Topic: . - page 11. (Read 24773 times)

He then goes on to compare hoarding bitcoin to


I actually was looking for an alternative to E-gold where I could bypass the insane restrictions of PayPal when I discovered Bitcoin. It was and still is just a way to transfer money across borders without restrictions. At the time, I'm not sure anybody was expecting this current Bitcoin value. So I tend to agree with Gavin's views on this.

You seem to be a guy who bought 30,000 Bitcoins for $30 who wants to hoard coins until they reach an extreme value. An excellent way to hopefully achieve this is by supporting Blockstream which will bottleneck and throttle Bitcoin transactions between users with their 1 MB cap until only the bigshots with long pockets that can pay exorbitant fees will control the Blockchain.
 
Eventually this will ultimately force the adoption of blockstream by the rest of the Bitcoin population and will also allow members to file disputes or ask for refunds with their new reversible transaction platform. No doubt, this will encourage mainstream mass adoption as with PayPal and the value of Bitcoins will surge upwards to unprecedented levels, where you Sir, will start cashing out your Bitcoins and become the new, wealthy Elite.

It is a great idea, I must admit to it and I am all for it as I would probably benefit as well albeit on a much smaller scale.

In conclusion, all I'm saying is, Gavin's idea is probably to follow Satoshi's vision and will probably scale without problems very slowly. However, although Blockstream is NOT Satoshi's vision, in my opinion it has the ability to scale a lot more rapidly but first it MUST create an artificial 1 MB problem in order to achieve its vision.

Let's face facts...a 2 MB block would render Blockstream unnecessary for another couple of years!

When the time comes, and you're on the wrong side of the 75%, then you're the one who's standing in the way of consensus.

So, don't be bad. Bad is not good.

Please enlighten us Lauda!
Or are you baiting us with nonsense?
Everything you say, we can reverse. You said that "there are only a small amount of 'experts' who want 2 MB". Please show us the data to prove this. Somebody can easily say "there are only a small amount of 'experts' who don't want 2 MB". Who is right and who is wrong?

Since you are an expert on all matters concerning bitcoin and I obviously suffer from "personal incredulity" please explain to me exactly what is Confidential Transaction Codes. I would like to ask you to explain in great, in-depth detail why this data is not transparent or why it needs to be hidden and to prove that it and Segregated Witness is in fact not some Trojan Horse or "Bitcoin Core/Blockstream" control mechanism that we as yet do not recognize.

We basically agree.

To clarify though I'm not saying getting 75% is low probability.  I'm saying getting 75% and most individual miners not understanding what's going on,  is low probability.

Although caution should be exercised, I don't think it means the community should just acquiesce to the status quo and avoid rocking the boat at any cost.

I wouldn't view it that way. I'd view it as karma for pushing the community to break consensus. I strongly believe that rule changes, due to the irreparable nature of chain forks, should be done with extreme caution. The mob rule approach of XT and Classic push the hard fork as quickly as possible, without acknowledging the danger of a hard fork when there is no consensus on the new rules among either miners, or nodes.

At 75% activation threshold, you say it is not necessarily a high probability -- I respect your opinion. But I disagree. And I can't imagine being able to justify the risk.

LOL, indeed.

Franky, personal attacks aren't legit. They don't prove anything. They are a dishonest form of argument. If you don't like the words "ad hominem", then just remember that.

sAt0sHiFanClub argued that my opinions are wrong because "I am a bagholder." Not only can he not prove that "I am a bagholder" but he can't prove that this has any meaning whatsoever to the debate. It was purely an insult, intended to degrade from my character and therefore prove me wrong (even though it is 100% irrelevant to the subject). Is that a dishonest form of argument or not?

Maybe you should speak for gmax actually. Lol. Your point is very clear!

OK I get it and I agree that's a possibility.

However its not necessarily a high probability
that miners will get tricked in such a manner.

If it does unfold that way, well I guess
that would be the karma of not satisfying
the community's reasonable request for
2MB.

How very ad hominem of you.

Goodnight everybody!!

lol

madjules007 and lauda use the word "ad hominem" alot.

i guess they circle jerk in the same social networks and talk to each other alot and think it somehow makes them look smarter by saying "ad hominem" as much as they can.

is it some word of the month competition you lot have. or do you truly think that spouting waffle that includes the word "ad hominem" makes whatever you say sound like religious scripture that should be trusted, believed and followed.

Break out the ad hominem, why don't you? Since your argument hinges entirely on personal attacks, I'll have you know that this is not my first bitcointalk account, nor did I sign up on bitcointalk before I started investing in bitcoin. Please explain how my opinions could only be held by a "bagholder." That will be difficult since it's a purely personal attack with no basis in fact or reason.

It's funny because one of the principal arguments I see on this forum is that small blocks hinder adoption -- that we need bigger blocks to foster adoption, and that cheap/no fees is a great selling point to new adopters. And what, pray tell are these new adopters supposed to do? Well, buy bitcoin, of course!

This is exactly what I've been trying to tell Fatty. He's just very set in his ways.

Read what I wrote again. I bolded the pertinent word. Core no longer has commit access to the dominant implementation if the majority of nodes run node software that is incompatible with Core (i.e. Classic). I'm not suggesting a majority of nodes would actually run Classic in reality, but that's the idea and the intent, yes. If, at the time of the hard fork, both miners and validating nodes do not approach consensus, multiple surviving blockchains are virtually guaranteed.

Forking is fine. Just do it with consensus -- that's all Core supporters ask. Hard forking to different consensus rules with only a temporary majority of hashing power (75% or realistically even less) and no realistic way to determine true node proportions simply threatens to break bitcoin into multiple blockchains. There is zero reason to assume a significant majority of nodes will be running Classic even if miners temporarily pool their hashpower to an extent that activates the hard fork.

Here's the important thing: If miners approach consensus, this ensures that hash power does not continue to build on the pre-fork-consensus chain -- i.e. miners will build on only one blockchain. Achieving node consensus is far less likely -- miners are far more centralized, and many nodes on the network rarely upgrade to newly-released versions, after all. If miners are building only on one chain, it won't matter if nodes have not achieved consensus. Nodes enforcing the old rules will just be observing a dead chain.

But if both miners and nodes do not achieve consensus, miners will build blocks based on different rule sets, and nodes will validate them based on different rule sets. This inevitably results in multiple surviving blockchains that can never be reconciled, and bitcoin will cease to be a single, cohesive ledger. This is why miner consensus (approaching 100%) is so important -- because of the impossibility of achieving full node consensus.

Again, forking is fine. Just do it with consensus -- or otherwise implement your fork as a stated altcoin. There are two camps here: one camp that either doesn't understand or doesn't care whether bitcoin is broken into multiple ledgers forever based on differing rule sets, and another camp that wants to avoid that. The block size debate is not worth breaking consensus over. The issue occurs to me as quite paltry, to be honest.

Are we still discussing this tedious subject? I've been supportive of 2MB blocks for long and would like to see the FUD debunked that it could lead to confirmation issues and that we all need to run in panic or wait for LN (absolutely free of charge of course   ) .

Come on, what you want to say is "Im not supportive of this at all"   


Not true at all. There is quite a good team getting behind it. Anyway, nothing for you to worry your little head over, eh?

Or is it?

Yeah, says the guy who joined on Nov 29, 2013. bitcoin value = $1100  

SFYL. Keep the chin up there, old boy. It may come round again. Core diehards like you believe the  Central Banks are queuing up to buy your coinz at $2300 each - just get rid of the pesky "users" first.

Maybe it's because they aren't "bagholders" that allows others the clarity of vision to see where bitcoin is really going to go. Perhaps your need for a Messiah is clouding your own judgement.

I'll fire down my classic nodes if we get 2mb+segwit in april. No coup, no drama, no contentious fork.

yet Lauda for months has been kissing blockstR3am's ass and saying that 2mb rule chance done by core as part of aprils rollout that includes segwit was a bad idea..

but now finally Lauda is seeing the light that a 2mb+segwit is possible, isnt bad and can actually help everyone in the community.
it only took him 2 months to finally concede his biased devotions.

so maybe now Lauda can stop the bullshit nonsense about R3 and classic hate and start being open minded to core doing a 2mb segwit.. that way things like confidential transactions and all the other tx bloat wont impact the blocks as much as there would be capacity to grow

Surprisingly? I was(am) supportive of dynamic blocks, 2 MB blocks (once the validation problem is fixed), and other proposals. What I'm not supportive is: 1. Controversial hard forks; 2. 2 MB blocks with a bad workaround for the validation problem. Let's not forget that Classic essentially has no team excluding Garzik and Gavin.

Surprisingly, you agree with an increase of block size, then why so critic about Classic. I think the purpose of Classic is just to bump the block size a little bit and practice hard fork, because with a hard fork, even segwit can be implemented more neatly

Regarding core software commit access, I heard that there are 5 core devs who have it: Gavin, Jeff, Wladmir, Greg, Pieter

So how the implementation of another fork outside of the core repo remove their commit access?

In fact I think in a direction difference situation, if those 5 people could not reach agreement about what should be implemented in the current git repo. Then nothing can be done, since each of them have the permission to revoke any change committed by others. So if one of them want to have one commit which is not welcomed by the other people, fork is the only way to go. Otherwise any implementation will only stay at test net without any hope of entering the core repository

This is the biggest contradiction: If you want a decentralized libertarian style community, you must have hard fork. If you want to avoid hard fork, then you must use a communism model