It seems luke-jr is ready to make his own shitcoin forked version of Bitcoin :P

[pawanjain]

LOL  Why don't the big people give us a chance to stop laughing  We can see such shitcoins everywhere and yet there are people who want to create more.
I must say that all the forked coins from bitcoin are nowhere near bitcoin right now while most of them are similar to dust.
There are only a few coins which have even crossed $10. There is no chance that any more versions of bitcoin will survive in the current crypto market.

[1714054400]

1714054400

[1714054400]

1714054400

[meanwords]

Hey, as long as we are getting free money from it, I'm not going to complain lol. It's probably going to be another Bitcoin cash where they will shill it and make tons of money. To be honest, I don't even know who this guy is. But I guess he's pretty famous.

[Wind_FURY]

He might be. Although I believe it is his opinion that the Bitcoin network is "not ready" to be utilized in a big way. It might come from the belief that if the users can't or won't run full nodes because the initial blockchain download is too much for their bandwidth, or hardware, or both, then Bitcoin therefore is "broken".

its not "broke" .. but yes people like luke*. will assume and try to promote such.

Don't gaslight. I said "might come from the belief". It's me trying to make sense of his want for 300k blocks. He didn't promote the idea that "Bitcoin is broken software", although I can see some newbies would think it is when they are discouraged from running Bitcoin because the initial block download is too much for their bandwidth, or hardware.

Lukes true nature is that luke is greedy. luke loves altcoins, merge mine income from different networks and such.  

Take your personal opinions out of this.

there actually is no problem with bitcoin and blockchains, if certain real BITCOIN innovations occur. i am not talking about jumping to "gigabytes by midnight" which false mantra a that a certain group have stuck in their head as the lame excuse not to even try scaling bitcoin
im talking about bitcoin optimisations and SCALING(not leaping)

But hard forks to big blocks are real "Bitcoin innovations" for you, right?

what i found truly funny. yes luke always hated bitcoin scaling and didnt even like the 1mb limit years ago. but as soon as it become apparent that the only way h can enforce segwit(to claim his VC funded prize)

Hahaha. What are you saying? You keep on adding lies after lies on top of personal attacks, and accusations.

would be to accept 4mb. he soon went quiet about '2mb a block/100gb a year is bad'. and suddenly he became happy about 4mb possibilities(2.1-2.5 more realistic capability).
(now he has his VC funded tranche of income, now he wants to backtrack things. as do certain group that desire to de-burden bitcoin of utility to push people to other networks in the hopes of greedy income streams)

by the way, bitcoin is not too much for peoples bandwidth/hardware. in as much as online gaming or live streaming(which requires more data)

I believe that was the compromise to appease the miners, and activate Segwit. But they still did their hard fork to bigger blocks at any rate.

[franky1]

windfury..
gotta love your "keep personal opinions out of it"
and your own gaslighting.

but.

1. luke is greedy. and luke got paid alot of money for UASF(as did samson mow). and aswell as the UASF.. luke got extra as a VC tranche of money in november 2017 for getting segwit activated before the november 2017 deadline.

there was no coincidence that luke started the timer for the initial version in november 2016 to end november 2017
no coincidence that he pushed the 148 UASF as early as august to ensure activating by november 2017. no coincidence for the NYA drama either.. and no coincidence that there was VC money thrown in this direction in november 2017

oh and also this new 300k thing.. also dated august 1st like the 148 was
no coincidence
you might want to try doing some research before replying.

because replying just to say you dont like me mentioning a bitcoin dev or core negatively when they are doing some crap stuff
i do wonder, why are you defending him. why have i seen you many times defending devs.

im guessing you think you can earn something by doing some PR. is that the goal. getting income for over promoting things and trying to push negative points into obscurity.
 
but here is the funny part. you and your buddy group OVER defend devs. because there have been many times when devs themselves happily admit their actions. but when i bring them up. you and your buddies try defending a dev as if the dev is innocent.
its either lack of research. or its kissing their ass without them knowing to then hope when you lot do highlight how much of an ass kisser you all are, they see lots of evidence.

are you trying to build up a portfolio of ass kissing before asking blockstream or DCG for a job or something?
because the lack of research and tactics of twisting things around just to try to make devs look good even when they happily admit they are happy being controversial capitalists.. seems a little off..

maybe next time start with research BEFORE hitting the reply button.

the reason i ask is.
this is a bitcoin forum, but it seems you and your buddies are more interested in the 'defend human and corporation' social drama.
so when people high light how humans(devs) negatively do things to the network. your not interested in defending the network. your more interested in the social drama

anyway
1. bitcoin is not "broken software". but luke has said the bitcoin blockchain is broke.
(gotta love your subtlety with 'software' to tweak the narrative away from his words).

2. however as a separate thing,, the "software" (core) has been tweaked in ways to stifle BITCOIN network utility to promote another network. there are many possible ways to appease users initial experience of downloading the blockchain. but the software has been tweaked to do the opposite. with only a few tweaks of pretend optimisation. which is just in reality to avoid the new features further irritating users, rather than sort problems

3. he actually is greedy. he actually does love altcoins, merge mining for extra income and doing things for money rather than caring about the network. check right back to his eligius days

4. the echo chamber rants of you using the term "big blocks".. you really are not researching, and just repeating the group mindset

5. again its not hard to follow the money. ill give you 2 tips.. $25m and 21st november 2017

6. segwit 1x was not a compromise.. you really are scraping the bottom of the barrel if you think segwit1x is a 'compromise'

[squatter]

I guess you don't understand how wikis work. You're only looking at the most recent revisions.

The hardfork wiki was created on 22 March 2014‎, and the definition in question was published on 23 March 2014‎. See here for the entire history.

The softfork wiki was also created on 22 March 2014‎, and the definition in question was published on 23 March 2014. See here for the entire history.

This is how the definitions appeared at that time:

A hardfork is a change to the bitcoin protocol that makes previously invalid blocks/transactions valid, and therefore requires all users to upgrade.

A softfork is a change to the bitcoin protocol wherein only previously valid blocks/transactions are made invalid.

more limited perspective by you.
try going back to 2009

your taking a certain type of soft and a certain type of hard. used as just one example in some wiki... and thinking thats the full scope.

No, I'm just using the conventionally accepted definitions. Discussing these things is futile if you can't agree on definitions. Also, if you go back to the mailing lists, these definitions go back far beyond 2014. That's just when the pages were created.

You're never going to get anywhere if you keep referring to apples as oranges.

Anyway, like I've said before, the name you give it doesn't matter, so foaming at the mouth about hard forks isn't necessary. The issue is whether a fork is consensus-breaking or not. In the case of BIP148 or a hard fork, consensus would be broken.

[franky1]

You're never going to get anywhere if you keep referring to apple slices as full definitions of apples
You're never going to get anywhere if you keep referring to apple phones as apple fruits simply because a name says its an apple

soft is soft because its soft.
hard is hard because its hard.

one hurts more then the other.. cant get more simpler than that

atleast you admit now UASF is a break of consensus.
meaning hard
one step forward.
but dont backtrack by saying its soft purely by the social word play drama tricks of "what does S stand for"
buzzword names mean nothing. the action/result speak for itself. UASF was hard. end of

[squatter]

You're never going to get anywhere if you keep referring to apple slices as full definitions of apples
You're never going to get anywhere if you keep referring to apple phones as apple fruits simply because a name says its an apple

soft is soft because its soft.
hard is hard because its hard.

one hurts more then the other.. cant get more simpler than that

atleast you admit now UASF is a break of consensus.
meaning hard
one step forward.

I'm not the one who made up these definitions. They're just the definitions that everyone involved in Bitcoin development uses. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise. You are the one who is completely alone, referring to apples as oranges. You are at odds with the entire Bitcoin community. Deal with it.

As I've said over and over, the issue is whether consensus is broken -- we can agree on that. Why are you so obsessed with the definition of "hard fork?" Why does it matter one bit to this discussion?

[mindrust]

Looks like Luke DashJr made this commit in the hopes of people being more convinced to run full nodes. In my opinion, regardless if we have 300kb blocks or 100kb blocks, I really don't see getting the masses to use full nodes, as I think most are holding their coins on their mobile wallets in the first place anyway.

Lightning Network is making people run full nodes. You can always use custodial wallets like Bluwallet but if you own a business and want to accept bitcoins as fast as possible, you need to run a full node.

300kb blocks on the other hand, won't be happening I believe.

[franky1]

I'm not the one who made up these definitions. They're just the definitions that certain group involved in Bitcoin development love to reword very couple years. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise. You are the one who is completely alone, referring to apples as oranges. You are at odds with the entire Bitcoin community. Deal with it.

FTFY

seems its you that cant define it.
a "soft-hard...."

One might call it a "soft-hard" fork.

He's made hundreds of contributions to Bitcoin Core and maintains the BIP process. He's the one who realized Segwit could be implemented as a soft fork -- prior to that, it wasn't a serious option. He was probably integral in getting Segwit activated on the network by championing BIP148.

BIP148 was controversial, but it was coded as a soft fork. Not all soft forks are backward compatible. That's one of things that upset me so much about the BIP148 camp -- they marketed it as a backward compatible soft fork, which was completely false and deceptive. Of course, no UASF can be a priori backward compatible because soft forks require majority hashrate to remain compatible. Indeed, one might call it a "soft-hard" fork because it was a soft fork that was extremely likely to cause a network split.

As you may be able to tell, I was vehemently opposed to BIP148. It was incredibly reckless to do on such a short timeline and I honestly lost a lot of respect for the people who pushed it. I also think Luke is an asshole who puts his own misguided principles above all else, including the health of the Bitcoin network.

But credit where credit is due: Segwit never would have activated if not for BIP148.

easier to just admit it was hard.. and just social drama marketed FALSELY as soft, by use of baseball caps and twitter tags
it was never coded to be soft
the code itself shows as such

a soft fork would be something that only does something at high majority acceptance thats doesnt cause controversy.

As I've said over and over, the issue is whether consensus is broken -- we can agree on that. Why are you so obsessed with the definition of "hard fork?" Why does it matter one bit to this discussion?

148 and this new block lowering topic are not soft.

they are both set to activate at a DATE
meaning no vote, no consensus, no compatibility. just at date X do Y which affects anyone not following Y
thus hard

anyway.. you can spend months searching blogs and quotes...
ill stick to code, blockchain data and real events

have a nice few months

[Bitcoin-Turkiye]

now Bitcoin cash is  trash.. Bitcoincash hardfork was more than 2 shit trash money later. these behaviors that ruin the market. they can never achieve their goal. bitcoin is the first coin and leader. The rest is nonsense, ..no matter how hard they try, they will never replace bitcoin.

[squatter]

I'm not the one who made up these definitions. They're just the definitions that certain group involved in Bitcoin development love to reword very couple years. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise. You are the one who is completely alone, referring to apples as oranges. You are at odds with the entire Bitcoin community. Deal with it.

FTFY

Show how it was redefined every couple years. Actually demonstrate it. Based on the wiki, those definitions haven't changed in the last five years. As always, you never provide any proof for your false claims.

seems its you that cant define it.
a "soft-hard...."

Sigh. In quotes, to emphasize the fact that consensus -- not stupid labels about soft vs. hard -- is what matters.

He's made hundreds of contributions to Bitcoin Core and maintains the BIP process. He's the one who realized Segwit could be implemented as a soft fork -- prior to that, it wasn't a serious option. He was probably integral in getting Segwit activated on the network by championing BIP148.

BIP148 was controversial, but it was coded as a soft fork. Not all soft forks are backward compatible. That's one of things that upset me so much about the BIP148 camp -- they marketed it as a backward compatible soft fork, which was completely false and deceptive. Of course, no UASF can be a priori backward compatible because soft forks require majority hashrate to remain compatible. Indeed, one might call it a "soft-hard" fork because it was a soft fork that was extremely likely to cause a network split.

As you may be able to tell, I was vehemently opposed to BIP148. It was incredibly reckless to do on such a short timeline and I honestly lost a lot of respect for the people who pushed it. I also think Luke is an asshole who puts his own misguided principles above all else, including the health of the Bitcoin network.

But credit where credit is due: Segwit never would have activated if not for BIP148.

easier to just admit it was hard.. and just social drama marketed FALSELY as soft, by use of baseball caps and twitter tags

There is no evidence or logic for what you're saying. You're just repeating, "It was hard! Buzz words! Baseball caps! Hard hard hard!"

It's easier to apply the definitions we've used for many years now, so we can stop wasting time on these stupid discussions. BIP148 was falsely marketed as backward compatible, which is just as bad as marketing a hard fork as a soft fork, but isn't the same thing.

I'm willing to call a bad apple a bad apple. I'm not willing to call an apple an orange. Words have meanings.

a soft fork would be something that only does something at high majority acceptance thats doesnt cause controversy.

That's ridiculous. We're talking about how to define code. Software doesn't care about controversy. People run it or they don't. We're trying to describe what the network is doing, not whether a code fork is controversial according to Franky.

As I've said over and over, the issue is whether consensus is broken -- we can agree on that. Why are you so obsessed with the definition of "hard fork?" Why does it matter one bit to this discussion?

148 and this new block lowering topic are not soft.

I will defer to the community on that one. As for your obsession, keep on keeping on!

[franky1]

read the CODE squatter

Code:

    if (block.nTime >= 1564617600 /* 2019 Aug 1 */ && block.nTime < 1577836800 /* 2019 Dec 31 */) {
        if (GetBlockWeight(block) > 600000) {
            return state.DoS(100, false, REJECT_INVALID, "bad-blk-weight", false, strprintf("%s : weight limit failed", __func__));
        }
    }

between aug 1st '19 and dec 31st '19. if blocks are over 600kb, reject block as 'invalid block weight'

no where is there any consensus about majority of user/pool acceptance before initiating that rule.
no where is there any consensus about it not activating if there was only a minority

148 and this topics bip are MANDATED controversy.. thus HARD

also Luke is trying to push it into CORE.
he isnt just trying to run it on his own node

[BLAST2MARS]

Free shit coins again.

free money is good all the time .

@op , is this the luke jr that you are talking about ?   > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3318

I though we were done with the bitcoin forks? Well, I think those Faketoshi and friends' greed does not really end. I hope exchanges stop supporting these forks for the sake of the market so next time they would not make a bunch of them in the future.

[pooya87]

Free shit coins again.

free money is good all the time .

@op , is this the luke jr that you are talking about ?   > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3318

I though we were done with the bitcoin forks? Well, I think those Faketoshi and friends' greed does not really end. I hope exchanges stop supporting these forks for the sake of the market so next time they would not make a bunch of them in the future.

we will never get rid of forks, as long as bitcoin has value and the forking doubles the coins you own people will continue attempting to make money from it. and exchanges will only care about the fees and the profit they can make from people trading (that is dumping) their newly gained free coins.

[Wind_FURY]

windfury..
gotta love your "keep personal opinions out of it"
and your own gaslighting.

Listen to yourself, because no one listening to you anymore, including the newbies. You have been "memefied". But if you deliberately wanted to annoy everyone, then you did it. Job well done.