannot be usurped by an ignorant impatient uneducated mob.

[kiklo]

No coin can have as stable of a value proposition or the empirical evidence of security as bitcoin.  The coin's you are quoting are not intended to have these qualities.   Ethereum hasn't even decided its inflation schedule as I understand and litecoin has a $200 million cap right now.  You are calling me religious for making well reasoned claims but you are simultaneously speaking to future scenario that doesn't exist today.

Bitcoin offers these things that no other proposal can, and an increased transaction capacity and low fees is not a valuable solution as evidenced by the market cap of the many coins that offer it.

Bitcoin isn't valued because its cheap and fast, its valued bitcoin its value proposition is secure in other words its a digital gold/inflation hedge.

You stated BTC would be the Best Forever,

Can you really take yourself seriously after that.

Things I use to hear IBM makes the Best Personal Computer, no one will ever complete,
Until a Little Company called Compaq came along and guess what they made better computers and even they fell in time to HP.

Things change Hard drive tech started with rll, then mfm, then scsi, then IDE, and now SATA and others.

BTC is the rll, it won't last without some serious upgrades.

If a product can hold the market for 10 years , it did really well, expecting it to last forever is religion and you will be disappointed.
Or are you still using that 8 Track tape in your 1970s car.  

 

[JaredR26]

Your proposal is based on the tacit assumption that increasing the block size is necessary and valuable which is based on the tacitly held assumption that increasing the tps solve a significant problem.

You are correct that I believe that a block size increase is both necessary and valuable, but that is not what my proposal is based upon nor was it something I said anywhere in the proposal.  The proposal is a compromise because the vast majority of Bitcoin users and holders think you are the retarded one, just like you think they are.  Regardless of whether you are right or not, they are going to severely damage the prospects of Bitcoin if you do not compromise.

You should probably know that I used to vehemently support your argument, day in, day out.  Until I spent a month working out the math in great detail and realized that I was arguing for the wrong thing.

These assumptions are not based on any accepted economic theory, they are simply perpetuated by people that don't understand the foundation for reason.

This is the same kind of bullshit mudflinging that needs to stop.  First you make an appeal to ignorance and mischaracterize other people's arguments, and then you insult everyone who disagrees with you.

The people that are in favor of either very slow scaling or none at all are the ones that are most educated and read on related economic theory.  They are the one's quoting peer reviewed papers.

That there is a whole faction of people trying to steer bitcoin in a certain direction does not at all give validity to their argument and there is no reason at all to compromise with such irrational behavior.  The system was clearly designed to resist tyranny of the majority.

Zero proof, sources cited, or any arguments of substance.  Much appeal to authority fallacy, yes.

Core's resistance to hasty scaling and any significant change is simply an extension of Satoshi's designed of a system that cannot be usurped by an ignorant impatient uneducated mob.

And while committing logical fallacies and being a jackass, you claim the higher ground.  Nice.

I hate to break it to you, but you are acting like the garbage that you proclaim to abhor.

[centralbanksequalsbombs]

You are conflating the usefulness of transacting with money with the usefulness of a store of value.  That people will leave bitcoin because it is not useful for the former does not imply bitcoin is not useful for the latter.

Metaplayers waste nothing by using bitcoin, it will always be by far the cheapest more secure/apolitical way to send large amounts of value. Other options will never be able to beat this.

A voice of reason, thank you traincarswreck. Bitcoin has proven to be an amazing store-of-value asset, providing us all an option to beat the rising cost of rent, travel, healthcare, education, etc.

You guys ruined it all.  Bitcoin is now fucked and getting more fucked everyday.  I think the end in near.

OP, quite the contrary. The integrity of Bitcoin, as it stands in its current form, unchanged, day by day, is getting stronger and stronger. It is virtually flawless. The only thing that can break it, is implementing a change.

To further borrow words of wisdom...

Bitcoin is supposed to be a digital store of value, not some micro-transaction dust coin.

If you modify BTC into an alt-coin it will be susceptible to more bugs, more issues, more security risks, etc...

Bitcoin will gain MORE value over time if people leave it as-is...

Bitcoin has been transacted globally and has emerged >$15B strong, and has been getting stronger each of these past EIGHT years.

To all, for a better understanding of why bitcoin has emerged as this amazing store of value, please read this post titled "Hacks & puppets & forks - how to destroy bitcoin" https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1834310.0

[traincarswreck]

You stated BTC would be the Best Forever,

Can you really take yourself seriously after that.

Things I use to hear IBM makes the Best Personal Computer, no one will ever complete,
Until a Little Company called Compaq came along and guess what they made better computers and even they fell in time to HP.

Things change Hard drive tech started with rll, then mfm, then scsi, then IDE, and now SATA and others.

BTC is the rll, it won't last without some serious upgrades.

If a product can hold the market for 10 years , it did really well, expecting it to last forever is religion and you will be disappointed.
Or are you still using that 8 Track tape in your 1970s car.  

 

Best for store of wealth as it has the most secure and apolitical value proposition and the longest track record and always will. This is akin to genes which show their relevance and value not by their evolution over time but by the fact that they don't change overtime.  This is also a quality of gold which has a market cap in the trillions and is far more expensive and encumbered to transact than bitcoin will ever be. Some things are valued because they change and sometimes are valued because they don't.  Bitcoin is the latter.

[kiklo]

Best for store of wealth as it has the most secure and apolitical value proposition and the longest track record and always will. This is akin to genes which show their relevance and value not by their evolution over time but by the fact that they don't change overtime.  This is also a quality of gold which has a market cap in the trillions and is far more expensive and encumbered to transact than bitcoin will ever be. Some things are valued because they change and sometimes are valued because they don't.  Bitcoin is the latter.

You are going to so disappointed.

I leave you to your religion.

Later,
 

[traincarswreck]

You are correct that I believe that a block size increase is both necessary and valuable, but that is not what my proposal is based upon nor was it something I said anywhere in the proposal.  The proposal is a compromise because the vast majority of Bitcoin users and holders think you are the retarded one, just like you think they are.  Regardless of whether you are right or not, they are going to severely damage the prospects of Bitcoin if you do not compromise.

You should probably know that I used to vehemently support your argument, day in, day out.  Until I spent a month working out the math in great detail and realized that I was arguing for the wrong thing.

This is the same kind of bullshit mudflinging that needs to stop.  First you make an appeal to ignorance and mischaracterize other people's arguments, and then you insult everyone who disagrees with you.


Zero proof, sources cited, or any arguments of substance.  Much appeal to authority fallacy, yes.


And while committing logical fallacies and being a jackass, you claim the higher ground.  Nice.

I hate to break it to you, but you are acting like the garbage that you proclaim to abhor.

This whole thread is riddled with posts by me that cite and quote objective and founded arguments from great economists and accepted academic theory.  That I have pointed out that the vast majority of vocal anti-core proponents do not base on of their opinions in such theory is not mudslinging its observable reality.  I cited my sources you have simply ignored all of my posts.  And then you have called my cited arguments logical fallacies which is ignoring logic.  And then you called me a jack-ass which is an ad hominem. And then you have reasserted that I am not citing my arguments which is again absolutely observably not true.

[Hyena]

[traincarswreck]

A voice of reason, thank you traincarswreck. Bitcoin has proven to be an amazing store-of-value asset, providing us all an option to beat the rising cost of rent, travel, healthcare, education, etc.

Cheers, yes the tone of the conversation changes when the Ver brigade doesn't get to decide who participates.

You are going to so disappointed.

I leave you to your religion.

Later,
 

It's all proponents of change and especially BU can say, because there is nothing in present day reality to support their claims and they cannot give a date as to when such a terrible fate will happen because it would be a falsifiable claim, and they don't want to make such claims because they will be proved wrong and have no basis for choosing a date.  

You are calling my views religious which is an implication they are not scientific, but the obvious observable truth is that you are not making scientifically founded or falsifiable claims which is by definition subjective belief and not scientific.

And I absolutely expect you to resort to this and bow out because it is your only possible response to someone challenging you to quote accepted economic theory to back up your opinion.

No BU supporters will continue to participate in a discussion in which they are constantly asked to provide citations from accepted economic literature/science because there is no such works to cite that support their assertions/opinions.

[Alex.BTC]

And while committing logical fallacies and being a jackass, you claim the higher ground.  Nice.

I hate to break it to you, but you are acting like the garbage that you proclaim to abhor.

You're responding to a misinformation agent, a normal person simply doesn't think or respond like that, not with this kind of pattern. If you look beyond the bs he's spewing, you can see his pain, he is obviously someone who is forced to support something he doesn't even believe in, he has no passion, his reply is robotic and he is tired, but he can't stop because it is part of his job and his boss is watching, can you imagine how boring and stressful it is to have to think and respond like a broken robot all the time.

His first post here, back in 2014, was a thread claiming "Satoshi = Wei Dai = John Nash".

And this was his feedback:

OP ignored for display of blatant stupidity combined with attention-whoring shitty thread-title.

Most likely misinformation posted by government agent.

You can't wake someone who is pretending to be asleep.

[HEQIAOAN]

  :)I suggest taking a moment to actually analyse the data available, rather than what you are currently engaged in.

[Xester]

:)I suggest taking a moment to actually analyse the data available, rather than what you are currently engaged in.

You no longer need to analyse the data since the revolution is now starting. We the investors and economic players will take away the power to decide what is best for bitcoin from the miners who are thinking of nothing but as to whom the control of bitcoin mining will go to. With UASF we have now the voice to protect our investment as UASF will now decide as to what changes must be adopted by bitcoins and for the investors rather than leaving it to the miners.

[uchalkql]

"One of the biggest risks of using segregated witness as a scaling solution (which was surfaced at the conference) is that to obtain the scaling benefit it will require not only new bitcoin core code, but also new code to be written by each of the major wallet providers who are generating transactions. It is unlikely this will be done in time to avoid the scaling issue we are currently facing."
https://blog.coinbase.com/what-happened-at-the-satoshi-roundtable-6c11a10d8cdf

[jonald_fyookball]

:)I suggest taking a moment to actually analyse the data available, rather than what you are currently engaged in.

You no longer need to analyse the data since the revolution is now starting. We the investors and economic players will take away the power to decide what is best for bitcoin from the miners who are thinking of nothing but as to whom the control of bitcoin mining will go to. With UASF we have now the voice to protect our investment as UASF will now decide as to what changes must be adopted by bitcoins and for the investors rather than leaving it to the miners.

https://vote.bitcoin.com/arguments/bitcoin-unlimited-s-path-to-solve-bitcoin-s-scaling-issues-is-better-than-bitcoin-core-s

[traincarswreck]

traincarswreck, You seriously have not researched enough then, there is lots of material for each side, otherwise your just biased.

Anyway I said a 4 dotpoints a few hours ago before which you did not falsify.

I said:

Proving the premise that "increased in adoption -> increased centralization" is the stupidest argument I have ever started reading when this subject started appearing.

1. It assumes there is a specific limit on the amount of economic resources available for running nodes when in reality it is ill-defined.
2. Ignores economies of scale.
3. Ignores that the amount of new advanced users entering the space due to increased adoption can offset nodes being turned off in favor of SPV due to increased costs of running a node.
4. Ignores how much a bitcoin node can be optimized at the hardware level.

The premise you are refuting has nothing to do with my argument.

:)I suggest taking a moment to actually analyse the data available, rather than what you are currently engaged in.

There is no relevant data.  If there is then produce otherwise you are just another random new account not contributing or engaging in sincere discussion.

You no longer need to analyse the data since the revolution is now starting. We the investors and economic players will take away the power to decide what is best for bitcoin...

The users are the ignorant group in regard to the different players, and Satoshi designed the system so the users could never overthrow it.  There is no revolution on the guise of one.

[iamnotback]

You're refuting your own argument again.  The fractional reserve system is not evil, but the monopoly that governments/central banks on our money systems (traditionally) has caused the system to create it's own busts and recessions.  But fractional banking per se is not the problem, rather the lack of competition is the problem.  Bitcoin as a settlement system would attend to this problem and it also attends to the inefficiencies of the existing solutions.

Incorrect/disagree. Fractional reserve systems can't scale without a central bank and are economically incompatible as we leave the industrial age and march into the knowledge age.

The banksters model of Bitcoin is antiquated and World Bank NWO directed.

But you are correct on the other points you've argued:

High fees are a tax and increases opportunity cost, IT DISCOURAGES USE, simple economics.

That isn't simple economics its a circular argument.  IF bitcoin's most optimal and valuable use case is to transact then we might be able to see a fee increase would negatively affect its utility as such and that this would discourage use.

But bitcoin can serve a different purpose which is a fairly stable value settlement system for meta-players (ie big banks), and this would serve a valuable purpose as well.

Your argument is premised on the former and ignores the possibility of the latter.  In regard to the latter bitcoin's other advantage you are ignoring is that it is far more secure in regard to its value proposition than any other coin.  Ethereum is far from mature in the security sense and they still have to get to PoS which is uncharted water, it hasn't been scientifically tested/proved.

It's not scientific to not consider a different possibly valid perspective.

You just said changing the Bitcoin block size limit would 'destroy its digital gold properties' and 'would tank the system', then I shown you Satoshi had always wanted to increase the block size limit, a long time ago.

So either Satoshi wanted to 'tank the system' himself, or you are wrong, it can't get any more simpler than that.

Satoshi showed how it could be done if we decided to do it, and the subsequent posts were people complaining on how obviously difficult it would be to remove as time went by.  Satoshi never responded but assuming he was smarter than the others its obvious that he realized the truth of this too.  

He gave the people a pacifier, an example of how it COULD be done, it was nothing more, and there is nothing more in the quote to suggest he implied more. He basically said, "You can change it, but you all just have to agree when and how" and he disappeared and choose not to participate in this debate.

The higher BTC price gets, the less people that will pay it transaction fees, not everyone is a US or European Citizen.

The only reason that the fees can be so high is if the network utility is valued high enough to support such use.  So you can't simultaneously say bitcoin will become irrelevant AND the fees will be high.  You would be, again, refuting your own argument. It COULD be true though that many users that use bitcoin for cheap transactions today, would use other currencies (or 2nd layers solutions) for such transactions in the future.  But this doesn't speak to the value of the system, because, and like I quoted Szabo and Finney explaining, bitcoin would be very valuable as a high powered settlement layer, and then for that function the higher fees would be completely acceptable.

The higher fees come from transactions that are sending large value.  You can't claim that the system will be irrelevant when bigger and more wealth players are using it. Its just not a system for the average citizen and it was never meant to be.  

But it is still being adopted because its value is increasing in relation to domestic fiat, which is exactly what fuels adoption, not transaction capacity, and not the cheapness to transact otherwise litecoin etc. would have a billion+ dollar market cap.

Szabo has also laid an extensive argument for bitcoin to function as a settlement system and the purpose and value of it and Finney also discussed this based George Selgins observations and writings/teachings:

I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash. Most Bitcoin transactions will occur between banks, to settle net transfers.~https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2500.msg34211#msg34211

[traincarswreck]

Incorrect. Fractional reserve systems without a central bank can't scale and are economically incompatible as we leave the industrial age and march into the knowledge age.

The banksters model of Bitcoin is antiquated and World Bank NWO directed.

You seem to be unaware that you are citing your own argument and the problem with doing so.  I have already shown Adam Smith directly refutes you, and now Hayek:

It seems to me to be fairly certain that:

(a) a money generally expected to preserve its purchasing power approximately constant would be in continuous demand so long as the people were free to use it;
(b) with such a continuing demand depending on success in keeping the value of the currency constant one could trust the issuing banks to make every effort to achieve this better than would any monopolist who runs no risk by depreciate his money;
(c) the issuing institution could achieve this result by regulating the quantify of its issue; and
(d) such a regulation of the quantity of each currency would constitute the best of all practicable methods of regulating the quantity of media of exchange for all possible purposes.

https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@jokerpravis/the-re-levation-of-hayek-an-inquiry-into-denationalisation-of-money

And Nash refutes your claim as well as his argument runs perfectly parallel to Hayek's, by his own admission:

The talk text, just for the “ideal money” topic, originally derives from my outline for the lectures given at various specific locations of the “European School of Economics” in Italy during October 1997. Subsequent to that time, after consulting with some of the economics faculty at Princeton, I learned of the work and publications of Freidrich von Hayek. I must say that my thinking is apparently quite parallel to his thinking in relation to money and particularly with regard to the non-typical viewpoint in relation to the functions of the authorities which in recent times have been the sources of currencies (earlier “coinage”).)

https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@jokerpravis/internationally-ideal-money-the-re-solution-of-nashian-and-hayekian-economic-theory

[iamnotback]

You seem to be unaware that you are citing your own argument and the problem with doing so.  I have already shown Adam Smith directly refutes you, and now Hayek

Did you even read my analysis? Appeals to authority are not valid in a meritocracy.

I posit that Hayek is incorrect and empirically so from the 1800s example in the USA, wherein the economy was so destroyed by unregulated booms and busts that Rothschild had to bail out the US government. Also the economy is fundamentally changing, which is what I explained if you dig down into my recursive links starting from the one I provided to you for your timely edification.

We are moving away from a model where labor was fungible. Have you not read the essay at the top of the Economic Devastation thread written by myself Rise of Knowledge, Demise of [Usury] Finance.

Note I've also copied your thesis to the other thread for discussion there with @dinofelis.

Let the banksters have Buttcoin (and their dying usury, industrial age). We'll build something for us (the knowledge age workers and creators).