Mrpumperitis
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2772
Merit: 1075
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 26, 2016, 06:15:22 AM |
|
CHEAP ETH DAYS ARE OVER GUYS ![Shocked](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/shocked.gif)
|
Bitcoin - Blockchain 1.0 (2009) Ethereum - Blockchain 2.0 (2015) Partisia - Blockchain 3.0 (2021)
|
|
|
|
lordoliver
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1020
expect(brain).toHaveBeenUsed()
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 26, 2016, 09:23:29 AM |
|
I guess not voting is more or less in favour for no... fork means action.
|
|
|
|
noobtrader
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 26, 2016, 11:14:58 AM |
|
I guess not voting is more or less in favour for no... fork means action. i thing not voting is not voting, it mean 75% doesnt care to vote no.
|
"...I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism...", satoshi@vistomail.com
|
|
|
lordoliver
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1020
expect(brain).toHaveBeenUsed()
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 26, 2016, 03:35:26 PM |
|
I guess not voting is more or less in favour for no... fork means action. i thing not voting is not voting, it mean 75% doesnt care to vote no. if it comes to changing the client, "I don't care to vote" is a no as well...
|
|
|
|
slowly
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 43
Merit: 0
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 26, 2016, 03:46:54 PM |
|
Some people just don't know how to vote. Srls. And other just mine that's all.
|
|
|
|
noobtrader
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 26, 2016, 04:03:49 PM |
|
I guess not voting is more or less in favour for no... fork means action. i thing not voting is not voting, it mean 75% doesnt care to vote no. if it comes to changing the client, "I don't care to vote" is a no as well... pls stop putting word into my mouth, im not voting and im happy with 22% yes vote.
|
"...I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism...", satoshi@vistomail.com
|
|
|
revelacaogr
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1316
Merit: 1021
2009 Alea iacta est
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 26, 2016, 05:03:26 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
lordoliver
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1020
expect(brain).toHaveBeenUsed()
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 26, 2016, 07:11:24 PM Last edit: June 26, 2016, 07:26:39 PM by lordoliver |
|
if it comes to changing the client, "I don't care to vote" is a no as well...
pls stop putting word into my mouth, im not voting and im happy with 22% yes vote. you still didn't get it? Forking means, that they have to install a new client. This was a vote on one big pool. If the participants were not in the pool but were directly in the system, they would have to install or not install a new version (there is no abstention). The not attending (lazy) people would not install a new software, thats why its like a "no". Of course you can say, the pool will not care (whats paternalism in my view), but that's still only 1/4 of the network and the ratio of "lazy" people will be equal. This system makes sense, because, if you really want to change something, you are not lazy... otherwise it was not worth it...
|
|
|
|
roselee
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 26, 2016, 09:22:44 PM |
|
the fork might not happen voting or not might not make a folk happen
|
|
|
|
mastertrader777
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 27, 2016, 03:40:36 AM |
|
the fork might not happen voting or not might not make a folk happen
Whats your reasoning? I don't believe that to be true at all! Just saying..
|
|
|
|
roselee
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 27, 2016, 10:18:26 AM |
|
the fork might not happen voting or not might not make a folk happen
Whats your reasoning? I don't believe that to be true at all! Just saying.. just a feeling thats all
|
|
|
|
noobtrader
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 27, 2016, 10:54:44 AM |
|
if it comes to changing the client, "I don't care to vote" is a no as well...
pls stop putting word into my mouth, im not voting and im happy with 22% yes vote. you still didn't get it? Forking means, that they have to install a new client. This was a vote on one big pool. If the participants were not in the pool but were directly in the system, they would have to install or not install a new version (there is no abstention). The not attending (lazy) people would not install a new software, thats why its like a "no". Of course you can say, the pool will not care (whats paternalism in my view), but that's still only 1/4 of the network and the ratio of "lazy" people will be equal. This system makes sense, because, if you really want to change something, you are not lazy... otherwise it was not worth it... the fact remain that this was a vote on one big pool. so those who are not voting should be regarded as neutral or pro fork, because if they were bunch of anti fork as you were implying then they should vote no instead of doing nothing. btw :: new version of wallet is irrelevant in this voting because its a pool, surely the pool will change the wallet for them.
|
"...I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism...", satoshi@vistomail.com
|
|
|
roselee
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 27, 2016, 11:12:50 AM |
|
but objectivly the same can be said or asumed for the contra position no vote is a no couse if the notvoter dont like what is done they leave the pool ? am i right they are free to go ? and isnt pool switching a rather easy unspectacular thing to do ? i am not saying its so but can we be certain what the none voters standpoint is ? and they are 70% of the pool members ?
|
|
|
|
noobtrader
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 27, 2016, 12:43:55 PM |
|
but objectivly the same can be said or asumed for the contra position no vote is a no couse if the notvoter dont like what is done they leave the pool ? am i right they are free to go ? and isnt pool switching a rather easy unspectacular thing to do ? i am not saying its so but can we be certain what the none voters standpoint is ? and they are 70% of the pool members ?
yes leaving is easy, but why leaving if you can vote and change the pool outcome
|
"...I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism...", satoshi@vistomail.com
|
|
|
FruitBucket
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 27, 2016, 01:16:40 PM |
|
but objectivly the same can be said or asumed for the contra position no vote is a no couse if the notvoter dont like what is done they leave the pool ? am i right they are free to go ? and isnt pool switching a rather easy unspectacular thing to do ? i am not saying its so but can we be certain what the none voters standpoint is ? and they are 70% of the pool members ?
yes leaving is easy, but why leaving if you can vote and change the pool outcome That is right. I will vote for the change or the fork. No vote no say. If you do not agree with the soft fork, vote no.
|
|
|
|
lordoliver
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1020
expect(brain).toHaveBeenUsed()
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 27, 2016, 02:42:26 PM |
|
if it comes to changing the client, "I don't care to vote" is a no as well...
pls stop putting word into my mouth, im not voting and im happy with 22% yes vote. you still didn't get it? Forking means, that they have to install a new client. This was a vote on one big pool. If the participants were not in the pool but were directly in the system, they would have to install or not install a new version (there is no abstention). The not attending (lazy) people would not install a new software, thats why its like a "no". Of course you can say, the pool will not care (whats paternalism in my view), but that's still only 1/4 of the network and the ratio of "lazy" people will be equal. This system makes sense, because, if you really want to change something, you are not lazy... otherwise it was not worth it... the fact remain that this was a vote on one big pool. so those who are not voting should be regarded as neutral or pro fork, because if they were bunch of anti fork as you were implying then they should vote no instead of doing nothing. btw :: new version of wallet is irrelevant in this voting because its a pool, surely the pool will change the wallet for them. Is it really so hard to understand? The blockchain is a system that should not be altered easily. Thats why its a blessing, that inaction leads to no change... You want it the other way arround. That would lead to some rich people buying a few idiots to make it change and the rest doesn't care. You saw, how ridiculously low the participant percentage was...
|
|
|
|
noobtrader
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 27, 2016, 02:56:15 PM |
|
if it comes to changing the client, "I don't care to vote" is a no as well...
pls stop putting word into my mouth, im not voting and im happy with 22% yes vote. you still didn't get it? Forking means, that they have to install a new client. This was a vote on one big pool. If the participants were not in the pool but were directly in the system, they would have to install or not install a new version (there is no abstention). The not attending (lazy) people would not install a new software, thats why its like a "no". Of course you can say, the pool will not care (whats paternalism in my view), but that's still only 1/4 of the network and the ratio of "lazy" people will be equal. This system makes sense, because, if you really want to change something, you are not lazy... otherwise it was not worth it... the fact remain that this was a vote on one big pool. so those who are not voting should be regarded as neutral or pro fork, because if they were bunch of anti fork as you were implying then they should vote no instead of doing nothing. btw :: new version of wallet is irrelevant in this voting because its a pool, surely the pool will change the wallet for them. Is it really so hard to understand? The blockchain is a system that should not be altered easily. Thats why its a blessing, that inaction leads to no change... You want it the other way arround. That would lead to some rich people buying a few idiots to make it change and the rest doesn't care. You saw, how ridiculously low the participant percentage was... but that change was the right thing to do. u know what happen in real world if a bug by the bank give you million of free money http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-05/woman-arrested-at-sydney-airport-over-alleged-fraud/7385482
|
"...I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism...", satoshi@vistomail.com
|
|
|
roselee
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 27, 2016, 03:54:13 PM |
|
if it comes to changing the client, "I don't care to vote" is a no as well...
pls stop putting word into my mouth, im not voting and im happy with 22% yes vote. you still didn't get it? Forking means, that they have to install a new client. This was a vote on one big pool. If the participants were not in the pool but were directly in the system, they would have to install or not install a new version (there is no abstention). The not attending (lazy) people would not install a new software, thats why its like a "no". Of course you can say, the pool will not care (whats paternalism in my view), but that's still only 1/4 of the network and the ratio of "lazy" people will be equal. This system makes sense, because, if you really want to change something, you are not lazy... otherwise it was not worth it... the fact remain that this was a vote on one big pool. so those who are not voting should be regarded as neutral or pro fork, because if they were bunch of anti fork as you were implying then they should vote no instead of doing nothing. btw :: new version of wallet is irrelevant in this voting because its a pool, surely the pool will change the wallet for them. Is it really so hard to understand? The blockchain is a system that should not be altered easily. Thats why its a blessing, that inaction leads to no change... You want it the other way arround. That would lead to some rich people buying a few idiots to make it change and the rest doesn't care. You saw, how ridiculously low the participant percentage was... but that change was the right thing to do. u know what happen in real world if a bug by the bank give you million of free money http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-05/woman-arrested-at-sydney-airport-over-alleged-fraud/7385482gosh thats what i try to say since this started steeling back is still steeling they should put more effort on finding the identity of the attacker then on steeling it back
|
|
|
|
noobtrader
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1000
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
June 27, 2016, 04:13:57 PM |
|
if it comes to changing the client, "I don't care to vote" is a no as well...
pls stop putting word into my mouth, im not voting and im happy with 22% yes vote. you still didn't get it? Forking means, that they have to install a new client. This was a vote on one big pool. If the participants were not in the pool but were directly in the system, they would have to install or not install a new version (there is no abstention). The not attending (lazy) people would not install a new software, thats why its like a "no". Of course you can say, the pool will not care (whats paternalism in my view), but that's still only 1/4 of the network and the ratio of "lazy" people will be equal. This system makes sense, because, if you really want to change something, you are not lazy... otherwise it was not worth it... the fact remain that this was a vote on one big pool. so those who are not voting should be regarded as neutral or pro fork, because if they were bunch of anti fork as you were implying then they should vote no instead of doing nothing. btw :: new version of wallet is irrelevant in this voting because its a pool, surely the pool will change the wallet for them. Is it really so hard to understand? The blockchain is a system that should not be altered easily. Thats why its a blessing, that inaction leads to no change... You want it the other way arround. That would lead to some rich people buying a few idiots to make it change and the rest doesn't care. You saw, how ridiculously low the participant percentage was... but that change was the right thing to do. u know what happen in real world if a bug by the bank give you million of free money http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-05/woman-arrested-at-sydney-airport-over-alleged-fraud/7385482gosh thats what i try to say since this started steeling back is still steeling they should put more effort on finding the identity of the attacker then on steeling it back I guess they were not stealing if they never receive the money or spend it... but you were right, counter attack like these put those ppl in the same crimescene as the original attacker. only fork can help them now as the project initiator, i guess ethereum/DAO dev has right to rectify mistake and bug that plagued their program. ![Sad](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/sad.gif)
|
"...I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism...", satoshi@vistomail.com
|
|
|
|