Well, well, well, now we know what Jihan Wu’s been up to.

[jonald_fyookball]

Yea the situation has change dramatically in the US since the last time I researched it which was a few years ago. The point I was trying to make, was that internet speeds do not follow moore's law and are not guaranteed to get better over time as end users do not always get access to that better technology due to ISP monopolies and the high cost of replacing infrastructure. They can drop dramatically in a short period of time, as the 2011 article showed the speed dropped 14% in the course of 3 months. In many countries, and in certain areas of the US and other countries, speeds have dropped dramatically. Including in my area where I have 20% of the speed I have 4-5 years ago. Read the rest of my posts

Irrelevant, bullshit is still bullshit, 2011 is still 2011 and 2017 is still 2017, the internet speed has never stopped changing 'dramatically'. It doesn't take a genius to know things will only keep improving.

All you need to do is type 'average internet speed' in a search engine and you'll find similar facts. Instead you went out of your way to dig back 5 years and pull out bullshit links from fucking 2012 using data from 2011.

I am so fucking sick and tired of you shills/trolls/uninformed fucks making idiotic statements over and over base on either outdated data or just flat out bullshit, repeating the same FUD week after week.

Very dishonest to ignore this fact ^ and to fake concern about what will happen to Bitcoin 20 years out while the system is being eroded today by the no-longer-useful blocksize limit.

And it doesn't take a genius to realize that also.

[anonymoustroll420]

All you need to do is type 'average internet speed' in a search engine and you'll find similar facts.

Lol I swear I actually did I typed those exact words in and an article from my country was the first result:
https://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0706/800618-internet-speed-ireland/

I tried to find a US one and found that link. Most likely because Google remembered I clicked on it before or something. I can show you screenshots if you seriously don't believe me.

My point still stands. If you think just because it's 2017 that internet speeds will keep rising for eternity for everyone, your deluded. Mines fallen 80% in 4 years. 250Mb, one of the fastest in the world at the time, down to 50mb, when it works.

[CoinHoarder]

I really blame PoW, because PoW makes all of this shit possible.

+1

and your analysis makes sense to me

[iamnotback]

I really blame PoW, because PoW makes all of this shit possible.

+1

and your analysis makes sense to me

Thank you.

[ImHash]

How would you know if some nerd genius isn't mining 30 blocks a day with just using a hand made ASIC like super miner with the cost of only $10,000?

we'd check the blockchain.

To do what exactly checking the blockchain? you can't magically see their mining farms via a magical camera after checking blockchain, you can't even know the miners locations since they can easily join a pool and many of miners use mixers and Tor to cover their tracks very well.

I really blame PoW, because PoW makes all of this shit possible.

+1

and your analysis makes sense to me

Thank you.

Please go buy more LTC before it goes to the mars and hope it doesn't crash land there, shill of LTC much?
I guess this PoW is more like the provably fair in gambling where you only lose in the long run and everyone tells you it's a provable by math that it was fair, but still you'll keep losing.

But again not everyone can understand that you can not boil water without heat/ fire same you can not prove that you done the work without actually doing the work.

[iamnotback]

Please go buy more LTC before it goes to the mars and hope it doesn't crash land there, shill of LTC much?

Blame the manipulations on me? Do you think I have any fucking control over the Chinese. You are incredulous.

I have no choice but to find a ship that isn't lost at sea w.r.t. to payment scaling.

I have already wrote that the Chinese are also manipulating us with Litecoin and that I don't want to talk about that piece-of-shit any more.

I am not happy with any of it. CoinHoarder and I both agreed what we are tired of what PoW has become.

[FiendCoin]

I am not happy with any of it. CoinHoarder and I both agreed what we are tired of what PoW has become.

I can agree with this statement. Who would've thought greed was bad 

[dinofelis]

The Bitcoin network has ass cancer and its name is Jihan Wu. He has been holding back our development for years and we did't even know it.

To paraphrase Thatcher: "there's no such thing as community", and an immutable system doesn't need nor want development, and is designed to resist any breach of immutability.  What you think are political manoeuvres, is nothing else but this immutability dynamics at work.  Naive people thought that bitcoin's protocol was a centrally decided and arbitrarily modified thing in the hands of Core, which acted as the reference authority in such matters, because they were the Pope, who got the keys to the paradise from Satoshi, God Almighty.  This worked out until they tried to push modifications that would profoundly modify the economical dynamics of bitcoin with the LN ; at that point, bitcoin's immutability dynamics stopped them.  Bitcoin's immutability dynamics is simply based upon the NON-existence of a community, but on the hypothesis of decentralization: the non-collusion of diverse interests in the system, not being able to agree over change that would give advantages to some and disadvantages to others.  In other words, decentralization makes as a basic assumption that there's no such thing as a colluding community, but results in immutability of history and protocol, because the diverse entities making up the ecosystem cannot come to a consensus over change, so de facto, they come to consensus over no change: immutability.

When looking at the trees, and not seeing the forest, this comes down to seeing "political disputes and hidden agendas".  But that's exactly what decentralisation is about: non-collusion !

[iamnotback]

The Bitcoin network has ass cancer and its name is Jihan Wu. He has been holding back our development for years and we did't even know it.

To paraphrase Thatcher: "there's no such thing as community", and an immutable system doesn't need nor want development, and is designed to resist any breach of immutability.  What you think are political manoeuvres, is nothing else but this immutability dynamics at work.  Naive people thought that bitcoin's protocol was a centrally decided and arbitrarily modified thing in the hands of Core, which acted as the reference authority in such matters, because they were the Pope, who got the keys to the paradise from Satoshi, God Almighty.  This worked out until they tried to push modifications that would profoundly modify the economical dynamics of bitcoin with the LN ; at that point, bitcoin's immutability dynamics stopped them.  Bitcoin's immutability dynamics is simply based upon the NON-existence of a community, but on the hypothesis of decentralization: the non-collusion of diverse interests in the system, not being able to agree over change that would give advantages to some and disadvantages to others.  In other words, decentralization makes as a basic assumption that there's no such thing as a colluding community, but results in immutability of history and protocol, because the diverse entities making up the ecosystem cannot come to a consensus over change, so de facto, they come to consensus over no change: immutability.

When looking at the trees, and not seeing the forest, this comes down to seeing "political disputes and hidden agendas".  But that's exactly what decentralisation is about: non-collusion !

+1

In the case of Bitcoin, Nash designed such that the whales have a crab bucket mentality w.r.t. any one whale being able to mutate the protocol and thus get an advantage over any other whale.

But could it be less noisy if the whales weren't able to threaten much harm? I have some ideas about making whales impotent.

Can whales threaten your Internet? Do you wake up every morning to fight for the future of the Internet. No. You just use it and expect it to work and it works.

[Carlton Banks]

To paraphrase Thatcher: "there's no such thing as community"

Do you get all your Margaret Thatcher quotes from women's magazines (replete with "sun tan lotion killed my dog" stories) found in hairdressing salons?

Because it was a magazine just like that that published that so-called Thatcher quote, and Thatcher herself always maintained that she was misquoted. Drop the faux intelligentsia, it doesn't suit you

and an immutable system doesn't need nor want development, and is designed to resist any breach of immutability. 

Except when there exists overwhelming consensus to enact changes, that is.


Furthermore, overwhelming consensus to enact changes has happened dozens of times already in Bitcoin, I've tried explaining this to you already, but it appears you skull is too thick to absorb the factual information. Significant new operators were added to the scripting language just last year.

C'mon, tell us about immutability in context of all the supposedly impossible changes, again (....and again, and again). Or maybe you could explain why you feel the need to keep repeating-repeating-repeating demonstrable falsehoods despite being proven wrong each and every time you utter them?

[iamnotback]

This user is currently ignored.

 

[AngryDwarf]

and an immutable system doesn't need nor want development, and is designed to resist any breach of immutability. 

Except when there exists overwhelming consensus to enact changes, that is.

I am actually going to agree with you 100%. One such example would be quantum resistant protocol changes. That would focus minds.

[iamnotback]

and an immutable system doesn't need nor want development, and is designed to resist any breach of immutability.  

Except when there exists overwhelming consensus to enact changes, that is.

I am actually going to agree with you 100%. One such example would be quantum resistant protocol changes. That would focus minds.

Overwhelming consensus only exists on those things which benefit everyone pretty much equally, which was precisely the point that @dinofelis and I made about the game theory of PoW being crab bucket mentality.

And that is why you'll never see any consensus on block size or SegWit, other than to defend the status quo which is the Schelling point of the whales (i.e. pull everyone back into the crab bucket so nobody gets an "unfair" advantage).

Schelling point. Learn it.

[classicsucks]

im laughing

hardware that has existed for 2 years has good efficiency boosts..

software that has only been publicly ready 6 months and yet to be in active use...

and gmaxwell thinks the hardware is the problem.

gmaxwell where were you in 2011 , you would probably want to nuke ATI for being more efficient then Geforce. and then blame ATI for some software bug your team didnt pick up on that wasnt ATI compatible.

calling ATI an exploiter/attacker.. rather than admit the software cant do its job right if people want to use ATI GPU's back then
serious snobbery from Gmaxwell

if segwit cant do its job because of a asi effiency boost.. then re-do segwit, while at it, make the code user dynamic to not need dev's to be king overlords

LOL, take a time machine to 2011, then:
"ZOMG ATI is attacking bitcoin and creating centralization with its covert secret backdoor OpenCL exploit that will break bitcoin blocks because we screwed around with the block format"

[classicsucks]

Last time I looked, recent empty blocks have come from 1Hash rather than antpool. And we are talking about a block which was 10 mins after the previous one. Also, BitFury as long been mining blocks which appear to be stuffed with their own transactions, perhaps to hide an empty block? (although it could be some kind of data storage mechanism for another system)
All miners are going to take what ever competitive advantage that they can. Seems like some people are mud slinging so that they can play the victim card because they have failed to develop a consensus solution.

Thanks for doing the legwork on this. I have a feeling we're going to be going over all the empty blocks with a fine toothed comb to see who is talking out of their a**...

Anybody care to start posting some blockchain explorer links to the empty blocks?

Either way I don't think this will be an adequate distraction from the blocksize war, nor will it increase support for Wegsh*t. I feel like the "centralization" FUD has been overused already in the "Chinese miner cartel" fantasy, and people are just tired of it and want a blocksize increase and no Segwit. Core may end up losing out completely on Segwit if they keep advancing the drama... my god, they're like a gossiping gaggle of housewives at this point...

[Carlton Banks]

people are just tired of it and want a blocksize increase and no Segwit.

what's actually provably tiring is the constant repetition of "people want big blocks" when all the best evidence suggests the complete opposite.


3 times now, Big Blocks hard fork proposals have been rejected by real node operators on the Bitcoin network, which is a pretty reliable measurement.


How many trillions of times have you and others repeated-repeated-repeated this same line that the majority favour big blocks?

You're just an obvious and compulsive liar, that's the real truth isn't it

[classicsucks]

You're just an obvious and compulsive liar, that's the real truth isn't it

Why ask, even if I did confess to being a compulsive liar, wouldn't I would be lying? Logical fail. FYI "real truth" is either redundant or an oxymoron. Finally, even if you did have a majority on this forum (which I doubt), what would that prove? That this is a Core echo-chamber?

Why don't you go back to copy/pasting up your "ANN: CarltonBanksBlacklistCoin thread" and let the men continue debunking Core's latest tempest in a teapot?

[Carlton Banks]

Can't you respond without putting words in my mouth, words that closely resemble my criticism of your deceptive behaviour?

Anyone reading between the lines would think you're trying to bait me here



Stop diverting. You cannot keep maintaining the obvious lie that "the Bitcoin community desperately wants bigger blocks"

It's obvious that they do not. If the desire for blocksize increases had any strength at all, it would have happened by now, Bitcoiners have been given 3 opportunities to increase the blocksize, all were rejected.


Trying to throw up strawman bamboozles about "Core echo-chambers" is just lame lame lame. Bitcoin node operators rejected XT, Classic and BU, not forum users talking hot air.

[Hueristic]

OMG, is making a bot to reply a thing?  I would totally do that to you shills if I knew how LOL

not knowing how just reveals your lack of coding talent. thus you have just gone and made yourself redundant to any topic about code discussions

have a nice day though

Well to be fair that is only scripting.

Efficiency advantages should not be the grounds on which to condemn Bitmain, nor should ethics or morality, these were not a part of the founding principles of Bitcoin.  It is written in the rules that PoW mining is a free market as has been said, and is subject to the rules of a free market. It's also disingenuous to claim that shortcuts in the PoW process are an exploit, if they still accomplish the same goal with the same level of security. At most they could be considered an oversight in the design of Merkle–Damgård construction, but in that case they are evenly open to said optimization (patents do not apply to this argument).  The empty block argument is also null, it does not effectively hurt the bitcoin ecosystem, it is simply a byproduct of a process improvement.  That said, I fully side with Nick Szabo in what he said:

"Secret mining advantage is expected. The problem is incentive to oppose incompatible upgrades for secret reasons."

That is it.  No condemnation of shady Chinese backdoor deals about hardware improvements, or how they potentially de-frauded their customers by selling them hardware that was neutered in order to hinder competition and hide their own advantages.  None of that has any bearing on this conversation (though ti deserves its own).  Just remove the roadblocks that hinder future improvement protocols (covert boost), and demand transparency in issues that revolve around bitcoin governance and the future of the protocol instead of hiding behind secret agendas. 

If Bitmain is already taking advantage of ASICboost covertly for their own mining, and they own the patent in their own jurisdiction (again, set morality/ethics of potential infringement aside), then what would prevent them from continuing to use ASICboost technology overtly and reap the same advantage/benefit they are already? If it's to protect the public opinion of their company, they need to take their head out of the sand. Everyone knows what they are about.

Why did you copy and paste what I wrote 7 pages back without quotation?  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1857162.msg18480572#msg18480572

Scammers do that to build accounts and rip off sig campaigns. Report him and if he's in a sig campaign report him there as well.

[jonald_fyookball]

and an immutable system doesn't need nor want development, and is designed to resist any breach of immutability.  

Except when there exists overwhelming consensus to enact changes, that is.

I am actually going to agree with you 100%. One such example would be quantum resistant protocol changes. That would focus minds.

Overwhelming consensus only exists on those things which benefit everyone pretty much equally, which was precisely the point that @dinofelis and I made about the game theory of PoW being crab bucket mentality.

And that is why you'll never see any consensus on block size or SegWit, other than to defend the status quo which is the Schelling point of the whales (i.e. pull everyone back into the crab bucket so nobody gets an "unfair" advantage).

Schelling point. Learn it.

Meh... even if it could be true, they can only play that game for so long before undermining the fundamentals so its pointless...therefore improbable.