Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Peter R]

There is no "fucking problem."  There is only the endless whining of economically illiterate people like you.
...
Quit your fucking bitching.  We're tired of it.  It will never change Bitcoin, because You. Have. No. Power. Here.

Oh but it will. 

Care to make a wager, iCEBREAKER?  1 BTC that the longest proof-of-work chain contains a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year (10-Jul-2016).  Escrowed by someone in this thread (2-of-3 multisig), of course.

[1714291216]

1714291216

[1714291216]

1714291216

[1714291216]

1714291216

[Erdogan]

The bitcoin copes better with high transaction volume than bitcoinwisdom does for displaying exchange trades.

[cypherdoc]

It shouldn't need years of engineering studies to understand that there's no real technical discussion going on between the various sub-camps in the developer's camp.

So your take is that devs are going full "political" rather than technical? (serious question)

If yes, what's the way to unlock this impasse?

Given the deadlock, I honestly start to think it might be good to do a 'divorce'. As in, we actually agree to disagree, and all see that there are fundamentally incompatible opinions with regards to the direction of Bitcoin. But we can keep it friendly.  This might be less damage/cost than having a hardfork battle solving it in January 2016.

That way we can avoid the fighting and truly let the market work out the rest. We divide up the common assets of the web sites, code repos etc. between Bitcoin/QT and Bitcoin/XT. Make it clear that Bitcoin is now two Bitcoins, and that the user has to decide.

QT and XT simply seem like two people who shouldn't be married. Better have a clean divorce than endless fighting.

Thoughts?

No, divorce the source, make them compatible on all things except max blocksize, and let us see who dares make the first 1.1 MB block.

Here's a thought experiment.

Gavin chickens out and doesn't release XT. Someone anonymous releases equivalent code on github with nothing changed but 1MB to no limit. He provides irrefutable proof that he's destroyed his own commit privileges. Thus, their are NO core devs to modify code from here to eternity. What happens?

The assumption has always been that we need core maintainers to continuously upgrade Bitcoin. Maybe we don't?

[uvwvj]

There is no "fucking problem."  There is only the endless whining of economically illiterate people like you.

For those of us who can't afford $0.25 BTC fees, there's Litcoin, Peercoin, Nubits (pegged to the dollar, neat!), Monero, etc.



Quit your fucking bitching.  We're tired of it.  It will never change Bitcoin, because You. Have. No. Power. Here.

Peter Todd is part of the problem, imo

In this thread Peter R and New Liberty are imo better capable leading than some of the current Devs.  

Those are all shit coins for people to steal money from newbies (zero sum game) except Monero which offers something Bitcoin doesnt, but is extremely hard for average Joe.

We need to start looking at BTC in mass adoption for the other 99.5% of the world who could use this coin.  

I dont have power here, but I do understand economics and if you limit BTC to 1% of the population it really has not a lot of worth, imo.  Though I would still hold it, my USD would better serve me.


My thoughts make it 8 MB at halving and add sidechain availbility, and see what happens.

[cypherdoc]

There is no "fucking problem."  There is only the endless whining of economically illiterate people like you.

For those of us who can't afford $0.25 BTC fees, there's Litcoin, Peercoin, Nubits (pegged to the dollar, neat!), Monero, etc.



Quit your fucking bitching.  We're tired of it.  It will never change Bitcoin, because You. Have. No. Power. Here.

Peter Todd is part of the problem, imo

In this thread Peter R and New Liberty are imo better capable leading than some of the current Devs.  

Those are all shit coins for people to steal money from newbies (zero sum game) except Monero which offers something Bitcoin doesnt, but is extremely hard for average Joe.

We need to start looking at BTC in mass adoption for the other 99.5% of the world who could use this coin.  

I dont have power here, but I do understand economics and if you limit BTC to 1% of the population it really has not a lot of worth, imo.  Though I would still hold it, my USD would better serve me.


My thoughts make it 8 MB at halving and add sidechain availbility, and see what happens.

Peter is definitely part of the problem.  so it's not surprising that iCEBlow holds him up as one of his Daddy's.

his problem is that he's had a problem with Gavin going back years on end so his current position on opposing Gavin's ideas are unsurprising.  it's just all the other whoring he does on Reddit and Twitter that really make one suspicious.   he's a much smarter version of Tim Swanson.

[cypherdoc]

lol.  that's China winding up.  big break thru the 200MA:

[iCEBREAKER]

Peter is definitely part of the problem.  so it's not surprising that iCEBlow holds him up as one of his Daddy's.

his problem is that he's had a problem with Gavin going back years on end so his current position on opposing Gavin's ideas are unsurprising.  it's just all the other whoring he does on Reddit and Twitter that really make one suspicious.   he's a much smarter version of Tim Swanson.

Your problem is that you've had a problem with gmax going back years on end, so your current position opposing all of the core devs' ideas is unsurprising.  It's just all the whoring you do on Bitcointalk and Reddit, that make one suspicious.  You're a much smarter version of Jorge Stolfi.

Peter is part of the reason Bitcoin has a good chance of successfully scaling to 1MB.

What has your African boy fetishism done for Bitcoin?   

[iCEBREAKER]

lol.  that's China winding up.  big break thru the 200MA:

Just yesterday you were saying

if we weren't being crippled by iCEBlow and his Cripplecoiners, we'd have had the huge LTC rally here.

Do you see the lack of consistency there, or do I need to draw you a picture?  


EDIT: And once again, LTC acts as the silver to BTC's gold by frontrunning and pre-announcing its big brother's price spike.

What ho, smooth?   

[iCEBREAKER]

The bitcoin copes better with high transaction volume than bitcoinwisdom does for displaying exchange trades.

Bitcoin was built to function perfectly under load.  Bitcoinwisdom, perhaps less so.   

Temporary subsidy enhancement of block reward is only there to support miners (and seed distribution) while adoption (IE volume, IE load) bootstraps on and off-chain fee markets.

Care to make a wager, iCEBREAKER?  1 BTC that the longest proof-of-work chain contains a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year (10-Jul-2016).

If you lose, I want real Bitcoin.  If you win, expect to be paid in doublespent Gavincoins.   

1MB blocks may become a harmful constraint by this time next year, given some black swan for fiat or rapid deployment of sidechain/Lightning.  But we're are not even on course to begin getting there yet, given the unwelcome distraction of the Gavinista insurgency inciting the get-rich-quick XT mob.  TX fees are still orders of magnitude below their cost in electricity, etc., demonstrating fee pressure insufficient for develop mature markets.

I suspect we agree that should 1MB blocks become an undeniably urgent concern (EG, if we see actual congestion resulting in appropriate fees no longer prioritizing their tx) the controversy will rapidly dissipate and be replaced by emergent rough consensus.

There's also the possibility we do get a technically and politically feasible velvet divorce, in which case we can forget all this nasty controversy about the "best" block size and start a new nasty controversy about which is the "real" Bitcoin.

Won't that be fun?   

[brg444]

Cypherdoc is definitely part of the problem.  so it's not surprising that sheeps holds him up as one of his Daddy's.

his problem is that he's had a problem with GMaxwell going back years on end so his current position on opposing GMaxwell's ideas are unsurprising.  it's just all the other whoring he does on Reddit and Twitter that really make one suspicious.   he's a much smarter version of <insert troll>.

edit:  I see ICE beat me to it

[cypherdoc]

Peter is definitely part of the problem.  so it's not surprising that iCEBlow holds him up as one of his Daddy's.

his problem is that he's had a problem with Gavin going back years on end so his current position on opposing Gavin's ideas are unsurprising.  it's just all the other whoring he does on Reddit and Twitter that really make one suspicious.   he's a much smarter version of Tim Swanson.

Your problem is that you've had a problem with gmax going back years on end, so your current position opposing all of the core devs' ideas is unsurprising.  It's just all the whoring you do on Bitcointalk and Reddit, that make one suspicious.  You're a much smarter version of Jorge Stolfi.

Peter is part of the reason Bitcoin has a good chance of successfully scaling to 1MB.

What has your African boy fetishism done for Bitcoin?   

i've already gone thru why i disagree strongly with gmax:

1. his handling of the PressCenter.org debacle-he still claims he was right after the fork won.
2. his whining about mining centralization
3. his general bearishness on Bitcoin
4. his views on consensus
5. his formation of Blockstream involving 9 of the top core dev committers with him as CEO.
6. his obstruction of the block size increase.

he's the only one of the core dev i've ever had "problems" with.  the above lists merely differences in ideology anyway.

[cypherdoc]

lol.  that's China winding up.  big break thru the 200MA:

Just yesterday you were saying

if we weren't being crippled by iCEBlow and his Cripplecoiners, we'd have had the huge LTC rally here.

Do you see the lack of consistency there, or do I need to draw you a picture?  

i don't have to be right on the price.  if it decides to go up, i'll be glad.  it's all speculation that we don't have control of.

but when it comes down to how to run Bitcoin, as in financial conflicts or not, or adhering to Satoshi's original vision, darn right i'm consistent in my message and what i think is right.

you, otoh, are a Monero Pimp.  i wouldn't be surprised if you were a Blockstream shill as well.

[brg444]

Peter is definitely part of the problem.  so it's not surprising that iCEBlow holds him up as one of his Daddy's.

his problem is that he's had a problem with Gavin going back years on end so his current position on opposing Gavin's ideas are unsurprising.  it's just all the other whoring he does on Reddit and Twitter that really make one suspicious.   he's a much smarter version of Tim Swanson.

Your problem is that you've had a problem with gmax going back years on end, so your current position opposing all of the core devs' ideas is unsurprising.  It's just all the whoring you do on Bitcointalk and Reddit, that make one suspicious.  You're a much smarter version of Jorge Stolfi.

Peter is part of the reason Bitcoin has a good chance of successfully scaling to 1MB.

What has your African boy fetishism done for Bitcoin?  

i've already gone thru why i disagree strongly with gmax:

1. his handling of the PressCenter.org debacle-he still claims he was right after the fork won.
2. his whining about mining centralization
3. his general bearishness on Bitcoin
4. his views on consensus
5. his formation of Blockstream involving 9 of the top core dev committers with him as CEO.
6. his obstruction of the block size increase.

he's the only one of the core dev i've ever had "problems" with.  the above lists merely differences in ideology anyway.

you really don't care about getting your facts straight heh?

Adam Back is CEO

there are at most 6 Bitcoin core contributors on Blockstream`s team. probably 3 of them would qualify ast "top committers"

[cypherdoc]

lol.  that's China winding up.  big break thru the 200MA:

Just yesterday you were saying

if we weren't being crippled by iCEBlow and his Cripplecoiners, we'd have had the huge LTC rally here.

Do you see the lack of consistency there, or do I need to draw you a picture?  


EDIT: And once again, LTC acts as the silver to BTC's gold by frontrunning and pre-announcing its big brother's price spike.

What ho, smooth?   

We see markets make counter intuitive moves all the time. It's the chart technicians primarily, who are watching the price action factor in a probable solution to the 1MB choke that's causing the rally.

[iCEBREAKER]

lol.  that's China winding up.  big break thru the 200MA:

Just yesterday you were saying

if we weren't being crippled by iCEBlow and his Cripplecoiners, we'd have had the huge LTC rally here.

Do you see the lack of consistency there, or do I need to draw you a picture?  

i don't have to be right on the price.  if it decides to go up, i'll be glad.  it's all speculation that we don't have control of.

but when it comes down to how to run Bitcoin, as in financial conflicts or not, or adhering to Satoshi's original vision, darn right i'm consistent in my message and what i think is right.

you, otoh, are a Monero Pimp.  i wouldn't be surprised if you were a Blockstream shill as well.

IOW, "NO iCEBREAKER, I DON'T SEE THE INCONSISTENCY THERE AND YES, I DO NEED YOU TO DRAW ME A PICTURE."

Fine.   

I'm not asking you to correctly predict the price or even refrain from speculation.  That would be silly.

I'm asking for some logical consistency, or an admission you must make up shit as you go along.  In a way, I suppose we already have implicit admission of the latter...as you simultaneously fault gmax for "general bearishness on Bitcoin" and throw around the term "Cripplecoin."

You think I'd be a good Blockstream shill?  Great, I'll put that on my application!   

[newb4now]

There is no "fucking problem."  There is only the endless whining of economically illiterate people like you.

For those of us who can't afford $0.25 BTC fees, there's Litcoin, Peercoin, Nubits (pegged to the dollar, neat!), Monero, etc.



Quit your fucking bitching.  We're tired of it.  It will never change Bitcoin, because You. Have. No. Power. Here.

Peter Todd is part of the problem, imo

In this thread Peter R and New Liberty are imo better capable leading than some of the current Devs.  

Those are all shit coins for people to steal money from newbies (zero sum game) except Monero which offers something Bitcoin doesnt, but is extremely hard for average Joe.

We need to start looking at BTC in mass adoption for the other 99.5% of the world who could use this coin.  

I dont have power here, but I do understand economics and if you limit BTC to 1% of the population it really has not a lot of worth, imo.  Though I would still hold it, my USD would better serve me.


My thoughts make it 8 MB at halving and add sidechain availbility, and see what happens.

Monero is not that hard for the average Joe (unofficial GUIs exist along with a web wallet) and is getting easier with XMR.to to spend Monero anywhere, integrated addresses, LMBD and more on the way

I agree mass adoption is a long ways away. Maybe once more people (like Cyprus and soon Greece) have their bank accounts treated with a "haircut" more people will start to look to the blockchain as a safer way to store and spend wealth (60 Euro ATM withdraw limit caps in Greece now)

Most people don't think about block times or transaction delays. Bitcoin will reach mass adoption first. Then as problems emerge people will seek alternatives if bitcoin itself does not adapt to deal with its limitations

[Peter R]

Care to make a wager, iCEBREAKER?  1 BTC that the longest proof-of-work chain contains a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year (10-Jul-2016).

If you lose, I want real Bitcoin.  If you win, expect to be paid in doublespent Gavincoins.  

Did you just agree to the bet?  I can't tell.  

We'd both deposit 1 BTC to a multisig address (3rd key held by neutral party).  If the chain forks, the winner would automatically have coins spendable on both sides.  

[cypherdoc]

Peter is definitely part of the problem.  so it's not surprising that iCEBlow holds him up as one of his Daddy's.

his problem is that he's had a problem with Gavin going back years on end so his current position on opposing Gavin's ideas are unsurprising.  it's just all the other whoring he does on Reddit and Twitter that really make one suspicious.   he's a much smarter version of Tim Swanson.

Your problem is that you've had a problem with gmax going back years on end, so your current position opposing all of the core devs' ideas is unsurprising.  It's just all the whoring you do on Bitcointalk and Reddit, that make one suspicious.  You're a much smarter version of Jorge Stolfi.

Peter is part of the reason Bitcoin has a good chance of successfully scaling to 1MB.

What has your African boy fetishism done for Bitcoin?  

i've already gone thru why i disagree strongly with gmax:

1. his handling of the PressCenter.org debacle-he still claims he was right after the fork won.
2. his whining about mining centralization
3. his general bearishness on Bitcoin
4. his views on consensus
5. his formation of Blockstream involving 9 of the top core dev committers with him as CEO.
6. his obstruction of the block size increase.

he's the only one of the core dev i've ever had "problems" with.  the above lists merely differences in ideology anyway.

you really don't care about getting your facts straight heh?

Adam Back is CEO

there are at most 6 Bitcoin core contributors on Blockstream`s team. probably 3 of them would qualify ast "top committers"

sorry:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3aykzr/btcchina_we_think_gavins_proposal_is_a/csh6szr

[iCEBREAKER]

Care to make a wager, iCEBREAKER?  1 BTC that the longest proof-of-work chain contains a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year (10-Jul-2016).

If you lose, I want real Bitcoin.  If you win, expect to be paid in doublespent Gavincoins.  

Did you just agree to the bet?  I can't tell.  

We'd both deposit 1 BTC to a multisig address (3rd key held by neutral party).  If the chain forks, the winner would automatically have coins spendable on both sides.  

You can't tell because you edited out the part of my post which answered your question:

1MB blocks may become a harmful constraint by this time next year, given some black swan for fiat or rapid deployment of sidechain/Lightning.  But we're are not even on course to begin getting there yet, given the unwelcome distraction of the Gavinista insurgency inciting the get-rich-quick XT mob.  TX fees are still orders of magnitude below their cost in electricity, etc., demonstrating fee pressure insufficient for develop mature markets.

I suspect we agree that should 1MB blocks become an undeniably urgent concern (EG, if we see actual congestion resulting in appropriate fees no longer prioritizing their tx) the controversy will rapidly dissipate and be replaced by emergent rough consensus.

There's also the possibility we do get a technically and politically feasible velvet divorce, in which case we can forget all this nasty controversy about the "best" block size and start a new nasty controversy about which is the "real" Bitcoin.

Does ^that^ help, or do you require pictorial aids like dear old befuddled Doctor Frappuccino?   

[brg444]

Peter is definitely part of the problem.  so it's not surprising that iCEBlow holds him up as one of his Daddy's.

his problem is that he's had a problem with Gavin going back years on end so his current position on opposing Gavin's ideas are unsurprising.  it's just all the other whoring he does on Reddit and Twitter that really make one suspicious.   he's a much smarter version of Tim Swanson.

Your problem is that you've had a problem with gmax going back years on end, so your current position opposing all of the core devs' ideas is unsurprising.  It's just all the whoring you do on Bitcointalk and Reddit, that make one suspicious.  You're a much smarter version of Jorge Stolfi.

Peter is part of the reason Bitcoin has a good chance of successfully scaling to 1MB.

What has your African boy fetishism done for Bitcoin?  

i've already gone thru why i disagree strongly with gmax:

1. his handling of the PressCenter.org debacle-he still claims he was right after the fork won.
2. his whining about mining centralization
3. his general bearishness on Bitcoin
4. his views on consensus
5. his formation of Blockstream involving 9 of the top core dev committers with him as CEO.
6. his obstruction of the block size increase.

he's the only one of the core dev i've ever had "problems" with.  the above lists merely differences in ideology anyway.

you really don't care about getting your facts straight heh?

Adam Back is CEO

there are at most 6 Bitcoin core contributors on Blockstream`s team. probably 3 of them would qualify ast "top committers"

sorry:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3aykzr/btcchina_we_think_gavins_proposal_is_a/csh6szr

Ah I see, that's how you wanna play it. Well then 9 out of 300+ contributors. I don't see the problem