Anything to large the block capacity is a positive
Well, not "anything".
BIP101 would have seen the block capacity grow into the GB range. The 2MB bump is an ultra-conservative needed fork.
Why? Because you say so?
Topic: . - page 28. (Read 24756 times)
I can't help but notice your trust issues have been resolved. Scrubbed clean of all your sins then. Good for you. 
You are welcome to leave negative trust against me if you want to.
He might be referencing this.
Your point being?
(if you are trying to troll me then you'd better do better than a Jr. account)
I can't help but notice your trust issues have been resolved. Scrubbed clean of all your sins then. Good for you.
He might be referencing this.
Your point being?
(if you are trying to troll me then you'd better do better than a Jr. account)
Is your wife ok with your snarky new attiitude?
Wow - look at this guy - am guessing you haven't shown off this post to your family have you?
He might be referencing this.
Is your wife ok with your snarky new attiitude?
Wow - look at this guy - am guessing you haven't shown off this post to your family have you?
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Waiting for "jonald" (I can't spell CIYAM little own my own name) to be slapped in the face by Carlton Banks now.
Sorry. I guess I didn't care enough about you to get your name right. I'll try harder in the future.
Waiting for "jonald" (I can't spell CIYAM little own my own name) to be slapped in the face by Carlton Banks now.
Is your wife ok with your snarky new attiitude?
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
I am fine with no blocksize limit at all. Let the miners sort it out.
and with slithering your way out of questions you don't like answering. Not much change there either.
Which question do you feel I didn't answer?
It was the part where you conveniently forgot about your support for previous failed dev-team coups, then just said some bland catch-all ("I support Bitcoin with unlimited blocks") when presented with the evidence? Remember that, it happened about 20 minutes ago. On this thread.
Whatever you say Carlton.
The question CYIAM asked was about whether I had "XT" on my profile and I answered truthfully that I did not.
I assume you're NOT too stupid to understand the difference between BitcoinXT and Bip101, nor are
you too stupid to understand that both Bip101 and unlimited blocks both involve lifting/raising
the current blocksize limit.
I've stated my position many times that I think we need bigger blocks and
I'm unsatisfied with Core's leadership, communication, and decisions on that
particular aspect of Bitcoin. No big secret there.
If your point is that I supported blocksize increase proposals in the past that have failed,
then yep, you're right. That is 100% true.
But the "slithering" accusations are nothing but trolling, politicking nonsense.
I am fine with no blocksize limit at all. Let the miners sort it out.
and with slithering your way out of questions you don't like answering. Not much change there either.
Which question do you feel I didn't answer?
It was the part where you conveniently forgot about your support for previous failed dev-team coups, then just said some bland catch-all ("I support Bitcoin with unlimited blocks") when presented with the evidence? Remember that, it happened about 20 minutes ago. On this thread.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
I am fine with no blocksize limit at all. Let the miners sort it out.
and with slithering your way out of questions you don't like answering. Not much change there either.
Which question do you feel I didn't answer?
No real arguments defending the 'no blocksize limit'. We should give more power to he miners because that is the best approach.
The argument have already all been stated by myself or others in the past.
limit was a spam filter, shouldn't be part of the protocol rules,
the longest chain PoW is the best method for consensus,
there will be natural orphaning risks preventing gargantuan blocks, etc.
I'm not even here to argue about it... My forum signature was
brought up as if Bip101 was some insane idea and I'm saying
that even no limit at all is not crazy.
I am fine with no blocksize limit at all. Let the miners sort it out.
and with slithering your way out of questions you don't like answering. Not much change there either.irrelevant. this isn't about code -- that's a complete strawman. whether or not you are a coder does not make you an authority on the economics of an experimental system. consensus is about economic incentive. that is game theory, not computer programming. there is no "code" that defines what works for aligning human incentives.
-snip-
Actually I do code. I've worked in the IT field my whole life but have recently changed direction. You are right that it is not about the code. Looking at the personal attack of that 'shill' and the later replies indicated that there was no use in arguing with him. I'll just put him on ignore and so should you.-snip-
i've never seen a thorough game theory analysis done by "big blockers" -- only baseless assertions that "derrrrp, ofc if one chain reaches 75% at some point the economic majority will quickly crush all opposition!1!!!" that's not an adequate explanation for anyone with basic intelligence. clearly it's enough for some of the chickens with their heads cut off running around on this forum, though.
This isn't about "big blockers" vs "small blockers" anymore, this is about taking over control over the main repository (else we'd be talking about BIP's not forks). I have not seen good arguments from them either. They're assuming that nobody will be damaged, that everyone will instantly switch because of the 75% and such. These are all assumptions based on nothing, not evidence nor research. I am fine with no blocksize limit at all. Let the miners sort it out.
and with slithering your way out of questions you don't like answering. Not much change there either.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Your signature didn't. But your personal text did say this:
Ah - yes - that was it (didn't think I was imagining things).
Funny - didn't your sig used to say "I support XT"?
Nope. Never did.
Your signature didn't. But your personal text did say this:
Nope. Never did.
Okay - but your sig support for Classic is duly noted.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Funny - didn't your sig used to say "I support XT"?
Nope. Never did.
Jump to: