Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 08:38:09 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [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 ... 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 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1808106 times)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
June 08, 2015, 02:34:30 AM
 #25981

If Satoshi had seen 1MB blocks as being absolutely critical to achieving the goals of the project, similar to the fixed distribution in terms of importance, why not act or write in a way that emphasized that? In fact, he acted and wrote as though the blocksize would absolutely be variable over the time vs technological capability curve. 

That's right, but 20 MB is way beyond the technological curve right now and for the next few years at least. It is premature.

Why did satoshi put the 1 MB cap in there in the first place? It was an "anti-spam" function, but why was it important to protect against this sort of spam?

Because the technological curve wasn't up to the task of operating a decentralized consensus system with >1 MB blocks and allowing spam beyond that point would be to allow a successful attack against the system. If it wasn't up to the task of >1 MB a few years ago, what makes anyone think it is up to the task of 20 MB now? It wasn't and it isn't.

1481402289
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481402289

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481402289
Reply with quote  #2

1481402289
Report to moderator
1481402289
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481402289

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481402289
Reply with quote  #2

1481402289
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481402289
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481402289

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481402289
Reply with quote  #2

1481402289
Report to moderator
1481402289
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481402289

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481402289
Reply with quote  #2

1481402289
Report to moderator
1481402289
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481402289

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481402289
Reply with quote  #2

1481402289
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 08, 2015, 02:39:58 AM
 #25982

If Satoshi had seen 1MB blocks as being absolutely critical to achieving the goals of the project, similar to the fixed distribution in terms of importance, why not act or write in a way that emphasized that? In fact, he acted and wrote as though the blocksize would absolutely be variable over the time vs technological capability curve. 

That's right, but 20 MB is way beyond the technological curve right now and for the next few years at least. It is premature.

Why did satoshi put the 1 MB cap in there in the first place? It was an "anti-spam" function, but why was it important to protect against this sort of spam?

Because the technological curve wasn't up to the task of operating a decentralized consensus system with >1 MB blocks and allowing spam beyond that point would be to allow a successful attack against the system. If it wasn't up to the task of >1 MB a few years ago, what makes anyone think it is up to the task of 20 MB now? It wasn't and it isn't.



b/c i just debunked the main spam attack the Blockstream devs have been scaring everyone with:

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.”
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
June 08, 2015, 02:44:35 AM
 #25983

I think the woman trying to smuggle the bitcoins into Russia (in her ...) was the most interesting news I've seen for a while. How many other people are evading capital controls with brain wallets and not getting caught? How long until that becomes widespread?
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
June 08, 2015, 02:46:11 AM
 #25984

If Satoshi had seen 1MB blocks as being absolutely critical to achieving the goals of the project, similar to the fixed distribution in terms of importance, why not act or write in a way that emphasized that? In fact, he acted and wrote as though the blocksize would absolutely be variable over the time vs technological capability curve. 

That's right, but 20 MB is way beyond the technological curve right now and for the next few years at least. It is premature.

Why did satoshi put the 1 MB cap in there in the first place? It was an "anti-spam" function, but why was it important to protect against this sort of spam?

Because the technological curve wasn't up to the task of operating a decentralized consensus system with >1 MB blocks and allowing spam beyond that point would be to allow a successful attack against the system. If it wasn't up to the task of >1 MB a few years ago, what makes anyone think it is up to the task of 20 MB now? It wasn't and it isn't.



b/c i just debunked the main spam attack the Blockstream devs have been scaring everyone with:

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.”

Again you are missing the point. It isn't who are the largest miners today with 1 MB blocks, it is who would be the largest or only miners and node operators with 20 MB blocks.
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
June 08, 2015, 02:46:17 AM
 #25985

b/c i just debunked the main spam attack the Blockstream devs have been scaring everyone with:

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.”

They'll just switch to saying "well-connected miners will torment not-well-connected miners."
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 08, 2015, 02:52:24 AM
 #25986

If Satoshi had seen 1MB blocks as being absolutely critical to achieving the goals of the project, similar to the fixed distribution in terms of importance, why not act or write in a way that emphasized that? In fact, he acted and wrote as though the blocksize would absolutely be variable over the time vs technological capability curve. 

That's right, but 20 MB is way beyond the technological curve right now and for the next few years at least. It is premature.

Why did satoshi put the 1 MB cap in there in the first place? It was an "anti-spam" function, but why was it important to protect against this sort of spam?

Because the technological curve wasn't up to the task of operating a decentralized consensus system with >1 MB blocks and allowing spam beyond that point would be to allow a successful attack against the system. If it wasn't up to the task of >1 MB a few years ago, what makes anyone think it is up to the task of 20 MB now? It wasn't and it isn't.



b/c i just debunked the main spam attack the Blockstream devs have been scaring everyone with:

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.”

Again you are missing the point. It isn't who are the largest miners today with 1 MB blocks, it is who would be the largest or only miners and node operators with 20 MB blocks.


and you're just creating FUD.

what evidence is there that there would be a shift in just who the large miners will be?  maybe there won't be any.  maybe there will be a shift so there are no large miners and everyone is equal.  what we do know now is that there won't be the immediate large miner, large block attack all you guys have been FUD'ing about.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 08, 2015, 02:58:06 AM
 #25987

If Satoshi had seen 1MB blocks as being absolutely critical to achieving the goals of the project, similar to the fixed distribution in terms of importance, why not act or write in a way that emphasized that? In fact, he acted and wrote as though the blocksize would absolutely be variable over the time vs technological capability curve. 

That's right, but 20 MB is way beyond the technological curve right now and for the next few years at least. It is premature.

Why did satoshi put the 1 MB cap in there in the first place? It was an "anti-spam" function, but why was it important to protect against this sort of spam?

Because the technological curve wasn't up to the task of operating a decentralized consensus system with >1 MB blocks and allowing spam beyond that point would be to allow a successful attack against the system. If it wasn't up to the task of >1 MB a few years ago, what makes anyone think it is up to the task of 20 MB now? It wasn't and it isn't.



b/c i just debunked the main spam attack the Blockstream devs have been scaring everyone with:

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.”

Again you are missing the point. It isn't who are the largest miners today with 1 MB blocks, it is who would be the largest or only miners and node operators with 20 MB blocks.


and you know what?  from the beginning, even before we found out about the large Chinese miners, i said this is a highly dubious attack that any such large miner should want to perform.  large blocks do not change the fact that miners will want first and foremost the block reward and should only continue to form the smallest, most efficiently propagating blocks they can so as not to be orphaned.  an attacker still risks losing their entire hardware investment by destroying the system in which they participate.  i've contended that the blonde in the Governing Dynamics video from John Nash is equivalent to either the the selfish or 51% miner attack.  they won't do it b/c all miners want to get laid.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 08, 2015, 03:03:59 AM
 #25988

b/c i just debunked the main spam attack the Blockstream devs have been scaring everyone with:

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.”

They'll just switch to saying "well-connected miners will torment not-well-connected miners."

so if better connections are no longer correlated with size, then the attack doesn't work b/c size was supposed to allow them to press their advantage in forming follow on blocks quickly before smaller miners could digest/process the large block attack.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 08, 2015, 03:25:38 AM
 #25989

notice how none of the Blockstream devs come in to the thread on Reddit, where we know they hang out, to challenge me on this.  i'm sure they were there b/c i got plenty of downvotes as a result of the post which you can see me laugh at in a follow up post underneath:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/38os22/chinese_exchanges_reject_gavin_andresens_20_mb/crwqxai
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
June 08, 2015, 03:26:03 AM
 #25990


The Genesis Block mentions bailouts for TBTF banks.  It does not mention Visa or Paypal.

"banks" were used as a broad term to encompass Visa/Paypal

Satoshi actually used the term "financial institution" in the white paper.  He focusses heavily on the transactional aspects of Bitcoin (e.g., the Visa/Paypal angle):

Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto (Section 1, white paper)
Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non-reversible services.

There's actually no mention of central banks in the white paper whatsoever (although he does use the term "central authority" twice).  The only mention of gold is in Section 6:

Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto (Section 6, white paper)
The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending resources to add gold to circulation.


TL/DR: The white paper focusses more heavily on the transactional aspects of bitcoin than on its potential as a replacement for fiat currency/gold.  

Your dedication to the study of Lord Satoshi's Sacred Words is commendable.

Then hard money, anti-central authority (AKA BIS) aspects of Bitcoin follow a long tradition of bimetallism advocacy and hostility to fiat.

Central bank vs central authority in this context is a distinction without a difference.

I value Satoshi's apt 'gold coin' metaphor.  People traditionally use gold coins to store wealth and perhaps for major expenses.  Gold scales up nicely, from occasional retail use to constant commercial/institutional market churn and international settlement.

But we don't (even under a gold standard) directly use gold coins to buy coffee, pizza, and lottery tickets.  And neither should Bitcoin Core be expected to directly grace the palms of every neckbeard in every basement under every continent.  That was the right thing back in the early days.  Now it's time for Core to move from the suburban garage/basement to the financial district, where rent/sq/ft is much higher (IE not free thanks to mom).

Blockchain technology may someday leapfrog existing/centralized/specialized Visa-scale infrastructure, but it won't be anytime soon and it won't be accomplished by simply making the blocks bigger and bigger.

With its low tps and highly variant 10 minute average blocks, Bitcoin was clearly not designed for real-time point of sale.

If you want to fork Bitcoin into what gmax calls "yet another centralized payment rail" go right ahead.

But please don't try to gamble with everyone else's CoreCoins.  There is a good chance neither fork will survive MPEX's GavinCoin short.

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


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


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


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

"Hard forks cannot be co
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 08, 2015, 03:30:16 AM
 #25991


The Genesis Block mentions bailouts for TBTF banks.  It does not mention Visa or Paypal.

"banks" were used as a broad term to encompass Visa/Paypal

Satoshi actually used the term "financial institution" in the white paper.  He focusses heavily on the transactional aspects of Bitcoin (e.g., the Visa/Paypal angle):

Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto (Section 1, white paper)
Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non-reversible services.

There's actually no mention of central banks in the white paper whatsoever (although he does use the term "central authority" twice).  The only mention of gold is in Section 6:

Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto (Section 6, white paper)
The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending resources to add gold to circulation.


TL/DR: The white paper focusses more heavily on the transactional aspects of bitcoin than on its potential as a replacement for fiat currency/gold.  

Your dedication to the study of Lord Satoshi's Sacred Words is commendable.

Then hard money, anti-central authority (AKA BIS) aspects of Bitcoin follow a long tradition of bimetallism advocacy and hostility to fiat.

Central bank vs central authority in this context is a distinction without a difference.

I value Satoshi's apt 'gold coin' metaphor.  People traditionally use gold coins to store wealth and perhaps for major expenses.  Gold scales up nicely, from occasional retail use to constant commercial/institutional market churn and international settlement.

But we don't (even under a gold standard) directly use gold coins to buy coffee, pizza, and lottery tickets.  And neither should Bitcoin Core be expected to directly grace the palms of every neckbeard in every basement under every continent.  That was the right thing back in the early days.  Now it's time for Core to move from the suburban garage/basement to the financial district, where rent/sq/ft is much higher (IE not free thanks to mom).

Blockchain technology may someday leapfrog existing/centralized/specialized Visa-scale infrastructure, but it won't be anytime soon and it won't be accomplished by simply making the blocks bigger and bigger.

With its low tps and highly variant 10 minute average blocks, Bitcoin was clearly not designed for real-time point of sale.

If you want to fork Bitcoin into what gmax calls "yet another centralized payment rail" go right ahead.

But please don't try to gamble with everyone else's CoreCoins.  There is a good chance neither fork will survive MPEX's GavinCoin short.

those are big words, iCE.  i'm sure there is someone around who is bigger than him.
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
June 08, 2015, 03:33:12 AM
 #25992

If Satoshi had seen 1MB blocks as being absolutely critical to achieving the goals of the project, similar to the fixed distribution in terms of importance, why not act or write in a way that emphasized that? In fact, he acted and wrote as though the blocksize would absolutely be variable over the time vs technological capability curve. 

That's right, but 20 MB is way beyond the technological curve right now and for the next few years at least. It is premature.

Why did satoshi put the 1 MB cap in there in the first place? It was an "anti-spam" function, but why was it important to protect against this sort of spam?

Because the technological curve wasn't up to the task of operating a decentralized consensus system with >1 MB blocks and allowing spam beyond that point would be to allow a successful attack against the system. If it wasn't up to the task of >1 MB a few years ago, what makes anyone think it is up to the task of 20 MB now? It wasn't and it isn't.


One of the main tenets of successful bargaining, you don't start out with your final offer. Compromise doesn't magically begin at the optimal agreement.

It was easily guessed that such a suggestion would start a rift, that the ensuing debate would take a long time. And in any case, would not being implemented until mid 2016.

There's also the desire to give enough headroom to have plenty of time after it is implemented to discuss a more permanent solution.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
June 08, 2015, 03:36:36 AM
 #25993

notice how none of the Blockstream devs come in to the thread on Reddit, where we know they hang out, to challenge me on this.  i'm sure they were there b/c i got plenty of downvotes as a result of the post which you can see me laugh at in a follow up post underneath:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/38os22/chinese_exchanges_reject_gavin_andresens_20_mb/crwqxai

That comment is at best unclear except for the content-free insults, and at worst incoherent and rambling in the frothy manner of a crank like Anonymint.


With its low tps and highly variant 10 minute average blocks, Bitcoin was clearly not designed for real-time point of sale.

If you want to fork Bitcoin into what gmax calls "yet another centralized payment rail" go right ahead.

But please don't try to gamble with everyone else's CoreCoins.  There is a good chance neither fork will survive MPEX's GavinCoin short.

those are big words, iCE.  i'm sure there is someone around who is bigger than him.

We've just this last week heard from several people who are bigger than MPEX, run the worlds largest mines/pools/exchanges in Asia, and do want GavinCoin implemented at this time nor in Gavin's sneaky, haughty, high-handed manner.

MPEX may have invented the GavinCoin Short, but it will be far from the only exchange using it to nuke the Gavinstas' trollfork from space.

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


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


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


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

"Hard forks cannot be co
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 08, 2015, 03:40:42 AM
 #25994

notice how none of the Blockstream devs come in to the thread on Reddit, where we know they hang out, to challenge me on this.  i'm sure they were there b/c i got plenty of downvotes as a result of the post which you can see me laugh at in a follow up post underneath:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/38os22/chinese_exchanges_reject_gavin_andresens_20_mb/crwqxai

That comment is at best unclear except for the content-free insults, and at worst incoherent and rambling in the frothy manner of a crank like Anonymint.


With its low tps and highly variant 10 minute average blocks, Bitcoin was clearly not designed for real-time point of sale.

If you want to fork Bitcoin into what gmax calls "yet another centralized payment rail" go right ahead.

But please don't try to gamble with everyone else's CoreCoins.  There is a good chance neither fork will survive MPEX's GavinCoin short.

those are big words, iCE.  i'm sure there is someone around who is bigger than him.

We've just this last week heard from several people who are bigger than MPEX, run the worlds largest mines/pools/exchanges in Asia, and do want GavinCoin implemented at this time nor in Gavin's sneaky, haughty, high-handed manner.

MPEX may have invented the GavinCoin Short, but it will be far from the only exchange using it to nuke the Gavinstas' trollfork from space.

the markets will go with the economic majority which is reflected in at least 3 polls of 75-95% Gavin support.  and from what i've read of the Chinese miners, they do agree with larger blocks, it's just a matter of degree.  i'm sure they will come along with whatever the economic majority decide.

and what do you care?  you're a Monero pimp.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 08, 2015, 04:08:51 AM
 #25995

every attribute you seem to have, he seems to have.  every attribute he seems to have, you seem to have.

His left eye was losing vision. My right eye is 90% blinded. Whoops.

This is really comical. Are you under stress because of the court case? You are acting strange.

I suggested you get on Skype so you can see me on web cam. But you refused.

pm'd

Next day. I will sleep.

i'm not interested in talking.  one quick glance to verify you're not Armstrong.

I don't have Skype installed at this location. I have to travel to other location.

I believe you are interested in constructing evidence to build some civil suit against me.

lol, see i knew it.  all blow and no go.

I want to talk with you. I want to see you on cam also. I want to try to explain to you why you need to stop your Dunning Kruger presumptions.

But you don't want to talk. You just want to capture my image from the web cam.

You know why we programmers don't make 3000 BTC on defrauding our fellow community? Because we are enjoying too much the challenge of doing. And we see through such simpleton thought processes that you use to lure in naive investors to your trap. Thus we don't have the conscience to do what you do. I suppose your ignorance helps you manage your conscience.

Fuck man I told you 100 pages upthread that big blocks favor large centralized mining because of the equation that determines orphan rate says the orphan rate increases with the propagation delay. Then you retorted that IBLT resolves that, and I said yes but IBLT requires all miners to see all transactions and agree thus is centralization of the network bandwidth requirements.

Then you go over to Reddit and reargue the same nonsense that I had already explained to you is illogical. Then you write here that programmers use too much logic and not enough double-blind surveys.

Fuck man get off our lawn already!

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 08, 2015, 04:11:16 AM
 #25996

every attribute you seem to have, he seems to have.  every attribute he seems to have, you seem to have.

His left eye was losing vision. My right eye is 90% blinded. Whoops.

This is really comical. Are you under stress because of the court case? You are acting strange.

I suggested you get on Skype so you can see me on web cam. But you refused.

pm'd

Next day. I will sleep.

i'm not interested in talking.  one quick glance to verify you're not Armstrong.

I don't have Skype installed at this location. I have to travel to other location.

I believe you are interested in constructing evidence to build some civil suit against me.

"i need to sleep", whimper, whimper.  "i need to travel to another location", whimper, whimper.

ROFLMAO! Cheesy  what a jackass.

Both are true. You are the jackass.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 08, 2015, 04:12:41 AM
 #25997

"but he may construct a civil lawsuit against me", whimper, whimper.  "oh wait, i'm in the Phillipines!  or am i?", whimper, whimper.

I am also on a US citizen, not a permanent resident, and thus subject to passport cancellation and deportation.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 08, 2015, 04:16:10 AM
 #25998

but i don't think you are a programmer.  i think you're Armstrong.

You are losing your sanity dude. It is really pitiful to watch you go on this delusional tirade. Me not a programmer, hahaha.

Btw, Armstrong is a very skilled programmer.

there you go again.

every attribute you seem to have, he seems to have.  every attribute he seems to have, you seem to have.

Martin Armstrong ' s  writing typically includes numerous spelling and grammatical errors that we don't see with Anonymint et AL.  MA'S speech and writing are patterned very much the same, while very unlike Anonymint's  consistent writing style.  I try not to stick my oar into this swirling pool of egos and  childish arguments but sometimes I guess I like to waste time too!

that's possible altho from what i recall those grammatical problems were confined to the time when he was in prison.  remember, he was beat up, probably malnourished, mentally ill, and who knows, maybe faking mistakes to make his condition appear worse for when he appealed.  

I also commit grammatical and spelling errors when I am in a rush. I have often said I am inside Armstrong's head because there are so many parallels in our abilities and experience. But he is in his mid to late 50s, and I am still 49 for a few more days. And he was a hedge fund manager for the Japanese postal fund and I have been a programmer except from 2006 to 2012 I was a silver investor as I dug down into the rabbit hole that September 11, 2001 forced me to wake up to. I was in my birth place New Orleans, LA on that infamous day because my eye surgeon was there.

Btw I called the top of the silver price within a few pennies. Ask former Hommel forum members such as rpietila (or he might have been gone by then).

I didn't start emailing Armstrong until 2012 or 2013. It was his call for gold to peak and decline from 2011 (which I didn't discover until 2012) and his call around August 2012 for the DJIA to continue its bull market heading eventually to potentially 39,000 that really struck me. He has since explained that the DJIA inverted to align with private assets (formerly aligned with public assets, i.e. sovereign bonds) and thus will have a correction before Oct 2015 and then head for those nosebleed levels in 2017 as private capital and the international dollar short heads back safe haven home.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
June 08, 2015, 04:18:16 AM
 #25999

but i don't think you are a programmer.  i think you're Armstrong.

You are losing your sanity dude. It is really pitiful to watch you go on this delusional tirade. Me not a programmer, hahaha.

Btw, Armstrong is a very skilled programmer.

there you go again.

every attribute you seem to have, he seems to have.  every attribute he seems to have, you seem to have.

Martin Armstrong ' s  writing typically includes numerous spelling and grammatical errors that we don't see with Anonymint et AL.  MA'S speech and writing are patterned very much the same, while very unlike Anonymint's  consistent writing style.  I try not to stick my oar into this swirling pool of egos and  childish arguments but sometimes I guess I like to waste time too!

that's possible altho from what i recall those grammatical problems were confined to the time when he was in prison.  remember, he was beat up, probably malnourished, mentally ill, and who knows, maybe faking mistakes to make his condition appear worse for when he appealed. 

Come on cypherdoc do you realize how silly you sound?

The main reason that TPTB's writings often resemble MA's is that he quotes and slightly paraphrases MA a lot.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 08, 2015, 04:26:41 AM
 #26000

every attribute you seem to have, he seems to have.  every attribute he seems to have, you seem to have.

His left eye was losing vision. My right eye is 90% blinded. Whoops.

This is really comical. Are you under stress because of the court case? You are acting strange.

I suggested you get on Skype so you can see me on web cam. But you refused.

pm'd

Next day. I will sleep.

i'm not interested in talking.  one quick glance to verify you're not Armstrong.

I don't have Skype installed at this location. I have to travel to other location.

I believe you are interested in constructing evidence to build some civil suit against me.

lol, see i knew it.  all blow and no go.

I want to talk with you. I want to see you on cam also. I want to try to explain to you why you need to stop your Dunning Kruger presumptions.

But you don't want to talk. You just want to capture my image from the web cam.

i won't capture anything.  i just want to see if you're Armstrong.  you're the one who offered.
Quote

You know why we programmers don't make 3000 BTC on defrauding our fellow community? Because we are enjoying too much the challenge of doing. And we see through such simpleton thought processes that you use to lure in naive investors to your trap. Thus we don't have the conscience to do what you do. I suppose your ignorance helps you manage your conscience.

you have no details of the case so don't jump to any conclusions.  but of course, that's not your objective is it?  to be fair.
Quote

Fuck man I told you 100 pages upthread that big blocks favor large centralized mining because of the equation that determines orphan rate says the orphan rate increases with the propagation delay. Then you retorted that IBLT resolves that, and I said yes but IBLT requires all miners to see all transactions and agree thus is centralization of the network bandwidth requirements.

can you even construct a proper sentence?  and i said most miners have most tx's in their mempool which is why Gavin thinks it is likely to work.  i'm sure there is some work to be done along with testing but the concepts are the same.
Quote

Then you go over to Reddit and reargue the same nonsense that I had already explained to you is illogical. Then you write here that programmers use too much logic and not enough double-blind surveys.

Fuck man get off our lawn already!

do you even have a clue?  the Chinese miners are claiming their bandwidth connections are crap and have given pretty poor connectivity rates.  the miner making the claim was BTCGuild the #3 largest miner in the world.  he was making the claim that all Chinese miners have the same problem.  that includes the #1 and #2 miners Discus Fish and Antpool, both Chinese.  therefore, all 3 of the largest miners in the world cannot conduct the large miner, large block against small miner attack the Blockstream devs have been FUD'ing.  get it or are you retarded?
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 ... 1560 »
  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!