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

[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.

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.

The fundamentals are that Bitcoin's value is due to being able to trust that its laws never change. This is why whales store their reserves in BTC.

It is not pointless. And just because you are a BU shill, the reality will not change to accommodate your pathetic activity of being a pawn that Jihan Wu is using and will throw in the garbage when he is done using you.

[1714673683]

1714673683

[1714673683]

1714673683

[1714673683]

1714673683

[1714673683]

1714673683

[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.

The fundamentals are that Bitcoin's value is due to being able to trust that its laws never change. This is why whales store their reserves in BTC.

It is not pointless. And just because you are a BU shill, the reality will not change to accommodate your pathetic activity of being a pawn that Jilian Wu is using and will throw in the garbage when he is done using you.

transaction capacity doesnt fall into that class. it was always assumed to grow...1mb was temporary bloat measure, always assumed to increase...even core devs want capacity increase via segwit etc.
you've always been anti bitcoin, anti success... go back to shilling. have fun.

 

[FiendCoin]

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.

The fundamentals are that Bitcoin's value is due to being able to trust that its laws never change. This is why whales store their reserves in BTC.

It is not pointless. And just because you are a BU shill, the reality will not change to accommodate your pathetic activity of being a pawn that Jilian Wu is using and will throw in the garbage when he is done using you.

transaction capacity doesnt fall into that class. it was always assumed to grow...1mb was temporary bloat measure, always assumed to increase...even core devs want capacity increase via segwit etc.
you've always been anti bitcoin, anti success... go back to shilling. have fun.

 

You guys made my day, shills calling each other shills LOL 

[gentlemand]

I think it's time we had a shill rank on here. It can be voted for by other users. It could be regarded as a badge of honour or utter disgrace.

[FiendCoin]

I think it's time we had a shill rank on here. It can be voted for by other users. It could be regarded as a badge of honour or utter disgrace.

In the last month, shilling has reached EPIC proportions  

[felipehermanns]

Where is the chinacoin? Ops . fail

Bu died

[CoinHoarder]

After thinking about this more...

Certainly, after the "powers that be" see the biggest alts gaining ground on Bitcoin (as far as utility, transactions, and market cap), which they already are, eventually both sides will come to the bargaining table and compromise, no? It may be a while though until they "see the light" so to speak. It looks like "alt coin mania" will continue for now until they do.

[dinofelis]

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

While it is true that Thatcher said that in an interview with a women's magazine (Woman's Own), she nevertheless said it, so it is a well-known quote.  Here's the interview:

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689

Here it is, again, taken over by The Guardian:

"They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours." – in an interview in Women's Own in 1987

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-quotes

So these faux intellectuals have it all wrong, happily Carlton Banks is here to know that she never said that.

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.

Yes, which only happens if nobody cares about (that is, if it happening, or not happening, is not being a (perceived or real) advantage to some, and a disadvantage to others, and when the way to to it is evident and "there's no alternative" (again...) ).

In other words, insignificant technicalities.  And even there, that only can happen if there is centralization, if there's a "natural authority" for these technicalities, role which Satoshi had in the beginning, and was transmitted to Core.  When there is a central dev team, the system is centralized.  Core was a central authority, but overplayed its hand by trying to use it where decentralization was already at work.

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.

Because they were (perceived as) insignificant technicalities, dispensed by a central authority and nobody cared enough (it didn't matter enough to the gains and losses of non-colluding antagonists) to oppose it.  

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?

Because it is edifying to see so many bitcoiners totally incapable of understanding the dynamics of the system they are so fond off and to not understand the principles they claim, is what sets bitcoin apart from other payment systems.

[dinofelis]

transaction capacity doesnt fall into that class. it was always assumed to grow...1mb was temporary bloat measure, always assumed to increase...even core devs want capacity increase via segwit etc.
you've always been anti bitcoin, anti success... go back to shilling. have fun.

"it was always assumed to grow" except that that wasn't explicitly part of the protocol, and that the protocol was made such that there is now a specialized population in the bitcoin ecosystem, that have 1) invested a lot in hardware 2) have their revenues (especially in the future) very strongly linked to a fee market. 

When you are on the receiving end of  a market, scarcity matters.  Bitcoins have value because they are scarce.  Transactions have value because they are scarce.  If you are the salesman of transactions and you have invested a lot in the hardware doing so, you want to sell them expensively, and so you prefer them to be scarce enough.

The PoW protocol as it has been specified in bitcoin, whether this was on purpose or not, has design quircks to it that make that an oligarchy of players would rise up (the simplistic PoW scheme open to rapid ASIC implementation and open to pool formation, the very slow re-adjustment of difficulty, the confusion between PoW as seigniorage burner, as consensus decider, and as cryptographic security all together, the halvings scheme....) that would be the gatekeepers of bitcoin ; being able to decide over the fee market, and in the future, over whose transactions will be accepted and whose transactions will never be confirmed, with all the power that comes with this decision capacity ; but these oligarchs will at the same time be so heavily hardware-invested in the system that they will be extremely motivated to keep it running well.

In as much as there was an epoch of "the Pope and the cardinals" that had inherited the moral authority from Satoshi-god-almighty, Core, and ended up being like the real Popes and cardinals, now, we are witnessing the transition to the Governors, that are deeply invested in industrial bitcoin, and will be the deciders of how it is used, under what conditions, and against what fee.

Bitcoin was simply designed that way.  On purpose or by ignorance, I don't know.

[iamnotback]

@dinofelis, sorry to bury your excellent posts, but I think this deserves a response...

After thinking about this more...

Certainly, after the "powers that be" see the biggest alts gaining ground on Bitcoin (as far as utility, transactions, and market cap), which they already are, eventually both sides will come to the bargaining table and compromise, no? It may be a while though until they "see the light" so to speak. It looks like "alt coin mania" will continue for now until they do.

No because:

1. Some of them will be profiting on the rise of these other altcoins. Please understand that John Nash designed the game theory of Bitcoin such that consensus is impossible.

2. Because Bitcoin will always be the reserve currency of unregulated speculation, so Bitcoin doesn't give a fuck about payments and other features:

I wrote something in private that I wanted to share, so I decided to stick it here.

To win against Bitcoin, an altcoin must have something other (and more significant) than just speculation. Bitcoin will always parasite on all speculation in the overall blockchain speculation ecosystem even its marketcap is less than 50% of the ecosystem (as long as it is the largest).

Evidence:

as a trader i like the mess and the drama  

[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

While it is true that Thatcher said that in an interview with a women's magazine (Woman's Own), she nevertheless said it, so it is a well-known quote.  Here's the interview:

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689

Here it is, again, taken over by The Guardian:

"They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours." – in an interview in Women's Own in 1987

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/08/margaret-thatcher-quotes

So these faux intellectuals have it all wrong, happily Carlton Banks is here to know that she never said that.

Thatcher always maintained that "no such thing as society" is a misquote. Maybe it is in the interview, and Thatcher was lying. Doesn't really improve the situation much, whichever way one wishes to look at it.

And besides which, if that's the verbatim quote, she contradicts herself by describing societal relationships in the last line ("It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours"). There is such thing as society, and community. You and Thatcher were both wrong (at least Thatcher both tacitly and expressedly admitted her fault)


Do you have any more paraphrased, self-contradictory quotes from women's weekly magazines spoken by mass-murdering, robber-baron enabling liars to support your arguments, dinofelis?

[iamnotback]

Society-at-large != local community in the small of neighbors

The idiots must always be on Ignore.

No need to even bother to look again.

We live in a soundbite generation where people are more misinformed about everything than cows are about eating grass.

But all these soundbite loving dumbasses are going to perish. Those who are diligent will thrive.

[Carlton Banks]

Except you constantly take me off ignore to (try) to trash my posts, lol

(and to repeat-repeat-repeat your instructions to everyone that I should be placed on ignore)


And you only do it because I don't have to try to trash your posts, I succeed.

[iamnotback]

This dumbass is currently ignored.

[BillyBobZorton]

We will eventually get segwit in bitcoin with UASF. What part of this you don't understand?

Nobody likes Jihan Wu anymore. UASF was used before by satoshi. We will get segwit one way or another.

[FiendCoin]

We will eventually get segwit in bitcoin with UASF. What part of this you don't understand?

Nobody likes Jihan Wu anymore. UASF was used before by satoshi. We will get segwit one way or another.

This remains to be seen.

With the way things have been going, its impossible to predict the outcome of Bitcoin's improvement proposals. Anyone who thinks they know, is just wildly speculating.

I would like to see what is best for Bitcoin's long term success, be it extension blocks and LN or SegWit and LN or whatever increases transaction capacity safely, fixes problems and adds new capabilities to move Bitcoin forward.

[jonald_fyookball]

We will eventually get segwit in bitcoin with UASF. What part of this you don't understand?

Nobody likes Jihan Wu anymore. UASF was used before by satoshi. We will get segwit one way or another.

You sound a lot like my shill post generator bot. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1860249.0

[iamnotback]

We will eventually get segwit in bitcoin with UASF. What part of this you don't understand?

The crab bucket mentality game theory insures you will not.

What part of game theory can't you understand.

[cryptothinker]

We will eventually get segwit in bitcoin with UASF. What part of this you don't understand?

Nobody likes Jihan Wu anymore. UASF was used before by satoshi. We will get segwit one way or another.

UASF will hurt the miners even more. Why bitmain does not accept the losses and support segwit? Is it true that they borrowed $ 100 million from the Chinese government? Where did this rumor come from?

[Quickseller]

We will eventually get segwit in bitcoin with UASF. What part of this you don't understand?

Nobody likes Jihan Wu anymore. UASF was used before by satoshi. We will get segwit one way or another.

UASF will hurt the miners even more. Why bitmain does not accept the losses and support segwit? Is it true that they borrowed $ 100 million from the Chinese government? Where did this rumor come from?

UASF is a technical joke, that if implemented will do nothing other than make a bunch of nodes not work until they go back to a compatible implementation. 

Is it true that they borrowed $ 100 million from the Chinese government?

No. The Chinese government does not make loans to private companies. It is theoretically possible that Bitmain has debt, although this is unlikely (beyond short term accounts payable type debt) because it is fairly easy to figure out their BTC holdings, and the amount of bitcoin they hold has been growing over time.

Where did this rumor come from?

I have never heard anything along these lines before, so I would say it is probably safe to say that this came from a random newbie on bitcointalk