Bitcoin Forum
November 20, 2017, 02:30:09 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   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 ... 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 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2010072 times)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 09:25:35 PM
 #25601

...
However, I'm also realistic that Bitcoin is a lot larger that any of others and my assets are allocated accordingly. I'm one of those guys you were just talking about who is (approximately) 90% in Bitcoin, 10% in Monero. And beyond that also 90% in non-crypto assets, which if you do the math makes Monero roughly 1% of my assets. If you want to call me a Monero shill based on that, go right ahead, but you are fooling yourself, and probably using that as an excuse to avoid objectively considering the points I raise.
...

Smart boy snake called RPietila used XMR to take your money (just 1% but it is enough for him)

I mined ~100% of the Monero I have, and then some.
1511188209
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511188209

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511188209
Reply with quote  #2

1511188209
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now Coinlancer is Disrupting the Freelance marketplace!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511188209
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511188209

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511188209
Reply with quote  #2

1511188209
Report to moderator
1511188209
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511188209

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511188209
Reply with quote  #2

1511188209
Report to moderator
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 09:27:54 PM
 #25602

...
However, I'm also realistic that Bitcoin is a lot larger that any of others and my assets are allocated accordingly. I'm one of those guys you were just talking about who is (approximately) 90% in Bitcoin, 10% in Monero. And beyond that also 90% in non-crypto assets, which if you do the math makes Monero roughly 1% of my assets. If you want to call me a Monero shill based on that, go right ahead, but you are fooling yourself, and probably using that as an excuse to avoid objectively considering the points I raise.
...

Smart boy snake called RPietila used XMR to take your money (just 1% but it is enough for him)

I mined ~100% of the Monero I have, and then some.


:-)  ok, then you are serving him for free
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 09:31:09 PM
 #25603

...
However, I'm also realistic that Bitcoin is a lot larger that any of others and my assets are allocated accordingly. I'm one of those guys you were just talking about who is (approximately) 90% in Bitcoin, 10% in Monero. And beyond that also 90% in non-crypto assets, which if you do the math makes Monero roughly 1% of my assets. If you want to call me a Monero shill based on that, go right ahead, but you are fooling yourself, and probably using that as an excuse to avoid objectively considering the points I raise.
...

Smart boy snake called RPietila used XMR to take your money (just 1% but it is enough for him)

I mined ~100% of the Monero I have, and then some.


btw, when gmax claims he has vested interest in Bitcoin, this is how i believe he would have gotten his BTC.  from free mining equipment donated to him for R&D.  i've seen him lobby for it pretty shamelessly.  i'll bet not a cent out of his pocket.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 09:33:55 PM
 #25604

even smooth, who offers up decent stuff, was confusing me a while back before i found out he was a Monero core dev.  i couldn't figure out why when i got skeptical about altcoins he'd always quickly negate anything i had to say on that.  also when we got to talking about the 49%-51% attacks against Bitcoin he was posting highly frequently against Bitcoin.  that's ok, he's smart and is entitled to his opinion.  but it was never clear until someone mentioned his Monero connection what was happening.

You're confusing cause and effect here. I'm involved with Monero specifically because I don't buy the Bitcoin maximalism argument, and Monero has technology that is actually interesting and actually adds something meaningful (unlikely dumb clones like Litecoin). At least, I don't buy the Bitcoin maximalism argument yet (at some point if Bitcoin continues to grow, perhaps after another 10x-100x, it will likely be correct). I consider Bitcoin to be a tiny pimple on the scale of global currencies and finances, so if anything the network effect is working very much against it, not for it. Cryptocurrencies have to succeed on the basis of compelling advantages that overcome a network effect, and if Bitcoin can do that, others can too. I see Bitcoin's lead now as being about as relevant as Novell's with Netware:

Quote from: wikipedia
By 1990, Novell had an almost monopolistic position in NOS for any business requiring a network.

Or perhaps in line with platforms that once had a hugely dominant market share and weren't even replaced, directly, by anything (example: Palm Pilot).

But even that isn't right, because Bitcoin does't currently have a hugely dominant market share anywhere, outside of a few enthusiasts. (Don't misinterpret this as "Buy Monero instead" -- obviously Monero has even less of any kind of share.)

Bitcoin can't scale to future economic activity. It is impossible. It doesn't have the correct scaling attributes.

The existing financial systems can't scale either. The dying Industrial Age monetary and financial system is dying and "they" (society as a marriage of interests in collectivism) intend to apply expropriation and capital controls to any growth in the economy activity which can't be contained within this dying system which includes the End-to-end violating design of Bitcoin.



So I interpret your astute comment to mean that the actual network effects are out there in the Ends of the network and Bitcoin (in its current form) doesn't have a chance in hell of capturing them. I doubt you meant it that way though, but I am encouraging you to see my perspective. I suspect you favor complexity class arguments because they are more fundamental and compelling.

Biodom
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 09:36:55 PM
 #25605

even smooth, who offers up decent stuff, was confusing me a while back before i found out he was a Monero core dev.  i couldn't figure out why when i got skeptical about altcoins he'd always quickly negate anything i had to say on that.  also when we got to talking about the 49%-51% attacks against Bitcoin he was posting highly frequently against Bitcoin.  that's ok, he's smart and is entitled to his opinion.  but it was never clear until someone mentioned his Monero connection what was happening.

You're confusing cause and effect here. I'm involved with Monero specifically because I don't buy the Bitcoin maximalism argument, and Monero has technology that is actually interesting and actually adds something meaningful (unlikely dumb clones like Litecoin). At least, I don't buy the Bitcoin maximalism argument yet (at some point if Bitcoin continues to grow, perhaps after another 10x-100x, it will likely be correct). I consider Bitcoin to be a tiny pimple on the scale of global currencies and finances, so if anything the network effect is working very much against it, not for it. Cryptocurrencies have to succeed on the basis of compelling advantages that overcome a network effect, and if Bitcoin can do that, others can too. I see Bitcoin's lead now as being about as relevant as Novell's with Netware:

Quote from: wikipedia
By 1990, Novell had an almost monopolistic position in NOS for any business requiring a network.

Or perhaps in line with platforms that once had a hugely dominant market share and weren't even replaced, directly, by anything (example: Palm Pilot).

But even that isn't right, because Bitcoin does't currently have a hugely dominant market share anywhere, outside of a few enthusiasts. (Don't misinterpret this as "Buy Monero instead" -- obviously Monero has even less of any kind of share.)

However, I'm also realistic that Bitcoin is a lot larger that any of others and my assets are allocated accordingly. I'm one of those guys you were just talking about who is (approximately) 90% in Bitcoin, 10% in Monero. And beyond that also 90% in non-crypto assets, which if you do the math makes Monero roughly 1% of my assets. If you want to call me a Monero shill based on that, go right ahead, but you are fooling yourself, and probably using that as an excuse to avoid objectively considering the points I raise.

BTW, I also agree with a lot of your points about sidechains and other bitcoin development issues. I don't fully support the 20 MB idea because I think 20x is just too much too fast, but if it was intended as a negotiating tactic to get something more modest through, then well done Gavin.

Very interesting notes.
1. I totally agree that dominant market share by bitcoin is currently misleading and Palm Pilot and Novell are great examples. I had Palm Pilot (and it is still there somewhere). At first it was exciting, but then it turned out not to be that useful (as Newton before it). As time passed, i used it less and less, until i just put it in a drawer. I also remember that it IPOed at hundreds and for a brief moment had market cap at around 100 bil or so.
2. I also have ~10% of my capital in crypto, but i was initially aiming at 20%. The difference is due to stock market outperformance and BTC decline.
I also bought some monero (maybe 1% of btc). Maybe I should increase my monero allocation a bit, but monero so far underperformed bitcoin, although it seems to be in a uptrend. However, with $9 mil theoretical market cap it is just too small right now and probably is just a dev coin for now.
3. My fears re bitcoin could be formulated very simply: it is possible (at this moment) that it will simply wither away not unlike the palm pilot and there is NO way to jump ship from bitcoin into a winning crypto (because it might not even born yet).
4. I have difficulty understanding a decentralization claim for bitcoin since apparently there is one person or a very small group (six people) that are anointed to make the most important changes.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 09:38:48 PM
 #25606

This morning I conceived how I can pay my gratitude to Monero while providing an anonymity function that I must have. And I mean by driving the price in an upward spiral. If my plans come to fruition.

(yeah I know it sounds like bullshit)

And yes this is a subtle hint to buy some Monero, and I have no vested interest. I own 0 XMR.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 09:39:04 PM
 #25607

...
However, I'm also realistic that Bitcoin is a lot larger that any of others and my assets are allocated accordingly. I'm one of those guys you were just talking about who is (approximately) 90% in Bitcoin, 10% in Monero. And beyond that also 90% in non-crypto assets, which if you do the math makes Monero roughly 1% of my assets. If you want to call me a Monero shill based on that, go right ahead, but you are fooling yourself, and probably using that as an excuse to avoid objectively considering the points I raise.
...

Smart boy snake called RPietila used XMR to take your money (just 1% but it is enough for him)

I mined ~100% of the Monero I have, and then some.


:-)  ok, then you are serving him for free

I'm pretty sure my return on investment from Monero will always exceed his, but no I'm not particularly profit motivated by it, to answer another question from the thread. It's just interesting technology. If useful ideas from Monero end up being incorporated into Bitcoin (such as the dynamic block sizes), and then Monero withers away financially, i consider that a complete success. If you look at 1000 crypto coins after Bitcoin you will only find a few that actually do anything interesting at all, or even try to. Monero is one of them.

Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 09:41:13 PM
 #25608

...
However, I'm also realistic that Bitcoin is a lot larger that any of others and my assets are allocated accordingly. I'm one of those guys you were just talking about who is (approximately) 90% in Bitcoin, 10% in Monero. And beyond that also 90% in non-crypto assets, which if you do the math makes Monero roughly 1% of my assets. If you want to call me a Monero shill based on that, go right ahead, but you are fooling yourself, and probably using that as an excuse to avoid objectively considering the points I raise.
...

Smart boy snake called RPietila used XMR to take your money (just 1% but it is enough for him)

I mined ~100% of the Monero I have, and then some.


btw, when gmax claims he has vested interest in Bitcoin, this is how i believe he would have gotten his BTC.  from free mining equipment donated to him for R&D.  i've seen him lobby for it pretty shamelessly.  i'll bet not a cent out of his pocket.

gmax is brilliant and educated mind.  ...
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 10:07:41 PM
 #25609

there's a fundamental disconnect with developing new altcoins that Bitcoiners should be able to migrate to or exchange for.  it's called instability or even inflation.

this ties in with Bitcoin's promise of being open source and being programmable money.  if Monero or any other coin is proven to be successful to the point of forcing all Bitcoiner's to switch, then i think crypto money as a concept fails.  why?  it's b/c that process causes so many ppl to lose money in aggregate from the migration process.

You failed to incorporate the fact that larger markets can be obtained with new capabilities.

WYSIWYG (Windows, MacOS, etc) subsumed MSDOS and I went from selling 30,000 copies of physically distributed software in 1980s to distributing a million copies of CoolPage over the internet at the turn of the century.

Larger markets means a larger size of the global wealth pie for crypto.

Bitcoin can't scale to even a minute fraction of the economic activity coming the Knowledge Age. Thus you are highly limiting your slice of future global wealth with your stance.

Bitcoin has given a promise and it needs to deliver on that.  that is what i will support.  innovation and growth to all corners of the Earth for maximum decentralization.

Impossible with Bitcoin. Impossible. Apparently you don't understand well why I can state "impossible" with certainty?

Did you understand that one of the assumptions in Metcalf or Reed's scaling laws is that the Ends of the network must be able to freely interact with each other.

You are all excited about scaling to Visa scale, and I am all excited about scaling to millions of micropayments per second. It isn't just transaction volume rate limits that are the problem with Bitcoin, but also the fact that the Ends are not autonomous thus morass will constrain.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 10:26:46 PM
 #25610

How do you create a network topology that is decentralized at any scale?

With a design that enables the ends of the network to be autonomous (e.g. the internet), i.e. the End-to-End principle. Ideally the power (autonomy) of the ends over the center (or the group) should get stronger the more it is Sybil attacked (i.e. the attack doesn't exist).

Abstractly not erroneously redefining decentralization to be centralization-by-free-will-but-no-other-choice (aka "one for all, and all for one" collectivism) as Bitcoin did:

Marching in lockstep doesn't mean centralized (of course; that's the whole idea of Bitcoin in a way).

So no universal agreement on the state of the ledger? There must be some way of settling up over time. But I guess you just mean the protocol doesn't have to be shared, in some sense. This may be outside my technical knowledge. Not being a coder at all, I admit I haven't thought a great deal about how Bitcoin runs under the hood until recently. Your hints are getting somewhat tantalizing, but without seeing the whole thing we of course can't know if there's some obvious error if you're recreating Hashcash or Ripple/Stellar (can you? if it's that important you may as well open it to peer review; with a lot of it precoded you could still easily be first out of the gate).

There must be universal agreement on the state of the ledger and it must insure ordering. But there are aspects of Bitcoin's design which are unnecessary for those narrow requirements and this excess power (violation of Principle of Least Power) at the center constrains the Ends of the network more than necessary (violation of the End-to-end Principle).

When an altcoin is launched that is a form of peer review. It is possible that a qualified developer will join with me and be able to peer review my design. If someone of smooth's caliber wanted to join and take over the public face, I would grateful. That might relieve much of the vexing thought process I am going through about whether and how to proceed.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 10:29:22 PM
 #25611

walls are finally starting to posture bullish.  it's b/c the Dow is starting to roll:

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 10:49:20 PM
 #25612

makes Monero roughly 1% of my assets

Some of have publicly commented that you ended up coding less for Monero than they had hoped.

If I said that hypothetically if I was a dev on a coin and my holding in the coin was only 1% of my assets then I wouldn't have much incentive to work on it full-time (forum posting not included as work); would this strike you or anyone else as being unethical or in any other way incorrect or inappropriate?

I am getting at whether a dev having a large stake in a coin is detrimental or positive?

I understand Cypherdoc criticizes Gregory's stake in Bitcoin because Greg is on the other side of the block size increase debate. And he seems to be jealous that Greg was gifted some hardware in exchange for (and/or to aid) his development work.

Seems to me that there will always be jealously, but Satoshi seems to mostly get a free ride. Is it because he is anonymous, gone, or because he caused a star to appear in the eyes of the Bitcoin supporters?

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 10:53:59 PM
 #25613

Looks like Gavin's plan to get the miners to join his coup d'état is not going so great, lol

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

LOL, this quote just cut the legs out from Blockstream's main objection to raising the block limit; that being the large block attack  on small miners supposedly facilitated by "superior"  bandwidth connections. Well, the largest miners in the world are telling us they have "inferior"  connections! Lol! What a bunch of amateurs.

“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”

i just have to repeat this quote and add another from the article to discredit the anti-Gavin's #1 objection to increasing the blocksize; the large miner large block attack:

"Similarly, Wang argued:
“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”


this was from BTCChina's director of engineering Mikael Wang, the #3 in size mining pool in the world.  his statement is inclusive of the Discus Fish and AntPool, the #1 & #2 pools in size in the world as they are also in China.

so who has more credibility in this matter?  the pools themselves, who have the hard data?  or the armchair apparatchiks being the likes of Greg Maxwell, LukeJr, pwiullie, Corallo, and Peter Todd?  the answer is simple:  the armchair experts are wrong.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 11:00:31 PM
 #25614

What I said is it is possible to layer similar schemes on top of Bitcoin. For an example just look at the reusable payment codes justusranvier posted here a bit ago. That alone gets you a long way towards the anonymity of Monero, and more and more methods will continue to be developed on top of Bitcoin over time, achieving whatever level of anonymity desired.

None of those off-chain schemes can provide autonomous mixing, thus they can never scale per the End-to-end Principle. Smooth and I already rebutted JustUs upthread.

And no there won't be any discovery to make it possible to do autonomous off-chain mixing on Bitcoin. I thought about this for months. And I am confident smooth thought about this deeply. He and I discussed and debated these issues in great detail last year.

DarkCoin proposed (implemented?) a prequeue of mixes to try to make it behave more autonomously. But this is an "obfuscation by centralization", which is also what the masternodes of DRK did to solve the jamming problem of CoinJoin thus trading off anonymity which is unmasked by the masternode.

hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 11:00:52 PM
 #25615

Looks like Gavin's plan to get the miners to join his coup d'état is not going so great, lol

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

LOL, this quote just cut the legs out from Blockstream's main objection to raising the block limit; that being the large block attack  on small miners supposedly facilitated by "superior"  bandwidth connections. Well, the largest miners in the world are telling us they have "inferior"  connections! Lol! What a bunch of amateurs.

“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”

i just have to repeat this quote and add another from the article to discredit the anti-Gavin's #1 objection to increasing the blocksize; the large miner large block attack:

"Similarly, Wang argued:
“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”


this was from BTCChina's director of engineering Mikael Wang, the #3 in size mining pool in the world.  his statement is inclusive of the Discus Fish and AntPool, the #1 & #2 pools in size in the world as they are also in China.

so who has more credibility in this matter?  the pools themselves, who have the hard data?  or the armchair apparatchiks being the likes of Greg Maxwell, LukeJr, pwiullie, Corallo, and Peter Todd?  the answer is simple:  the armchair experts are wrong.


Armchairs might be wrong. But toilet USGavin is being flushed away by chineese pandas. China 1 usg 0 Cool
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 11:00:54 PM
 #25616

I understand Cypherdoc criticizes Gregory's stake in Bitcoin because Greg is on the other side of the block size increase debate. And he seems to be jealous that Greg was gifted some hardware in exchange for (and/or to aid) his development work.

Seems to me that there will always be jealously, but Satoshi seems to mostly get a free ride. Is it because he is anonymous, gone, or because he caused a star to appear in the eyes of the Bitcoin supporters?

don't be an idiot about what you don't know.  my criticism of gmax goes back years from simply observing his bearishness and misunderstandings around mining centralization.  it then escalated several notches from the Press Center debate from what i found to be highly authoritarian behavior.  he also has chased me off the dev IRC channels in the past which by itself wasn't a big deal but contributed to my thinking of him as a self important apparatchik presiding over Bitcoin.  then also, i've observed his shameless dealings in the mining hardware section where he lobbies for free hardware.  oh and then the SC's financial conflict with Blockstream.  he keeps adding to the list rather quickly though now with this anti Gavin debate wherein it's becoming all too clear to the community that he is a problem.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 11:05:26 PM
 #25617

Looks like Gavin's plan to get the miners to join his coup d'état is not going so great, lol

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

LOL, this quote just cut the legs out from Blockstream's main objection to raising the block limit; that being the large block attack  on small miners supposedly facilitated by "superior"  bandwidth connections. Well, the largest miners in the world are telling us they have "inferior"  connections! Lol! What a bunch of amateurs.

“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”

i just have to repeat this quote and add another from the article to discredit the anti-Gavin's #1 objection to increasing the blocksize; the large miner large block attack:

"Similarly, Wang argued:
“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”


this was from BTCChina's director of engineering Mikael Wang, the #3 in size mining pool in the world.  his statement is inclusive of the Discus Fish and AntPool, the #1 & #2 pools in size in the world as they are also in China.

so who has more credibility in this matter?  the pools themselves, who have the hard data?  or the armchair apparatchiks being the likes of Greg Maxwell, LukeJr, pwiullie, Corallo, and Peter Todd?  the answer is simple:  the armchair experts are wrong.


Armchairs might be wrong. But toilet USGavin is being flushed away by chineese pandas. China 1 usg 0 Cool

the Chinese miner question can easily be counterbalanced by this map of full node locations:


marcus_of_augustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2436



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 11:07:03 PM
 #25618

Quote
so who has more credibility in this matter?  the pools themselves, who have the hard data?  or the armchair apparatchiks being the likes of Greg Maxwell, LukeJr, pwiullie, Corallo, and Peter Todd?  the answer is simple:  the armchair experts are wrong.

These guys are actually writing the code you are running, are you making code commits ... I mean who's really the "armchair expert" here?

Just stop being a dick. You are looking worse and worse every time you open your ignorant mouth to trash the developers.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 11:09:49 PM
 #25619

I understand Cypherdoc criticizes Gregory's stake in Bitcoin because Greg is on the other side of the block size increase debate. And he seems to be jealous that Greg was gifted some hardware in exchange for (and/or to aid) his development work.

Seems to me that there will always be jealously, but Satoshi seems to mostly get a free ride. Is it because he is anonymous, gone, or because he caused a star to appear in the eyes of the Bitcoin supporters?

don't be an idiot about what you don't know.  my criticism of gmax goes back years from simply observing his bearishness and misunderstandings around mining centralization.  it then escalated several notches from the Press Center debate from what i found to be highly authoritarian behavior.  he also has chased me off the dev IRC channels in the past which by itself wasn't a big deal but contributed to my thinking of him as a self important apparatchik presiding over Bitcoin.  then also, i've observed his shameless dealings in the mining hardware section where he lobbies for free hardware.  oh and then the SC's financial conflict with Blockstream.  he keeps adding to the list rather quickly though now with this anti Gavin debate wherein it's becoming all too clear to the community that he is a problem.

I observed some similar behavior. Mea culpa. I will accede to you on that aspect.

But is that a sufficient justification for not wanting him to beg for some hardware so he can be vested in the coin.

Any way maybe the answer to my question is that Gmax isn't the lead dev. Satoshi was.

hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274



View Profile
June 05, 2015, 11:14:20 PM
 #25620

Looks like Gavin's plan to get the miners to join his coup d'état is not going so great, lol

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

LOL, this quote just cut the legs out from Blockstream's main objection to raising the block limit; that being the large block attack  on small miners supposedly facilitated by "superior"  bandwidth connections. Well, the largest miners in the world are telling us they have "inferior"  connections! Lol! What a bunch of amateurs.

“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”

i just have to repeat this quote and add another from the article to discredit the anti-Gavin's #1 objection to increasing the blocksize; the large miner large block attack:

"Similarly, Wang argued:
“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”


this was from BTCChina's director of engineering Mikael Wang, the #3 in size mining pool in the world.  his statement is inclusive of the Discus Fish and AntPool, the #1 & #2 pools in size in the world as they are also in China.

so who has more credibility in this matter?  the pools themselves, who have the hard data?  or the armchair apparatchiks being the likes of Greg Maxwell, LukeJr, pwiullie, Corallo, and Peter Todd?  the answer is simple:  the armchair experts are wrong.


Armchairs might be wrong. But toilet USGavin is being flushed away by chineese pandas. China 1 usg 0 Cool

the Chinese miner question can easily be counterbalanced by this map of full node locations:




Most chineese outsource their servers for obvious reasons. Its not the service providers location that counts but rather the location of their contractors. Nice try Wink
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 ... 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!