Bitcoin Forum
July 28, 2017, 12:43:37 AM *
News: BIP91 seems stable: there's probably only slightly increased risk of confirmations disappearing. You should still prepare for Aug 1.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 [1267] 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1940450 times)
kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 02:00:58 AM
 #25321

oh c'mon.  is that all u got?  if i were him i wouldn't say that either.  why let your enemy know what you're thinking?  lure them in, let them get comfortable.  why the hell should he listen to you anyways?

i see the exact opposite.  and i've listened to just about everything he's ever said about Bitcoin.  he's very pro-Bitcoin first principles.

btw, all you guys here keep banging on Gavin's ulterior motives.  maybe it's time i bring up the core dev Blockstream block's motivations here once again.  let me remind you; they are a for-profit, gvt registered, $21M conflicted, high powered gvt-captured investor driven, 10x expected return demanded, command and control insinuated core dev cabal, with a choke hold on Bitcoin development using stalling tactics to destroy all further growth and decentralization, employing all out diversionary measures so as to further their pet project called sidechains, at tremendous personal billion dollar windfalls to themselves in the form of exercised stock options and lucrative pay contracts.   there.  how's that feel?

admittedly over the top, yes, but i'm tired of your guys slash and burn techniques.

Excellent retort.

I see TPTB playing all sides, co-opting Bitcoin from every direction.

The one thing they can't do "is just one thing" so we do get to leverage Bitcoin. We'd be remiss in not maximizing our opportunity to do so.

And thats exactly why I don't like sidechains neither lol, co-opting Bitcoin from every direction is live.

Its funny one of the most influential bitcoiners that truly is with his roots is MP, the one the mainstream community harshly demonize.
1501202617
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501202617

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501202617
Reply with quote  #2

1501202617
Report to moderator
1501202617
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501202617

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501202617
Reply with quote  #2

1501202617
Report to moderator
1501202617
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501202617

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501202617
Reply with quote  #2

1501202617
Report to moderator
Decentralized search
Search for products or services and get paid for it
pre-sale Token CAT
25 July 50% discount
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1501202617
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501202617

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501202617
Reply with quote  #2

1501202617
Report to moderator
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 03, 2015, 02:02:14 AM
 #25322


I have written that a bounce (perhaps to $320) this summer is expected, but the final low (below $150) is still to come after that.

Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 02:14:50 AM
 #25323

luckily Monero doesn't have a nullc yet.  

Are you kidding?  A crypto rock star like gmaxwell would be a stellar addition to XMR's core team.  The price would double in an hour.

I'd rather he stay with Bitcoin to help balance/cancel out nefarious MBA/VC/frat boy influence, but if the Gavinistas run him off...  Cool

I'm in the camp that beeves it's the square root of the size of the network that give money its value, don't get me wrong I love the idea of A crypto rock star working in this field, I just can't bring my self to believe they are the reason people invest new economic systems.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
freakying99
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 430


Pythagoras and Plato are my brothers.


View Profile
June 03, 2015, 02:16:00 AM
 #25324

How did this go from a gold collapsing bitcoin up thread to a poll about Gavin?
kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 02:18:01 AM
 #25325

How did this go from a gold collapsing bitcoin up thread to a poll about Gavin?

Bitcoin is collapsing now or will soon. Monero UP.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722


Support SEGWIT on 8/1/17 https://github.com/UASF


View Profile WWW
June 03, 2015, 02:19:24 AM
 #25326

How did this go from a gold collapsing bitcoin up thread to a poll about Gavin?

The ongoing Gavinista coup and looming Great Schism are widely considered the most serious and credible threats yet to cypher's bullish "Bitcoin UP" prediction/outlook.

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 03, 2015, 02:20:33 AM
 #25327

Note: While the following is all highly speculative as it must be, and though I'm wont to talk about people rather than actual issues, this case seems to warrant it.

I've been looking into Greg Maxwell quite a bit recently. All the core devs actually (except Wladimir), and the blockstream people. Greg seems a sincere and extremely intelligent fellow with the right kind of bent for the job. The way he knocked the wind out of Stellar's sails on Hacker News was quite something, just as one example.

However, I do sense that he and Gavin have a bit of an oil-and-water dynamic going on. I have never seen them debate directly, though that could be because he was busy recently and "caught a bit flat-footed" on Gavin's proposal, as he said. Seems like classic nerd/jock or cat/dog dynamic (I realize Gavin's also a nerd) with weird passive-aggressive miscommunications aplenty. The thing where Gavin said he spent an afternoon reviewing Greg's idea only to not have it acknowledged reminded me of that especially. Still need both sides of the story, and Gavin has his own subtle ways of being bitchy at times if you read between the lines so I won't draw conclusions.

It's most interesting to me, though, that Gavin and Greg have both proposed a series of 50% increases, yet these two seem as you said the main sticking point for this debate. Pieter seems not very entrenched, and Matt I suspect would go along with Greg and Pieter. Luke I'm not sure but on a hunch I'd say he would go wherever the action is dev-wise, despite his principled stances and eccentricities. He's not Mircea Popescu. Adam overall seems eminently reasonable and would probably not do anything disappointing, but that's just my cursory read.

Perhaps it's time to work some social magic to have Greg relax his position a bit. Since I've been reading almost all his posts, I've noticed he gives little glimmers of sunshine at times. He's not an unreasonable person, and despite his hardline stance I can tell he wants more than anything for Bitcoin to succeed. I could swear he gets less accommodative when Gavin's in the thread, though. The rays of sunshine seem to be buried deep in the comments when he's talking to someone else in a thread where Gavin is absent. Maybe just my imagination.

There are issues among such a group of people that we probably can't hope to understand. The politics, the interpersonal clashes, the miscommunications, the lingering grudges tinting things. Again, I think your implication may be right, this may be more a social issue than a technical one.

Gavin is pragmatic and respects his limitations because he values his accomplishments more than his appraisal of his knowledge, i.e. he doesn't have insecurities or is more balanced. Greg is idealistic and doesn't respect his limitations because he values his appraisal of his knowledge more than his accomplishments, i.e. he has some insecurities or is less balanced.

You definitely want Greg to leave your coin and go to the competitor's coin where he can pretty well muck it up. CoinJoin is a great example of that.

Don't get me wrong, Greg is smarter and more knowledgeable than me when it comes to math and crypto. He is a guy you'd love to have for his smarts, but you'd need to be very careful not to hand him the keys. Perhaps you could bring him around with some social engineering. I found that by being more careful about the way I interacted with him in ways that painted his ego well, he was more accommodating. I doubt he wants to leave Bitcoin, because he wouldn't have the same prominence with any other direction. Thus is he ripe to be accommodating.

MP's public display points to some psychological issues.

My public displays do also. The Multiple Sclerosis has amplified the effect. Hopefully I can get it under control and be more attuned to accomplishments. I have some past performances to remind me that I could.

Edit: Gavin's allusion to Greg overextending himself is an example of his pragmatism and balance. Gavin made choices based on being able to deliver, not based on what is ideal. My successes have come from being more like Gavin. My failures have come from being more like Greg.



I've been looking into Greg Maxwell quite a bit recently. All the core devs actually (except Wladimir), and the blockstream people. Greg seems a sincere and extremely intelligent fellow with the right kind of bent for the job. The way he knocked the wind out of Stellar's sails on Hacker News was quite something, just as one example.
 ...

My sense after observing things for a while here is that Greg is actually a fairly patient person except in instance when the other person really ought to be doing better.  I think that in addition to having significant inherent differences about the role of Bitcoin he has also lost patience with Gavin who is, by his own admission, not the brightest bulb.

On top of that, everyone who is anyone should be mortified at Gavin's slavish devotion to Hearn and the Bitcoin Foundation crowd who can be counted on for atrociously bad ideas by the standards of most early adopters.  I'm sure that this is a contributing factor to Greg's loss of patience.  This unbelievable scenario should make almost everyone 'run, not walk' away from Gavin, and I suspect that it was a major factor for Blockstream getting some wind in it's sails.

There you go. You are describing Greg's need for everyone to measure up to how he measures himself. A typical academic attitude. Academics are great at running intellectual circles around others, but they mostly don't ever accomplish anything significant in the real world.

And when I pointed out to Greg (gmaxell) that blacklisting in CoinJoin can't work because the entire point was to make the chain untraceable, did he say "ah yes, thank you". No.

And he continued to push that braindead paradigm, because he doesn't want to admit that Bitcoin can't be untraceable and non-fungible. His idealism and ego is coloring his pragmaticism.

Gavin will win. And I will also likely win over Greg, because I do have a pragmatic hat. I just have to remember to wear it more often.

freakying99
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 430


Pythagoras and Plato are my brothers.


View Profile
June 03, 2015, 02:21:22 AM
 #25328

How did this go from a gold collapsing bitcoin up thread to a poll about Gavin?

The ongoing Gavinista coup and looming Great Schism are widely considered the most serious and credible threats yet to cypher's bullish "Bitcoin UP" prediction/outlook.

 Grin

You mean we may go down?

 Cheesy
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 02:26:11 AM
 #25329

How did this go from a gold collapsing bitcoin up thread to a poll about Gavin?

frap.doc's man crush on gavin the g-man turned into a cheerleading rally session to get the plebes onto the new bitcoin spook-fork.



both frap.doc and karpeles want to frap it up on the blockchain.

iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722


Support SEGWIT on 8/1/17 https://github.com/UASF


View Profile WWW
June 03, 2015, 02:27:55 AM
 #25330

How did this go from a gold collapsing bitcoin up thread to a poll about Gavin?

The ongoing Gavinista coup and looming Great Schism are widely considered the most serious and credible threats yet to cypher's bullish "Bitcoin UP" prediction/outlook.


You mean we may go down?


No, I mean we may continue going sideways, until the allegedly acute max_blocksize issue and core team mismanagement problem are resolved.



frap.doc's man crush on gavin the g-man turned into a cheerleading rally session to get the plebes onto the new bitcoin spook-fork.

both frap.doc and karpeles want to frap it up on the blockchain.

Now that's just cruel.  LOL!   Cheesy

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004
marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 02:33:35 AM
 #25331



frap.doc's man crush on gavin the g-man turned into a cheerleading rally session to get the plebes onto the new bitcoin spook-fork.

both frap.doc and karpeles want to frap it up on the blockchain.

Now that's just cruel.  LOL!   Cheesy

seems character assassination and smearing is what frap.doc wants this thread to be about, I can oblige in any good mud-slinging, pig-wrestling descent into farce.

Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 02:33:57 AM
 #25332

Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork.
If they try to make a change like that, users will migrate away from their fork just as easy as they migrated to it.

In the end, the developers don't actually have any power - they can only product the software which users want or refrain from doing so.

I would have thought the same until his last statement, you are clearly ignoring the power he is displaying to hold as he forces his plan with help of the billionaire backed VC companies so if you want to buy Bitcoin on exchange X, you'll need to install his fork.

I think you need to consider who the billionaire backed VC companies are backing. we don't know how this turns out, but your concerns are valid, i just don't know if you are directing them towards the correct developers.

if this is a 1 way path why do you think so, I agree with justusranvier, you just switch back if they move in the wrong direction how do you see it?

Masses are easily influenced, you would think most people think like you, there is no "going back" from this, the bitcoin eco-system is already centralized in few companies backed by same hands, what I see is a move to put the bitcoin network effect in great peril if this fork happens, because the way bitcoin and decentralized crypto works, only when theres absolute consensus should a move like that happen. What I believe to be the hidden intention behind this fork is to open the bitcoin network to new regulatory frameworks that will be born from the centralized nature of mining and the inherent traceability and likability of the protocol, and establishing a precedent of strong-arming forks.

If you can't see the messages from the same agents pointing towards this scenario, well, you are making a fool of yourself to the future community that will be studying Bitcoin-history http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34161751/
I share many of your concerns, however I don't agree with your interpretation of centralization, a trend in the contraction of nodes and a specialization in mining is influenced by many factors, i just don't see it a centralizing.

There is one exception though I see the development of the code that protects the protocol as centralized.

There was some info posted earlier that showed that their can be wisdom in mass behavior, I think its relevant, and i believe big picture we are coming out of the hypnoses of mass manipulation as invented by Edward Bernays and deployed by politicians and marketiers, (to quote Douglas Adams who did a talk on the topic) we moving away from the 1 to many communication age of broadcasters and moving to a new age of many to many communication of the internet. - which is proceeded by his parody of all the other ages from caveman times categorized by technology. I think the metaphor is quite apt given the Internet is a technology that wasn't invented for the masses to communicate.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 03, 2015, 02:43:13 AM
 #25333

i think the problem is that they've identified the wrong fundamental unit in the system. as geeks, they identify with the full node as that unit.

otoh, the economic majority identifies the user as that fundamental unit, which i think is correct. Metcalfe's Law will work off the user who needs cheap, reliable tx's to be onboarded.

Why can't the users be the full nodes. (this isn't a question)

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 03, 2015, 02:47:07 AM
 #25334

i think the problem is that they've identified the wrong fundamental unit in the system. as geeks, they identify with the full node as that unit.

otoh, the economic majority identifies the user as that fundamental unit, which i think is correct. Metcalfe's Law will work off the user who needs cheap, reliable tx's to be onboarded.

and the full node and user are not mutually exclusive. increasing users will result in increasing nodes.

edit:  if you listen to Gavin & Peter's debate on LTB yesterday, the node is all that Peter ever talks about.

Bingo, Satoshi's invention and the core of Bitcoin is the distributed security mechanism. It is the essense of what Bitcoin is and how Bitcoin remains free of external influence. I still fail to see how this distributed security mechanism is in any way effected by an increase from 1 to 20MB blocks. Every single pool could easily handle the change and individual miners are completely unaffected.

Then you haven't read nor comprehended my posts in this thread.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 03, 2015, 02:53:35 AM
 #25335

Gavin's strength is his maturity and calm demeanor, imo.  he'll win if it comes down to a battle.

Nope.  Szatoshi will back Back and Maxwell.  The cypherpunks will stick together (or hang separately).

Are you implying Szabo is Satoshi?

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 03, 2015, 02:56:55 AM
 #25336

I singled out the first posts by 2 core Devs. to get a taste for there personality in the wild - early days when everyone was working nicely.  (note if you read it, many other devs. are quite encouraging.)
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=122013.msg1331489#msg1331489
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=122013.msg1389749#msg1389749

Sorry need to quote the first one explicitly:

All rules I found are enforced. I am eager to learn any outstanding.
The biggest deliverable is serious testing.
I would love to get this production ready this year, but since I only work on this on my spare time and my family has other plans with me around Christmas, I can not commit.

Okay. You're missing at least one important rule, but I don't know what else is missing that I missed in review.

Unless you object, I'm contemplating keeping this missing rule to myself for now so that it can function as a test of the testing. E.g. if the test don't find it, they're incomplete.  Obviously I don't want to withhold information which could undermine the network, but absent better testing the software shouldn't be in production use anyways... and there are scarcely few good ways of testing the tests.   Does this sound reasonable to you?


My english vocabulary is not wide enough to define how presumptuous gmaxwell's reply was. Thanks for the pointer Adrian, very informative.

Greg's post is myopic, self-serving, not pragmatic, and too idealistic.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 03, 2015, 03:01:02 AM
 #25337

...
There are issues among such a group of people that we probably can't hope to understand. The politics, the interpersonal clashes, the miscommunications, the lingering grudges tinting things. Again, I think your implication may be right, this may be more a social issue than a technical one.

Interesting. I decided to read all Greg's recent posts and found one which makes his position much clearer.

Quote
There is a soft blocksize limit in addition to the hard one. Originally it wasn't easy to adjust. We ran into the soft limit, and were pushing into it for months at a time back at the end of 2012 and beginning of 2013. Transactions slowed down and there was some complaining, but the wheels did not fall off and Bitcoin's adoption grew substantially during that time. A lot of technical innovation happened then-- in particular replace-by-fee was invented and child-pays-for-parent was deployed. After the soft limits were increased, development on these improvements went fallow, sadly (e.g. CFPF was never merged, or matured to a merge ready state, in Bitcoin Core).
The experience we have says there will not likely be a dire emergency. We also have reason to believe, from the prior accidental quasi-hardfork, that the mining portion of the network can be updated within a day or two during an actual emergency. A straight-forward blocksize bump also has the benefit of being completely compatible with existing SPV clients (they can't see the blocksize). If there really were a dire situation where it was larger blocks or doom-- I'm confident that larger blocks could be deployed quickly without much trouble; and in that kind of situation: consensus would be easy. No matter how concerned people are about larger sizes, if the choice is really larger or a useless network, the former is preferable to everyone. There is also plenty of room for other creativity, as we saw before in 2013, should the need arise, but it can be hard to predict in advance.

He doesn't really want to engage in the mechanics of a block size increase right now, because his opinion is that the limit can be safely maxed out. I wish he had said this a couple of years ago in BCT because then the pros-and-cons of letting the limit be hit could have been hammered out before the question of how to change the limit needed addressing (which is the case now). Maybe he didn't say this two years ago because it wasn't his position then?

Compromise is very difficult when one side does not recognize that an urgent problem, or even just that a problem, exists.

He is looking at it from a very technical level. Advantages of hitting the limit is speeding the development of some software components, work in adversity etc, the downside is non-technical: a PR disaster, collapsing price, loss of VC enthusiasm, academics noting that a decentralized community cannot be trusted to manage a global currency. IMHO, these downsides far outweigh the technical, software benefits. It is simply playing with fire.

He also forgets that not all mining pools obeyed the soft-limits in 2013. A few didn't. e.g. when the soft-limit was 250KB Eligius was mining 500, when the soft-limit was 500 Eligius mined 750. There was always some level of extra capacity which does not exist at 1MB.

He repeatedly says that he is worried about centralization, loss of nodes. Well, the fact is the fastest way to kill*off the most nodes at once is to quickly deploy a hard-fork. A hard-fork needs as much time as possible to be as smooth as possible, maintaining the network intact.

*Nodes left on an old fork are not guaranteed to upgrade, some will just switch off.

Yes again you can see Greg as the nerd in the basement with his trains, optimizing all the gears and mechanisms, but totally oblivious to what is going on in the kitchen.

Btw, I had trains in the basement. But I did come up from the dungeon eventually.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 03, 2015, 03:08:16 AM
 #25338

One classic Gmax thing is to make every statement interpretable in a safe way. For example, today's reddit post where someone was accusing Peter Todd of being biased against an increase because of his affiliation with Viacoin. I don't think there is much merit to the accusation (though that doesn't excuse Todd's sensationalism), but in Greg's reply he said, "Welcome to Reddit, 'Viacoin66'!"

He will say something that looks safe and unantagonizing (just the standard Reddit welcome), but his real purpose is to point out that the account was bran new and imply that it was obviously created to troll Viacoin/Todd. He's probably right about that, but nevertheless it's an example of what I mean where he'll say whatever serves any sort of low-blow purpose in a debate as long as it can be interpreted as not being that. I guess with his security testing mindset he has become Mr. Plausible Deniability.

You almost got it.

He is winning the "I am the smartest dude here" argument to himself. By obscuring his point, he further proves to himself that he is smarter than everyone else that misses the point. And those who are smart enough to get it, will realize that he is speaking to them, while throwing off the lesser dogs from the scent so he won't have to waste his time arguing with them. He lives in his own world. For as long as he is correct, then he has won.

He is very comfortable with Adam Back because he views him as an intellectual peer.

It isn't about real world results for him, although he doesn't rationalize it that way. In his mind, it probably plays something like, "by being the most correct, we will attain the best outcome".

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 03, 2015, 03:15:23 AM
 #25339

Adam Back is still pinning hopes on alternative solutions...

One theory I have entertained is that Adam and Greg both see Bitcoin's design is highly flawed, and they've been trying to forestall hoping a solution could be found. I bet they on their own long ago realized the points I have written about centralization are correct. They've tried to keep their true appraisals hidden and work for solutions, but haven't really found any (but they don't dare admit that).

P.S. My past few posts about people are highly speculative and not intended to be statements of fact.

Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 03:21:56 AM
 #25340

Adam Back is still pinning hopes on alternative solutions...

One theory I have entertained is that Adam and Greg both see Bitcoin's design is highly flawed, and they've been trying to forestall hoping a solution could be found. I bet they on their own long ago realized the points I have written about centralization are correct. They've tried to keep their true appraisals hidden and work for solutions, but haven't really found any (but they don't dare admit that).

P.S. My past few posts about people are highly speculative and not intended to be statements of fact.

They may have what they think is a better idea, Sidechains could be a way to sling shot momentum.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Pages: « 1 ... 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 [1267] 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 ... 1558 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!