Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[tvbcof]

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

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

Now that's just cruel.  LOL!  

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

I'm half tempted to try to remember how I did the ag and adjust it again.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

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

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

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

This seems very plausible.

[cypherdoc]

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

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



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

Is that even supposed to be funny marcus? Surely you have more imagination than iCELatte?

Of course, you're not man enough  to admit you always throw the first stone are you?:

http://reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/381ygv/who_is_in_favour_of_reducing_the_blocksize_limit/crsjw15

[iCEBREAKER]

[gossip about personalities]

This seems very plausible.

It's also irrelevant.

20MB blocks aren't a Gavinista vs Greg issue.  The XT controversy has set the Gavinistas against all our other core devs.

[majamalu]

[gossip about personalities]

This seems very plausible.

It's also irrelevant.

20MB blocks aren't a Gavinista vs Greg issue.  The XT controversy has set the Gavinistas against all our other core devs.

It seems that the gavinistas are the true satoshistas: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=287.msg8810#msg8810

[cypherdoc]

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

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

Is not the Chicago boys any of us have to worry about. It's the Monero boys. 

[cypherdoc]

[gossip about personalities]

This seems very plausible.

It's also irrelevant.

20MB blocks aren't a Gavinista vs Greg issue.  The XT controversy has set the Gavinistas against all our other core devs.

All other core  devs are acting as a block called Blockstream. Wladimir is just temporarily confused over full nodes vs users.

[cypherdoc]

Converted my first node to XT today.

[iCEBREAKER]

[gossip about personalities]

This seems very plausible.

It's also irrelevant.

20MB blocks aren't a Gavinista vs Greg issue.  The XT controversy has set the Gavinistas against all our other core devs.

All other core  devs are acting as a block called Blockstream. Wladimir is just temporarily confused over full nodes vs users.

Blockstream hasn't hired "all other core devs."  And let's not even start with Gavin and THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION INC.

Converted my first node to XT today.

Frap.doc is empowering kids in Africa to buy their frosty blended coffee beverages with the tool Satoshi intended to destroy TBTF banks.

Heartwarming.  I'm sure there won't be any trade-offs or problems you'll expect gmax to fix.   

[majamalu]

Satoshi's own words: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366

[smooth]

I remain largely neutral about whether Bitcoin, Monero, or any future cryptocurrency will actually succeed on a large scale.

Does that include all potential Butterfly effects?

No, I have no idea of the possible range of outcomes.

[hdbuck]

Satoshi's own words: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366

satoshi left us 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Meni Rosenfeld proposes an elastic block cap where miners are penalized progressively for blocks bigger than whatever the limit is.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1078521.msg11517847

The idea is to avoid a "crash landing" at 1MB or even at 8 or 20MB. Bitcoin adoption is known to come in order-of-magnitude spurts, so even 20MB isn't immune to a crash landing scenario; and think how much harder another order-of-magnitude increase will be from 20MB, or from 200MB.

We need a way to turn these brick walls into gentle hills, not just lengthen the road leading to them. (To be clear, I think we should do both. Actually having no limit probably does both.)

[dEBRUYNE]

Meni Rosenfeld proposes an elastic block cap where miners are penalized progressively for blocks bigger than whatever the limit is.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1078521.msg11517847

The idea is to avoid a "crash landing" at 1MB or even at 8 or 20MB. Bitcoin adoption is known to come in order-of-magnitude spurts, so even 20MB isn't immune to a crash landing scenario; and think how much harder another order-of-magnitude increase will be from 20MB, or from 200MB.

We need a way to turn these brick walls into gentle hills, not just lengthen the road leading to them. (To be clear, I think we should do both. Actually having no limit probably does both.)

Relevant and interesting comment from Reddit on this subject:

As I noted in the thread, this is similar to the block sizing algorithm for Monero and other CryptoNote coins. A quadratic penalty is imposed such that block subsidy = base subsidy * ((block size / median size of last 400 blocks) - 1)2, with the penalty being applied after you build a block larger than the median size. The maximum block size is 2*median size. Because subsidy is based around the number of coins in existence, the 'burned' subsidy is deferred to be paid out to future blocks.

Unlike Meni's proposal, burned block subsidy is simply deferred to all future miners. So far, this has worked in CryptoNote coins without issue.

I am unsure of the incentives of the rollover fee pool method -- it seems like a way to smooth out and evenly distribute fees among miners, but I'm not sure if it work exactly the way it is intended to. For instance, it may disincentivize the inclusion of some larger fee transactions because the miner will fail to immediately benefit from them, and indeed, if the miner is small and only occasionally gets blocks, may never benefit from them. In this case, fees will end up being paid to the miner out of band, thus defeating the entire fee pool mechanism.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/389pq6/elastic_block_cap_with_rollover_penalties_my/crts1do

[cypherdoc]

Meni Rosenfeld proposes an elastic block cap where miners are penalized progressively for blocks bigger than whatever the limit is.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1078521.msg11517847

The idea is to avoid a "crash landing" at 1MB or even at 8 or 20MB. Bitcoin adoption is known to come in order-of-magnitude spurts, so even 20MB isn't immune to a crash landing scenario; and think how much harder another order-of-magnitude increase will be from 20MB, or from 200MB.

We need a way to turn these brick walls into gentle hills, not just lengthen the road leading to them. (To be clear, I think we should do both. Actually having no limit probably does both.)

Relevant and interesting comment from Reddit on this subject:

As I noted in the thread, this is similar to the block sizing algorithm for Monero and other CryptoNote coins. A quadratic penalty is imposed such that block subsidy = base subsidy * ((block size / median size of last 400 blocks) - 1)2, with the penalty being applied after you build a block larger than the median size. The maximum block size is 2*median size. Because subsidy is based around the number of coins in existence, the 'burned' subsidy is deferred to be paid out to future blocks.

Unlike Meni's proposal, burned block subsidy is simply deferred to all future miners. So far, this has worked in CryptoNote coins without issue.

I am unsure of the incentives of the rollover fee pool method -- it seems like a way to smooth out and evenly distribute fees among miners, but I'm not sure if it work exactly the way it is intended to. For instance, it may disincentivize the inclusion of some larger fee transactions because the miner will fail to immediately benefit from them, and indeed, if the miner is small and only occasionally gets blocks, may never benefit from them. In this case, fees will end up being paid to the miner out of band, thus defeating the entire fee pool mechanism.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/389pq6/elastic_block_cap_with_rollover_penalties_my/crts1do

How are they using the term out of band in this context?

[iCEBREAKER]

Satoshi's own words: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366

Yes, I've seen that quote from 2010 before and am still against 20mb blocks at this time.  My turn:

Satoshi's own words:

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4
Jun 1
Bitcoin is a global currency. Good thread on int'l bandwidth & other threats to interconnectivity of Bitcoin miners: https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg08010.html …

Nick Szabo retweeted
Peter Todd ‏@petertoddbtc May 30

FYI: @gavinandresen's (optimistic) 20MB block analysis had an arithmetic error, and actually supports 8MB blocks https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/crqgtgs …

TL;DR Gavin's own math (when corrected) shows 8MB, not 20, is the right answer, so now he's willing to accept 8.

[cypherdoc]

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

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

You should change your handle to 'FrappuccinoDoc.'  

Bitcoin XT is a poison pill for all the newbs and unwary, certain bug fix commits that went into Core have already been omitted. Both Hearn and Andresen have been covertly anti-privacy from day zero, paying it only lip service when pressed. Don't trust it or them. Not to mention it is poorly maintained and totally untested. I can't believe I'm reading such a mad approach being championed on these pages ... it's like a twilight zone episode wtf are you people thinking !!! following Pied Pipers now?

I asked you once to support these serious allegations. Because you're calling Mike and Gavin liars otherwise.

You need to prove this now so that we can confirm or more likely dispense with you as a liar.

[smooth]

Meni Rosenfeld proposes an elastic block cap where miners are penalized progressively for blocks bigger than whatever the limit is.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1078521.msg11517847

The idea is to avoid a "crash landing" at 1MB or even at 8 or 20MB. Bitcoin adoption is known to come in order-of-magnitude spurts, so even 20MB isn't immune to a crash landing scenario; and think how much harder another order-of-magnitude increase will be from 20MB, or from 200MB.

We need a way to turn these brick walls into gentle hills, not just lengthen the road leading to them. (To be clear, I think we should do both. Actually having no limit probably does both.)

Relevant and interesting comment from Reddit on this subject:

As I noted in the thread, this is similar to the block sizing algorithm for Monero and other CryptoNote coins. A quadratic penalty is imposed such that block subsidy = base subsidy * ((block size / median size of last 400 blocks) - 1)2, with the penalty being applied after you build a block larger than the median size. The maximum block size is 2*median size. Because subsidy is based around the number of coins in existence, the 'burned' subsidy is deferred to be paid out to future blocks.

Unlike Meni's proposal, burned block subsidy is simply deferred to all future miners. So far, this has worked in CryptoNote coins without issue.

I am unsure of the incentives of the rollover fee pool method -- it seems like a way to smooth out and evenly distribute fees among miners, but I'm not sure if it work exactly the way it is intended to. For instance, it may disincentivize the inclusion of some larger fee transactions because the miner will fail to immediately benefit from them, and indeed, if the miner is small and only occasionally gets blocks, may never benefit from them. In this case, fees will end up being paid to the miner out of band, thus defeating the entire fee pool mechanism.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/389pq6/elastic_block_cap_with_rollover_penalties_my/crts1do

How are they using the term out of band in this context?

That was confusion with Meni's earlier proposal. The out of band issue (where miners change fees in some way other than via the normal Bitcoin fee mechanism, though it may still be in the transaction itself) does not apply to his new proposal.

[cypherdoc]

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

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

You should change your handle to 'FrappuccinoDoc.'  

Bitcoin XT is a poison pill for all the newbs and unwary, certain bug fix commits that went into Core have already been omitted. Both Hearn and Andresen have been covertly anti-privacy from day zero, paying it only lip service when pressed. Don't trust it or them. Not to mention it is poorly maintained and totally untested. I can't believe I'm reading such a mad approach being championed on these pages ... it's like a twilight zone episode wtf are you people thinking !!! following Pied Pipers now?

I asked you once to support these serious allegations. Because you're calling Mike and Gavin liars otherwise.

You need to prove this now so that we can confirm or more likely dispense with you as a liar.

marcus, we're still waiting.

[mrhelpful]

Satoshi's own words: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366

Yes, I've seen that quote from 2010 before and am still against 20mb blocks at this time.  My turn:

Satoshi's own words:

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4
Jun 1
Bitcoin is a global currency. Good thread on int'l bandwidth & other threats to interconnectivity of Bitcoin miners: https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg08010.html …

Nick Szabo retweeted
Peter Todd ‏@petertoddbtc May 30

FYI: @gavinandresen's (optimistic) 20MB block analysis had an arithmetic error, and actually supports 8MB blocks https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/crqgtgs …

TL;DR Gavin's own math (when corrected) shows 8MB, not 20, is the right answer, so now he's willing to accept 8.

Sounds better then just 1 mb lol.

And this is something we would have to do every 5 years then? increase the block size? based on transaction volume etc.