Bitcoin Forum
November 24, 2017, 07:14:11 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 ... 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 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 [1361] 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2013925 times)
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 04:08:34 PM
 #27201

all over.  and it would be the same at 8MB:

So you've abandoned 20 MB? And Bitcoin XT? What made you change your mind?

even given that i feel i have a deeper understanding of what's going on than most ppl here, i have to defer to a core dev who can tell us what the code does, has greater communications with users/merchants/players i don't know, has a longer track in Bitcoin than i (before Jan 2011), who was looked upon by Satoshi as qualified & trusted enough to receive Bitcoin's Alert Key, who has lead Bitcoin to where it is with little to no controversy along the way, who i feel is mature enough, who i feel is a leader, who has no financial conflicts thru stock options and investors, and whom i TRUST.

so if he drops from 20 to 8MB and decides to put up a BIP on Core, who am i to argue?  imo, he has the true original Satoshi Vision for Bitcoin's long term success.

So, because blind faith? Just a few days ago, you were telling everyone in this thread that 20 MB blocks, delivered via a unilateral coup was the best solution. Less than 72 hours later, you've decided that blocks of less than half that, agreed amongst the core devs, is obviously better. What if Gavin changes his mind again? This must be a little confusing to those that blindly follow what you say.


I don't think it's confusing at all.  My take: I want to see a larger blocksize limit.  To show my support for this, I supported (and still support) Gavin's 20 MB proposal and XT.  But I would rather stick with Core.  Thus, if a BIP for 8 MB + 100%/2yr growth can win over the Chinese miners and some developers of Core, then that's even better.

Your comment that Gavin (or Cypherdoc) is "changing his mind" seems disingenuous to me.  This is a process of building consensus.  It's a sort of "decentralized negotiation."  As a community, we keep tweaking the details while people voice their concerns, hoping that we can appease as many groups as possible.  

My aplogies Peter, I don't think you saw what I intended to communicate there. I was really illustrating the absurdity of cypherdoc's position, who really was changing his mind on the basis of authoritative arguments, at his own admission. I am in favor of scaling up, in favor of blocksize increase as a can-kicking exercise, and in favor of coming to a consensus about it. What I reject is the way this issue has been presented to the community: make your mind up, and fast, otherwise we'll all end up with MikeHearnCoin. cypherdoc was a vocal proponent of that strategy, and it is selfish, potentially a danger to the spirit of the system, and therefore unwise.

You call it decentralised negotiation. I don't negotiate with people who try to hector a community into a negotiation they didn't seek themselves.

Vires in numeris
Join ICO Now A blockchain platform for effective freelancing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511550851
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511550851

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511550851
Reply with quote  #2

1511550851
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 04:13:31 PM
 #27202

all over.  and it would be the same at 8MB:

So you've abandoned 20 MB? And Bitcoin XT? What made you change your mind?

even given that i feel i have a deeper understanding of what's going on than most ppl here, i have to defer to a core dev who can tell us what the code does, has greater communications with users/merchants/players i don't know, has a longer track in Bitcoin than i (before Jan 2011), who was looked upon by Satoshi as qualified & trusted enough to receive Bitcoin's Alert Key, who has lead Bitcoin to where it is with little to no controversy along the way, who i feel is mature enough, who i feel is a leader, who has no financial conflicts thru stock options and investors, and whom i TRUST.

so if he drops from 20 to 8MB and decides to put up a BIP on Core, who am i to argue?  imo, he has the true original Satoshi Vision for Bitcoin's long term success.

So, because blind faith? Just a few days ago, you were telling everyone in this thread that 20 MB blocks, delivered via a unilateral coup was the best solution. Less than 72 hours later, you've decided that blocks of less than half that, agreed amongst the core devs, is obviously better. What if Gavin changes his mind again? This must be a little confusing to those that blindly follow what you say.


I don't think it's confusing at all.  My take: I want to see a larger blocksize limit.  To show my support for this, I supported (and still support) Gavin's 20 MB proposal and XT.  But I would rather stick with Core.  Thus, if a BIP for 8 MB + 100%/2yr growth can win over the Chinese miners and some developers of Core, then that's even better.

Your comment that Gavin (or Cypherdoc) is "changing his mind" seems disingenuous to me.  This is a process of building consensus.  It's a sort of "decentralized negotiation."  As a community, we keep tweaking the details while people voice their concerns, hoping that we can appease as many groups as possible.  

My aplogies Peter, I don't think you saw what I intended to communicate there. I was really illustrating the absurdity of cypherdoc's position, who really was changing his mind on the basis of authoritative arguments, at his own admission. I am in favor of scaling up, in favor of blocksize increase as a can-kicking exercise, and in favor of coming to a consensus about it. What I reject is the way this issue has been presented to the community: make your mind up, and fast, otherwise we'll all end up with MikeHearnCoin. cypherdoc was a vocal proponent of that strategy, and it is selfish, potentially a danger to the spirit of the system, and therefore unwise.

i still am a vocal proponent.  i'm just following Gavin's recommendations after i analyze them and determine them sound.  why are you having such difficulty understanding this?
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
June 23, 2015, 04:19:02 PM
 #27203

all over.  and it would be the same at 8MB:

So you've abandoned 20 MB? And Bitcoin XT? What made you change your mind?

even given that i feel i have a deeper understanding of what's going on than most ppl here, i have to defer to a core dev who can tell us what the code does, has greater communications with users/merchants/players i don't know, has a longer track in Bitcoin than i (before Jan 2011), who was looked upon by Satoshi as qualified & trusted enough to receive Bitcoin's Alert Key, who has lead Bitcoin to where it is with little to no controversy along the way, who i feel is mature enough, who i feel is a leader, who has no financial conflicts thru stock options and investors, and whom i TRUST.

so if he drops from 20 to 8MB and decides to put up a BIP on Core, who am i to argue?  imo, he has the true original Satoshi Vision for Bitcoin's long term success.

So, because blind faith? Just a few days ago, you were telling everyone in this thread that 20 MB blocks, delivered via a unilateral coup was the best solution. Less than 72 hours later, you've decided that blocks of less than half that, agreed amongst the core devs, is obviously better. What if Gavin changes his mind again? This must be a little confusing to those that blindly follow what you say.


I don't think it's confusing at all.  My take: I want to see a larger blocksize limit.  To show my support for this, I supported (and still support) Gavin's 20 MB proposal and XT.  But I would rather stick with Core.  Thus, if a BIP for 8 MB + 100%/2yr growth can win over the Chinese miners and some developers of Core, then that's even better.

Your comment that Gavin (or Cypherdoc) is "changing his mind" seems disingenuous to me.  This is a process of building consensus.  It's a sort of "decentralized negotiation."  As a community, we keep tweaking the details while people voice their concerns, hoping that we can appease as many groups as possible.  

My aplogies Peter, I don't think you saw what I intended to communicate there. I was really illustrating the absurdity of cypherdoc's position, who really was changing his mind on the basis of authoritative arguments, at his own admission. I am in favor of scaling up, in favor of blocksize increase as a can-kicking exercise, and in favor of coming to a consensus about it. What I reject is the way this issue has been presented to the community: make your mind up, and fast, otherwise we'll all end up with MikeHearnCoin. cypherdoc was a vocal proponent of that strategy, and it is selfish, potentially a danger to the spirit of the system, and therefore unwise.

You call it decentralised negotiation. I don't negotiate with people who try to hector a community into a negotiation they didn't seek themselves.

But polls show that Gavin has a clear majority... its just certain core devs who object and not on technical grounds.  And most of them are working for a single organization.  How is that "hectoring a community"?
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 04:20:18 PM
 #27204

i still am a vocal proponent.  i'm just following Gavin's recommendations after i analyze them.  why are you having such difficulty understanding this?

That's a complete comedy of reason. Just stopped taking you even slightly seriously

Vires in numeris
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 04:21:56 PM
 #27205

But polls show that Gavin has a clear majority... its just certain core devs who object and not on technical grounds.  And most of them are working for a single organization.  How is that "hectoring a community"?


It isn't. Who said that?

Vires in numeris
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 04:22:52 PM
 #27206

I don't negotiate with people who try to hector a community into a negotiation they didn't seek themselves.

in case you hadn't noticed, Gavin isn't one to heckle back against the multitudes of ppl who more than heckle against him, ie, ppl like you.  and Adam being another; all over Twitter.

so yeah, i don't mind being vocal with the message.  esp since, other than my coins, i have no financial conflict.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 04:37:35 PM
 #27207

I don't negotiate with people who try to hector a community into a negotiation they didn't seek themselves.

in case you hadn't noticed, Gavin isn't one to heckle back against the multitudes of ppl who more than heckle against him, ie, ppl like you.  and Adam being another; all over Twitter.

so yeah, i don't mind being vocal with the message.  esp since, other than my coins, i have no financial conflict.

The threat of unilateral MikeHearnCoin hardfork was the original act of bad faith. I'm not a twitter user, but I doubt that Adam Back would be addressing anything other than technical arguments with the former XT proponents (I also doubt Gavin would do anything other than to respond in kind). I wouldn't trust your re-telling of this particular tale anyhow.

Vires in numeris
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 04:43:38 PM
 #27208

I don't negotiate with people who try to hector a community into a negotiation they didn't seek themselves.

in case you hadn't noticed, Gavin isn't one to heckle back against the multitudes of ppl who more than heckle against him, ie, ppl like you.  and Adam being another; all over Twitter.

so yeah, i don't mind being vocal with the message.  esp since, other than my coins, i have no financial conflict.

The threat of unilateral MikeHearnCoin hardfork was the original act of bad faith. I'm not a twitter user, but I doubt that Adam Back would be addressing anything other than technical arguments with the former XT proponents (I also doubt Gavin would do anything other than to respond in kind). I wouldn't trust your re-telling of this particular tale anyhow.

judge for yourself.  don't bother to tell me your conclusion b/c i already know what it will be:

https://twitter.com/adam3us
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 04:54:19 PM
 #27209

Lol, cypherdoc prefers his technical proposals with 120 characters or less (plus celebrities)

Vires in numeris
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 04:59:59 PM
 #27210

i continue to think you're focusing on the wrong metric:  nodes.

if tx fees go to $100 with 1MB, how many 3rd world ppl can afford that?  answer:  none.  and when fees go that high consistently, they won't even bother with Bitcoin.

what good is it then to run nodes when Metcalfe's Law squares with user growth?

Users is the wrong metric too. Paypal has an enormous number of users. Conventional banking has even more.

Bitcoin has to remain (or arguably return to a state of being) decentralized in a meaningful way and also get users, or it is just a waste of time. The metric has to be both.

Peter-R posted a while back an correlated graph between transactions (used to infer number of users as end point as that information is not avalanche). The correlation mapped to Metcalfe's law well.

So I think it fair to infer it's actually number of transaction that is the metric and that's a function of users and nodes respectively.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 05:01:02 PM
 #27211

Lol, cypherdoc prefers his technical proposals with 120 characters or less (plus celebrities)

Carlton, listen to yourself with your series of posts.

who's acting like a child?  seriously?
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 05:21:19 PM
 #27212

Lol, cypherdoc prefers his technical proposals with 120 characters or less (plus celebrities)

Carlton, listen to yourself with your series of posts.

who's acting like a child?  seriously?

people that take it so seriously they can't laugh at jokes?  Wink

Vires in numeris
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


View Profile
June 23, 2015, 06:54:47 PM
 #27213

speaking of fallacies, what makes you think I'm a 1 MB block man?

To answer your question about who cares when 3rd world people can't get access to 1st world technology: they do. Who is this "who" that you're referring to, when you say "who cares?". What you really mean is: I'm in my little 1st world country group of people, and I don't consider these 3rd world peasants as fully fledged humans. Who cares about them? Everyone got everything solely by merit, ergo I am superior. Let me tell you, you're looking like less of a human to me.

And speaking of consensus polling, the unilateral (i.e. the perfect opposite of a consensus poll) forked client has been rejected in favor of going through the channels to consensus that already exist.

The reality is that the former XT supporters are the people who are in desperate need of a monetary despot; you can't paint unilateral forks any other way than exactly that.

Yes, its not about the 1MB forever which is insuficient for Bitcoin on the long run, its all about consensus, and how it got destroyed prior to the hardfork that removed the 21m cap, and it will happen mark my words.

totally disagree. i've followed Bitcoin and the core dev interactions for a very, very long time in Bitcoin years.  Gavin's built in increases are him trying to automate out himself as much as possible from the process going forward.  he wants to avoid, if possible, the contention that has arisen from this process.  and don't forget he's been lobbying for this increase for 3y but never got anywhere in discussions with the Blockstream folk.  so now he has introduced his first code on this matter in a BIP in Core, not XT.  

he will never propose an increase to the 21M coin cap.  these are two different things you're desperately trying to conflate to push ppl to Monero.

c'mon doc, as much as I would like to "push ppl to Monero" thats not what I mean, its not about Gavin, he is not even the lead core developer, that person is Wladimir J. van der Laan. And if someone can hijack Bitcoin to fork without consensus to increase blocks it will happen with the coin cap, its just a matter of time now I'm afraid.

This is obviously written by an agent of the state.

sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


View Profile
June 23, 2015, 07:09:45 PM
 #27214

that's quite encouraging.  the more i hear from this Rusty guy, the more i like him:

"Cheers,
Rusty.
PS. I work for Blockstream.  And I'm supposed to be working on
    Lightning, not this."


"this Rusty guy" is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusty_Russell

to make a long story short he wrote Linux kernel packets filtering system ipchains/iptables (aka Linux firewall), lguest virtualization system (ancestor of docker/lxc) and contribute to samba/cifs  (a way to let Linux and ms win talk together), just to name a few.

edit: fix misattribution about samba/cifs projecf

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 07:51:58 PM
 #27215

that's quite encouraging.  the more i hear from this Rusty guy, the more i like him:

"Cheers,
Rusty.
PS. I work for Blockstream.  And I'm supposed to be working on
    Lightning, not this."


"this Rusty guy" is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusty_Russell

to make a long story short he wrote Linux kernel packets filtering system ipchains/iptables (aka Linux firewall), lguest virtualization system (ancestor of docker/lxc) and contribute to samba/cifs  (a way to let Linux and ms win talk together), just to name a few.

edit: fix misattribution about samba/cifs projecf

no, i know who he is.  i like his independent spirit.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 07:52:12 PM
 #27216

great talk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIxwTx7o_B4
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 08:00:55 PM
 #27217

wow, no wonder ppl are so willing to offer up their coin for short selling.  dangerous as hell though.  i won't, and never will, do it:

The Bitcoin ecosystem will soon need a reference interest rate similar to LIBOR. I am promoting the concept of BIBOR (Bitcoin Inter Broker Offered Rate). This reference rate is important in striking contracts, making loans, and for brokers providing bitcoin to potential short sellers. According to broker loan rates, the current implied annual interest rate for bitcoin is 26.5% (.0644 per day compounded x 365 days).

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114648/jon-matonis-the-bitcoin-ecosystem-will-soon-need-a-reference-interest-rate-similar-to-libor
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


View Profile
June 23, 2015, 08:01:31 PM
 #27218

"this Rusty guy" is https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rusty_Russell

to make a long story short he wrote Linux kernel packets filtering system ipchains/iptables (aka Linux firewall), lguest virtualization system (ancestor of docker/lxc) and contribute to samba/cifs  (a way to let Linux and ms win talk together), just to name a few.

edit: fix misattribution about samba/cifs projecf

no, i know who he is.  i like his independent spirit.

just want to be sure Tongue

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 23, 2015, 08:08:06 PM
 #27219

to make a long story short he wrote Linux kernel packets filtering system ipchains/iptables (aka Linux firewall)
Random coincidence: You post about this today, while I've spent all day writing rules for an automation system (cfengine) that will generate the configuration files for tool for automating the creation of iptables rules (shorewall).
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


View Profile
June 23, 2015, 08:43:21 PM
 #27220

to make a long story short he wrote Linux kernel packets filtering system ipchains/iptables (aka Linux firewall)
Random coincidence: You post about this today, while I've spent all day writing rules for an automation system (cfengine) that will generate the configuration files for tool for automating the creation of iptables rules (shorewall).

devops is one of my domains, though I'm currently using https://www.chef.io/, but I'll surely look at cfengine.

that said you sure are very versatile!

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 [1361] 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 ... 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!