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

[JaredR26]

He could possibly be a disinformation agent but you are incorrect to state that he is not responding to your arguments with sound logic.

He is an academic who is pointing out some economic theory.

Dude, I read his posts in this thread from the start.  For every 5 times he claims to be citing theories(and that no one else is / no one but his position does science properly), he actually cites his own comments twice and maybe links to something else once or name drops once.  When he does link elsewhere or name drop, he doesn't explain how their writing relates to his, what conclusion he is pushing or what specific point he is referencing.  It is a garbage throw-shit-at-everything debating strategy.  His strategy works really well for young earth creationists and 9-11 truthers.

He has some valid points, but his mistake is he thinks unregulated fractional reserve banking is not a massive bankster fraud. He doesn't seem to understand how the banksters were able to manipulate the USA economy in the 1800s under the very laissez faire system he is advocating. He thinks competition would somehow violate the power-law distribution of banker power and control. 

That's only one of the points he has thrown out, and I don't think either of you could provide conclusive evidence to convince the other, nor could either of you convince me.  From what I have read, macroeconomics is heavily laden with bullshit (on all sides) and effectively boils down to a Rorschach test whenever it deviates from game theory questions or microeconomic evaluations.  And yes, that statement is based upon research findings comparing the popularity of macroeconomic theories versus time periods and politics at that time.  Your statements about unregulated fractional reserve banker fraud make me wonder if you either have a mostly-inapplicable definition of "unregulated" (compared to the modern day), or else are a conspiracy theorist.

It doesn't matter, I'm not saying you're wrong either.  Almost none of that dispute substantially relates to the discussions of Bitcoin at hand, as far as I can tell.  And I don't care for either argument, though I do appreciate that you are far more rational and polite than he is, so thank you.

[traincarswreck]

  For every 5 times he claims to be citing theories(and that no one else is / no one but his position does science properly), he actually cites his own comments twice and maybe links to something else once or name drops once.  When he does link elsewhere or name drop, he doesn't explain how their writing relates to his, what conclusion he is pushing or what specific point he is referencing.

This is observably and provably false to any objective observer, as this thread is laden with my citations and quote of my sources to my argument and my explanation as to their relevance to my conclusion which is that bitcoin will ultimately because a settlement system for major players and will not be scaled as a coffee money.  This poster is a liar and know nothing about macro-economics.

[OneUnderBridge]

I think that this whole argument is inorganically precipitated. It has to be a form of manipulated chaos designed to set the course of the project into an unforeseen direction guided by only a few insiders. Does it feel that way to anybody else?

Don't take so many drugs son. It's not good for rationality.

There is no collusion. I am genuinely interested in the topics I want to discuss because the outcome of those discussions impact my work and my decisions.

Folks like @dinofelis, @traincarswreck, and myself are just thinking at a very high abstract (and detailed) level, so it may be making your head spin.

Yes. It is making my head spin. However, you cannot deny that (not your arguments specifically) there is a forced coup underway, centered around this argument, that's shaping the platform in ways that may suit the interests of a smaller percentage of the community than may be healthy. I think that the numbers demonstrate that confidence in the network is being shaken by the debate.  Am I right, or is that my brain on drugs again?

[JaredR26]

FYI, I disagree with both of you regarding the idea that transaction volume is not essential to Bitcoin's growth because Bitcoin can function like gold.

I didn't make that argument. I'm building an altcoin with unlimited transaction scaling.

If your altcoin doesn't solve blockchain sharding, then no you are not building any such thing.  There are too many humans on the planet and bandwidth costs are not trending anywhere near fast enough to make an unsharded blockchain feasible for the levels of transactions that humans demand.  Worldwide transaction volume in 2015 was 426 billion transactions, which at 600b per transaction works out to needing a 2 gigabit per second link to the internet for every single node - nearly 1/5th of the internet link of some whole datacenters.  That's just for 2015; It is growing by ~8% a year while bandwidth is improving at only 8-18% per year, and that's with the vast majority of humans on earth not sending any transactions at all (unbanked).  18% does not outpace those numbers in our lifetimes.

Computers don't do unlimited.  That said, I don't know anything about what you are building, not trying to insult you, but people need to understand the scope of the problem.

But BU will never get you there. All you do is enable the mining cartel to create a billion tokens out of thin air.

I don't support BU so that's a mute point.  This is my proposal that I would like feedback on: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1844059.0

It is the whales who will decide, whether you like it or not. That is the reality of the PoW. If you don't like it, find a different design that is not PoW.

That much I'm inclined to agree with.  However, I do believe that weakness of PoW is not as bad as the weaknesses in PoS, which are subject to a very different kind of abuse by a whale attacker - namely the fact that "emptied" addresses on the main chain still retain historical staking value of coins that aren't supposed to exist according to the consensus chain.  Without checkpointing, there's no way to invalidate the historical staking value those addresses no longer contain, but checkpointing is vulnerable to attacks by authorities like what EU regulators are hoping they can do.

So either the whales are for BU or they are for Core. And they will decide. I analyzed all the technical and economic game theory in great detail already. The Bitcoin whales have to choose small blocks, else they enable the mining cartel to HF to a billion tokens in the future. They will never allow this. BU will be destroyed if they attempt a HF. All of you who buy the BU token will end up bankrupt.

You've been warned. So don't cry later.

Aside from the BU-specific stuff, which I most likely already agree with you on, I'm curious about your game theory findings.  What do you mean the mining cartel will HF to a billion tokens in the future?  Did you find something that indicated that the Bitcoin whales could not support a blocksize increase on core?

[iamnotback]

If your altcoin doesn't solve blockchain sharding, then no you are not building any such thing.

I solved it.

[hv_]

  For every 5 times he claims to be citing theories(and that no one else is / no one but his position does science properly), he actually cites his own comments twice and maybe links to something else once or name drops once.  When he does link elsewhere or name drop, he doesn't explain how their writing relates to his, what conclusion he is pushing or what specific point he is referencing.

This is observably and provably false to any objective observer, as this thread is laden with my citations and quote of my sources to my argument and my explanation as to their relevance to my conclusion which is that bitcoin will ultimately because a settlement system for major players and will not be scaled as a coffee money.  This poster is a liar and know nothing about macro-economics.

And the circle is closing. OP is right because you are always right (so the rest of our community are liars and do know nothing about ... Choose what you want, its true because we know that we do know nothing). Strict proof,  stricter than math could do and so objective!

[JaredR26]

  For every 5 times he claims to be citing theories(and that no one else is / no one but his position does science properly), he actually cites his own comments twice and maybe links to something else once or name drops once.  When he does link elsewhere or name drop, he doesn't explain how their writing relates to his, what conclusion he is pushing or what specific point he is referencing.

This is observably and provably false to any objective observer, as this thread is laden with my citations

I love how I pointed out that much of your citations is you citing yourself, and in response you proceed to do exactly that.  Hilarious.

bitcoin will ultimately because a settlement system for major players and will not be scaled as a coffee money.

I used to believe this point completely.  I agree with the first part, and I do agree that Bitcoin will never be scaled as a coffee money.  That said, there is a middle ground between "settlement system for major players only" and "coffee money" that Bitcoin can achieve, and eventually this choice will become self-evident (but maybe too late). For example, $2 per transaction does not restrict Bitcoin to major players only, but is also not usable for coffee money, a target that I have reason to believe is achievable.

The reason the choice will become self-evident is simple - Currently it costs a minimum of roughly 0.01 BTC per month to operate a node(based on bandwidth, hdd costs alone), and ~0.0003 BTC to reliably send transactions to use that node.  Over time technology improves, adoption increases, and crypto prices rise, which causes the cost of operating a static-blocksize node to fall dramatically and the cost of sending a transaction to rise dramatically, with no growth limits on either number.  Without blocksize increases, it will eventually cost more to operate a node for one month than it costs to send a single transaction, at which point home users will stop running nodes anyway because they are not using Bitcoin, which defeats the only reason we would arbitrarily keep node operational costs low in the first place.

The solution is simple - we have to stop thinking of acceptable node operational costs in terms of dollars and instead think of acceptable node operational costs in terms of BTC/month.  What exactly qualifies as an acceptable node operational cost per month is highly debatable, but changing the math/thinking in that way changes the problem entire.  It allows growth that can almost completely offset increased transaction demand.  It won't lower tx fee costs - I think they still have to rise a bit - but it prevents them from going exponential or locking out home users.

[traincarswreck]

I love how I pointed out that much of your citations is you citing yourself, and in response you proceed to do exactly that.  Hilarious.

My response to you pointing this out of me did NOT include me citing myself, but this post does because it proves you are a liar:

  For every 5 times he claims to be citing theories(and that no one else is / no one but his position does science properly), he actually cites his own comments twice and maybe links to something else once or name drops once.  When he does link elsewhere or name drop, he doesn't explain how their writing relates to his, what conclusion he is pushing or what specific point he is referencing.

This is observably and provably false to any objective observer, as this thread is laden with my citations and quote of my sources to my argument and my explanation as to their relevance to my conclusion which is that bitcoin will ultimately because a settlement system for major players and will not be scaled as a coffee money.  This poster is a liar and know nothing about macro-economics.

[franky1]

ok trainwreck has meandered this topic enough

GMAXWLL: if core want to resolve things.. there are 2 options

1. PROVE how backward compatible things are by getting your partner BTCC to make a segwit block with a segwit confirmed tx in it.. worse case rejected in 3 seconds.. best case nothing bad. and it instills confidence.
2. make it dynamic segwit. that way when people realise segwit activation day solved nothing(due to needing users needing to do other things beyond segwit activation).. atleast people are then able to move on with dynamics rather than waiting another 2 years for core to make more excuses

[traincarswreck]

ok trainwreck has meandered this topic enough

GMAXWLL: if core want to resolve things.. there are 2 options

Maxwell clearly is not longer participating in this thread which means you are derailing the actual discussion that IS taking place.

[franky1]

ok trainwreck has meandered this topic enough

GMAXWLL: if core want to resolve things.. there are 2 options

Maxwell clearly is not longer participating in this thread which means you are derailing the actual discussion that IS taking place.

topic title is not about nash or ideal money.

[traincarswreck]

ok trainwreck has meandered this topic enough

GMAXWLL: if core want to resolve things.. there are 2 options

Maxwell clearly is not longer participating in this thread which means you are derailing the actual discussion that IS taking place.

topic title is not about nash or ideal money.

If I understand you then its fair game to address people who aren't participating and with unfounded assertions...but I am not allowed to refute arguments and baseless claims with scientifically based arguments and facts that involve citing other intelligent well known and respected economic thinkers? Seems like BU and r/btc logic and rules right here from you.  Good thing Ver doesn't control this forum huh?

[franky1]

funny part is your blockstreamist views cant pidgeon hole me into any band camp.

your lack of bitcoin understanding limits how much technical detail you can add..
you can spend 40+ pages waving nashes papers in peoples faces. but that has nothing to do with bitcoin.

if you understood bitcoin you wouldnt even b playing the racist chinese games either.

there are deeper things going on that you dont understand. real statistics you fail to grasp because you prefer th reddit group sheeple midset to agree with and preach your nashian utopia on.

lastly if you understood consensus and bitcoin you would realise the debate is not core vs BU.
 there are many implementations based on dynamics. but there is only one blockstream

[traincarswreck]

funny part is your blockstreamist views cant pidgeon hole me into any band camp.

your lack of bitcoin understanding limits how much technical detail you can add..
you can spend 40+ pages waving nashes papers in peoples faces. but that has nothing to do with bitcoin.

if you understood bitcoin you wouldnt even b playing the racist chinese games either.

there are deeper things going on that you dont understand. real statistics you fail to grasp because you prefer th reddit group sheeple midset to agree with and preach your nashian utopia on.

lastly if you understood consensus and bitcoin you would realise the debate is not core vs BU.
 there are many implementations based on dynamics. but there is only one blockstream

Nothing you said here is a valid argument based on logic or science, its just ad homineny fluff that denies and ignores (and pokes fun at) how logical arguments are formed.  You have a conspiracy based attitude based on the human nature of fearing what we don't understand.

You have made claims and assertions about my understanding of the technical aspects and I challenge to prove this and prove that you understand the technical to any extent that any active bitcoin developer would back you up on.

When someone cites their argument on other well respected and founded arguments it only shows your ignorance to try to call negative attention to it-as if citations and quotes are a bad thing.   You deny the entire foundation for how science works. You deny science, and fear those that uphold it.

[jonald_fyookball]

ok trainwreck has meandered this topic enough

GMAXWLL: if core want to resolve things.. there are 2 options

Maxwell clearly is not longer participating in this thread which means you are derailing the actual discussion that IS taking place.

topic title is not about nash or ideal money.

 He has this weird nash fetish that gets old pretty quickly.  but hey if they want to keep bumping the thread, there's a lot of great shit here people should read, like Alex's post was pretty epic.  got upvoted at r/btc

[traincarswreck]

 He has this weird nash fetish that gets old pretty quickly.  

I cited Nash Hayek Szabo Finney and Smith all in line with my argument for bitcoin as a settlement layer.

but hey if they want to keep bumping the thread, there's a lot of great shit here people should read, like Alex's post was pretty epic.  got upvoted at r/btc

This thread has nothing in it but a bunch of people unable to respond when they are asked to show how their arguments are grounded in scientific reason.  Every poster in r/btc is a person that is unable to understand bitcoin because they don't understand what science is.  So each person from that faction has an argument that is not founded in any accepted theory.

VERY few of the vocal proponents of BU from r/btc dare to enter this thread for that reason, and for the reason that Ver doesn't control the moderation on this forum.  

And it is for these reasons that linking to threads on bitcointalk.org in r/btc will never a successful endeavor for the r/btc and Ver brigade crowd.

I will always be there to simply ask you to cite your references, and none of you have ANY because your argument is based on FUD and not reason, and most of you don't know that reasoned arguments exist.

[franky1]

science is solving problems. you only cite people who make theories.
thats not science. thats story telling.

bitcoin solved a problem and your trying to use theories to counter bitcoins solutions.

[traincarswreck]

science is solving problems. you only cite people who make theories.
thats not science. thats story telling.

bitcoin solved a problem and your trying to use theories to counter bitcoins solutions.

You still aren't making an argument that is scientifically based. And yes its completely accepted practice to make arguments based on other objective and well-reasoned arguments, this the foundation of science reason and logic that you deny.

Will you make an argument based on accepted economic theory? If you its just your opinion and sentiments from an ignorant standpoint

[Alex.BTC]

https://s1.postimg.org/83n4p2can/Screenshot_from_2017-03-27_11-28-25.png

You can't make this stuff up, Greg is at it again:
Update consensus.h #10092
Do you guys need assistance updating that block size? #10028

**sipa commented Mar 18, 2017**
Bitcoin Core's maintainers do not, and do not want to, decide what the network's rules are. If there is widespread agreement about a change, it will be merged.

**gmaxwell commented Mar 27, 2017**
trolling like this is exhausting. Submitting broken code that doesn't even pass its own self-tests and would totally break the network, over and over again... is just a waste of everyone's time. It's not funny, people are working here.

I can see why some people would consider my previous peaceful advice to Greg a 'rant': They haven't seen me rant before. For hours I've been reloading the blockchain stats waiting for my coin dump to go through, then I saw Greg talking to people like there is a stick up his ass again. Obviously giving advice here doesn't work, so here is my real rant, no, this is not constructive, this is just an angry Bitcoin user speaking his mind:

Just look at the audacity of Greg and Pieter blatantly lying like that, it's as if they don't even know they're on the internet and whatever bullshit they spew will stay there for eternity.

50,000 lines of overly complex hard fork equivalent bloated piece of shit got merged using dirty tactics, while simple 1 liner code change that could solve actual problem for everyone got blocked instantly.

All Hyena did was trying to help Core change the block size limit from 1M to 4M, and a pull request is really just a suggestion, but they immediately locked the request, blocked others from replying, then accused Hyena of being a troll trying to break the Bitcoin network.

Greg, seriously, are you fucking kidding me? Do you even understand Bitcoin? Do you even know Bitcoin is having a transaction jam right now? Satoshi wanted to increase the block size a long time ago at block 115,000, we're now at block 459,000, that is 344,000 blocks late, at 10 minutes per block that is 3,440,000 minutes late, so we are already 6.5 years late on increasing that limit.

As of this moment the mempool has 52,400 unconfirmed transactions, at average 1800 tx per block, it will take 30 blocks just to clear the backlog, 30 blocks x 10 minutes per block = 300 minutes = 5 hours.

So 5 hours just to clear this jam even if there are no more new transactions, which there are, arriving at over 3 per second.

You say 'people are working here', but just wtf are you guys actually doing? What is so god damn difficult changing just one line of code to remove the jam?

And that arrogance, fuck me, it's as if everyone at Blockstream, not being able to solve simple problems, somehow think they are all smarter than Satoshi. Seriously, just go back to http://nakamotoinstitute.org/ and read the first line:

Satoshi: I've been working on a new electronic cash system that's fully peer-to-peer, with no trusted third party."

See that bold part Greg? That's right, developers ARE the third party, Satoshi didn't trust developers and he didn't fucking trust you.

So print that quote, stick it on your monitor, read it over and over again every morning until that simple message gets through your head, then, slowly and carefully, step off that imaginary pedestal and stop pretending to be the fucking embodiment of Bitcoin itself.

You guys weren't even there until 4 years after Satoshi was gone, and you guys wasted 2 years but still haven't solved the simple transaction jam problem everyone else saw coming, over 6 years ago.

Regarding what you call your 'work', that 50,000 lines bloated sad excuse of a SegFukWit you've been shoving up everybody's ass. Look, I support side chain developments so I am going to give you guys some slack here, I am going to assume you guys are the best coders that have ever existed, your code is always flawless right from the get-go and the FukWit is the fucking panacea that can move coins while curing cancer.

But, after reading your code, I found a big problem, that FukWit of yours is so complex it actually changed the entire transaction mechanism, so it requires everyone else to rewrite their clients and APIs to support it, that means it'll take months if not years for everyone else to adapt and sort through THEIR bugs.

We are in a transaction jam right now, not a year later, it IS happening to millions of Bitcoin users, people were trying to help you solve this real problem, but instead of thanking them, you insulted them, so what's going on? Are you telling me we have to give you another year to sit on your ass, just because Satoshi vanished and some fucking late comer funded by AXA kicked Gavin out and took the Bitcoin code base hostage?

Greg, I know they own you so I never expected much from you, but the miners already compromised on FukWit in 2016 and then you guys lied and broke the agreement. Now I have to wait hours to dump my coins and your stall tactics, messiah complex and that air of cockiness really irritates me. You've been slowing everyone down and now you're flat out insulting people who is just offering to help, seriously, just who the hell do you think you are? This is not an online game, you're playing with real people's real investment here. Why do you even call yourself a developer anyway? You're standing on shoulders of giants, your job depends entirely on Satoshi's work, so get the fuck off that high horse and stop acting like you're better than Satoshi, nobody is buying it. If you are so fucking good then build your own damn coin and stop fucking around with other people's invention that have already proven to work and people was already using without your 'help'.

For your homework, read this again:
http://nakamotoinstitute.org/

Grasp the basic concept of you, a Bitcoin developer, is only one of the many UNTRUSTED THIRD PARTY using the blockchain.
 
Then read what Satoshi said in 2010 about increasing the blocksize limit:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366
Quote from: satoshi on October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM
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.

And know that we are now 6.5 years late on increasing such limit.

Know that Satoshi added the limit of 1M in 2010 because the average blocksize at the time was less than 1k, and he wanted to prevent people from spamming something a thousand times larger, that 1M limit was never supposed to be permanent and it was supposed to be increased 6.5 years ago, when you lock the limit at 1M today, you're not fighting BU, XT or miners, you're fighting against common sense and everyone who is actually using Bitcoin, and no, increasing the limit won't kill the network like you boss told you it would, that was just the lubricant Blockstream put on your fingers to shove FukWit up millions of people's ass, sideways, simultaneously.

Once you understand the actual problem, put FukWit down, wash your fingers then start looking at the 52,400 unconfirmed transactions currently stuck inside the mempool:
https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions

Start thinking about the problem Bitcoin users in the real world are actually facing, no, stop looking at the Blockstream paycheck, stop dreaming about future stock options and stop inventing bullshit scenarios to justify your existence, just get back to reality for one second and think about what we, Bitcoin users, are actually facing, right now, at this very moment.

Then take your time, sleep on it, and decide your next move wisely, while you still have a choice in this matter.

[franky1]

alex.btc

i love your open minded opinion.

to address one point about the satoshi quote

with no trusted third party.

gmaxwell and blockstream(core) view it as meaning.. no third party trust because there should only be a single party.. blockstream who everyone should trust as first party. and everyone else is second party.. with no third party to equal out the playing field

and thats the issue.. they twist context and logic to fit their plan