Topic: A conspiracy against Bitcoin? (Read 456 times)
Well it is used for shady transactions etc but as far as a conspiracy goes, it's not that bad honestly.
I like it, because the discussion would give everyone the opportunity to judge for themselves what's the truth, and what's bullshit.
I used to also believe that scaling Bitcoin would be as easy as a hard fork to big blocks. But the more I learned, I found out that it wasn't. Big blocks are inherently centralizing. We know that Gavin, Mike Hearn, and Faketoshi know it, but why were they pushing for it?
I used to also believe that scaling Bitcoin would be as easy as a hard fork to big blocks. But the more I learned, I found out that it wasn't. Big blocks are inherently centralizing. We know that Gavin, Mike Hearn, and Faketoshi know it, but why were they pushing for it?
I'm a newbie to crypto and having skin in the game from late 2017 and fucked up all the way down where we are today if fiat prices matter (you can become rich by speculating but much richer by worldwide adoption). So I've had to do a lot of research from bitcoins and other coins history because I verify I don't trust. It seems that this crypto space, especially bitcoin space, have turned to a battle ground of different belief systems which accuses each other with various fictions and facts. I rather stick to facts what has actually happened and don't want to push a narrative that "This is right because I believe so".
Then I want to know, what are the facts, and what's your opinion on the small blocks - big blocks debate? Because sometimes, some newbies have started their "Bitcoin education" by listening to the wrong people.
So I guess you have already mentioned the "wrong people". Well I think there's actually no wrong or right there. If a bigger community wants to reach a consensus on something there must be compromises on every front or else there'll be situations like the BTC/BCH hard fork which causes lots of hate, grudge and stalemate situations. But of course humans are difficult animals and this kind of compromising consensus is hard to achieve so then comes the beauty of this FREE SOURCE stuff - everyone can do/fork their own thing and "nature" tests it if it's fit enough to survive in the long run.
So back to blocks .. I'd watch the whole picture, iterate and maybe go to the golden middle road. Regarding block size maybe there could be a solution somewhere in the middle? Perhaps something like dynamic block size which automatically increases the block size when the current one is say about 80-90% full and vice versa when blocks get empy it decreases the block size accordingly. For example 1MB gets 90% full then it's increased to 2MB and when 2MB is 90% full it's increased to 4MB etc. and when the traffic slows down and blocks get empty the code decreases the blocks first to 2MB and finally back to 1MB if it's possible. This way the code decides and people don't have to argue about it and developers could concentrate on BTCs privacy/anonymity "flaw". Dynamic block size offers small blocks as the optimum solution and also bigger blocks when needed. Bigger blocks are needed especially during the "rush hour" like late 2017 and early 2018.
But this thread is also about consipracy theory regarding bitcoin and I have something to add in my next post.
What about Matonis ?
- https://top.cointelegraph.com/people/Jon-Matonis/
"Matonis is an e-money researcher and crypto economist focused on expanding the circulation of non-political digital currencies. His career has included senior influential posts at Sumitomo Bank, Visa, VeriSign, and Hushmail. He was an Executive Director of the Bitcoin Foundation until December 2014. Matonis also provides e-money consulting services to companies on alternative currency programs, Bitcoin processing, compliance, jurisdiction selection, monetisation strategies, risk management, and virtual currency platforms."
He willingly gave up speaking time to CSW ...
Jon Matonis and Craig Wright - Shinseiki Evangerion - Arnhem 2017
- https://youtu.be/dgqtcu0zo-k
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hushmail
"Developments in November 2007 led to doubts, amongst security-conscious users, about Hushmail's security, specifically, concern over a backdoor."
- https://top.cointelegraph.com/people/Jon-Matonis/
"Matonis is an e-money researcher and crypto economist focused on expanding the circulation of non-political digital currencies. His career has included senior influential posts at Sumitomo Bank, Visa, VeriSign, and Hushmail. He was an Executive Director of the Bitcoin Foundation until December 2014. Matonis also provides e-money consulting services to companies on alternative currency programs, Bitcoin processing, compliance, jurisdiction selection, monetisation strategies, risk management, and virtual currency platforms."
He willingly gave up speaking time to CSW ...
Jon Matonis and Craig Wright - Shinseiki Evangerion - Arnhem 2017
- https://youtu.be/dgqtcu0zo-k
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hushmail
"Developments in November 2007 led to doubts, amongst security-conscious users, about Hushmail's security, specifically, concern over a backdoor."
I like it, because the discussion would give everyone the opportunity to judge for themselves what's the truth, and what's bullshit.
I used to also believe that scaling Bitcoin would be as easy as a hard fork to big blocks. But the more I learned, I found out that it wasn't. Big blocks are inherently centralizing. We know that Gavin, Mike Hearn, and Faketoshi know it, but why were they pushing for it?
I used to also believe that scaling Bitcoin would be as easy as a hard fork to big blocks. But the more I learned, I found out that it wasn't. Big blocks are inherently centralizing. We know that Gavin, Mike Hearn, and Faketoshi know it, but why were they pushing for it?
They were against anything that Core developed and implemented, because they wanted the control. This is why they forked off
, for them to have full control over their own shitcoin. I believe they forked off because they really thought that a large part of the community will follow them. Bitmain would never risk selling Bitcoin for Bitcoin Cash if they didn't, and it cost them a lot in my opinion.
Quote
They could not take over Bitcoin with XT, so they tried a new angle with Bitcoin Cash and this gave them control over their own coin to implement what they wanted.
There was Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited before that. It was a socio-political attack that failed.
I can see Assassin's Creed game in 2025 coming up with a conspiracy theory of what happened somewhere in 2017-2019 with Bitcoin! Maybe a Piece of Eden controls the price!
Well... that's something only Assassin's Creed fans will understand!
Jokes aside, I'm sure there are two possible cases,
1) Bitcoin is underestimated as a fools' game and is ignored by "them".
2) Bitcoin was seen as a threat in 2017 and big amounts were bought from "them" in order to be able to later on control the price.
Well... that's something only Assassin's Creed fans will understand!
Jokes aside, I'm sure there are two possible cases,
1) Bitcoin is underestimated as a fools' game and is ignored by "them".
2) Bitcoin was seen as a threat in 2017 and big amounts were bought from "them" in order to be able to later on control the price.
I like it, because the discussion would give everyone the opportunity to judge for themselves what's the truth, and what's bullshit.
I used to also believe that scaling Bitcoin would be as easy as a hard fork to big blocks. But the more I learned, I found out that it wasn't. Big blocks are inherently centralizing. We know that Gavin, Mike Hearn, and Faketoshi know it, but why were they pushing for it?
I used to also believe that scaling Bitcoin would be as easy as a hard fork to big blocks. But the more I learned, I found out that it wasn't. Big blocks are inherently centralizing. We know that Gavin, Mike Hearn, and Faketoshi know it, but why were they pushing for it?
They were against anything that Core developed and implemented, because they wanted the control. This is why they forked off
, for them to have full control over their own shitcoin. They could not take over Bitcoin with XT, so they tried a new angle with Bitcoin Cash and this gave them control over their own coin to implement what they wanted.
Classic 3 Letter agency strategies.
very hard to believe
I like it, because the discussion would give everyone the opportunity to judge for themselves what's the truth, and what's bullshit.
I used to also believe that scaling Bitcoin would be as easy as a hard fork to big blocks. But the more I learned, I found out that it wasn't. Big blocks are inherently centralizing. We know that Gavin, Mike Hearn, and Faketoshi know it, but why were they pushing for it?
I used to also believe that scaling Bitcoin would be as easy as a hard fork to big blocks. But the more I learned, I found out that it wasn't. Big blocks are inherently centralizing. We know that Gavin, Mike Hearn, and Faketoshi know it, but why were they pushing for it?
I'm a newbie to crypto and having skin in the game from late 2017 and fucked up all the way down where we are today if fiat prices matter (you can become rich by speculating but much richer by worldwide adoption). So I've had to do a lot of research from bitcoins and other coins history because I verify I don't trust. It seems that this crypto space, especially bitcoin space, have turned to a battle ground of different belief systems which accuses each other with various fictions and facts. I rather stick to facts what has actually happened and don't want to push a narrative that "This is right because I believe so".
Then I want to know, what are the facts, and what's your opinion on the small blocks - big blocks debate? Because sometimes, some newbies have started their "Bitcoin education" by listening to the wrong people.
If there are a lot of conspiracies, is the true purpose of bitcoin a mere conspiracy? and what is the current state of bitcoin due to the conspiracy? wait, it's not natural that bitcoin has a very long correction, is this also a conspiracy
I like it, because the discussion would give everyone the opportunity to judge for themselves what's the truth, and what's bullshit.
I used to also believe that scaling Bitcoin would be as easy as a hard fork to big blocks. But the more I learned, I found out that it wasn't. Big blocks are inherently centralizing. We know that Gavin, Mike Hearn, and Faketoshi know it, but why were they pushing for it?
I used to also believe that scaling Bitcoin would be as easy as a hard fork to big blocks. But the more I learned, I found out that it wasn't. Big blocks are inherently centralizing. We know that Gavin, Mike Hearn, and Faketoshi know it, but why were they pushing for it?
I'm a newbie to crypto and having skin in the game from late 2017 and fucked up all the way down where we are today if fiat prices matter (you can become rich by speculating but much richer by worldwide adoption). So I've had to do a lot of research from bitcoins and other coins history because I verify I don't trust. It seems that this crypto space, especially bitcoin space, have turned to a battle ground of different belief systems which accuses each other with various fictions and facts. I rather stick to facts what has actually happened and don't want to push a narrative that "This is right because I believe so".
I've learned to a degree that I know that the chaos around any bitcoin related topics is directly or indirectly caused by the privite central banksters who have felt that this crypto thing might threaten their worldwide ponzi scheme of debt-based fiat currencies which are sold to governments with great profits impoverishing the whole world. These banksters have hired social media warriors to wreak havoc among crypto communities because "divide and conquer" still works very efficiently today and distracts people from the real issues and tries to prevent postive forward going development. The ones who attack others the most show only their more mentally primitive state of mind.
In this topic I see childish arguments that go in the level of "my toy is better than yours because my toy is better" and then I see more mature arguments which try to discuss the topic from various viewpoints. There might be some hired chaos infilcters here or just useful idiots promoting stuff that actually hurts their coin. I don't have to call any names here because everyone knows themselves quite clearly how established they really are with their arguments.
I like it, because the discussion would give everyone the opportunity to judge for themselves what's the truth, and what's bullshit.
I used to also believe that scaling Bitcoin would be as easy as a hard fork to big blocks. But the more I learned, I found out that it wasn't. Big blocks are inherently centralizing. We know that Gavin, Mike Hearn, and Faketoshi know it, but why were they pushing for it?
I used to also believe that scaling Bitcoin would be as easy as a hard fork to big blocks. But the more I learned, I found out that it wasn't. Big blocks are inherently centralizing. We know that Gavin, Mike Hearn, and Faketoshi know it, but why were they pushing for it?
HONEST MAJORITY
Said the dishonest minority.
Has the topic derailed into Segwit activation again? Hahaha.
Yep. Just about every topic he posts in. I'm almost tempted to propose he gets his own subforum where he is safely quarantined and can derail every topic in there. Doesn't matter what the subject is, he has to find a way to turn it into SegWit/LN bashing.
It wasn't until we saw consensus in action that it became more apparent just how strongly people feel about it.
and under HONEST consensus.. core only got 35%
Has the topic derailed into Segwit activation again? Hahaha.
Under what benchmark did you base that on? Not under "miner signaling" I hope. Because you know Jihan Wu has turned miner signaling, which was only supposed to be to signal for its readiness to fork, into a political weapon.
What about the economic majority? Aren't they supposed to be represented too?
It wasn't until we saw consensus in action that it became more apparent just how strongly people feel about it.
and under HONEST consensus.. core only got 35% Those people who are supporting this network without reimbursement by running a non-mining node have already paid a cost, so understandably they will enforce rules on the network which prevent increasing that cost against their will. More people now seem to respect this logic.
yet core implemented an activation that was done via controversial means.....seems you really need to get out of your echo chamber of myths.
again the devs themselves will happily admit their actions.. so i wonder why are you still defending them as innocent when they plead guilty to their actions
so mr flip flop who in one post admits that disconnecting nodes PRE activation occured..
where is the "network that prevents x against their will" where is the "respect"
(pre-empt echo:
mandated controversial bilateral split
inflight upgrade
controversial forks
compatible sheep nodes of abstaining counted as approval)
you can flip and flop in and out for many more months..(i dont see why you prefer to continue that, as its no longer funny, but making me yawn at you now)
or just sit back do some research, update your echo chamber and then comeback with a single narative.. or you can skip your flip flop narative and just get to the point that you want bitcoin to remain low utility so that commercial networks become popular in the hopes that you can get paid for running a commercial hub on such commercial networks..
but. to help you out and pr-empt future echo's about your desires of geting paid as a full node.. you will run into the infographic windfury provided that will show who will actually get to be the commercial hubs making income from running full nodes.
meaning your not gonna get rich supporting cores roadmap. so atleast wake up to your motives and how they wont manifest into you getting rich by sticking with the myth echos of supporting core centralists
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
Quote
The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision
making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone
able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority
decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested
in it.
making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone
able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority
decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested
in it.
Thank you for proving my point. The longest chain told incompatible clients to gtfo and they did. It's almost as though it does exactly what it says on the tin.
thats talking about if nodes ACTIVATED differing rules.. (dishonest nodes) that dont wait for consensus
try to do some research
Quote
Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism
Yes. A rule was enforced with the consensus mechanism to disconnect nodes flagging bit 6 and bit 8. It literally says right there in the whitepaper that new rules can be enforced and that's precisely what happened. Now that you've literally just explained it to yourself, does it make sense now?
I swear if Inigo Montoya were here, he'd tell you that he doesn't think those words mean what you think they mean. And he'd be right.
thats talking consensus.. YOUR talking about enforcing rules by bypassing consensus by controversially disconnecting nodes before HONEST MAJORITY
now...
show me in the white paper where it says the network should be run by one team of devs code where everyone has to be sheep to that one trusted party
show me in the white paper where it says the network should be run by one team of devs code where everyone has to be sheep to that one trusted party
First you'd have to convince me that's what we currently have. I can't use written documents to confirm or deny things that only exist in your imagination. You should try speaking to a therapist.
your own flip flop statements and showing how you love core and saying how core has majority
node count websites
and by the way. the minority of diverse nodes are not part of the main relay network. they are ringfensed as 'downstream' 'filtered' nodes as a layer below the main relay network.. should you want to do some research devs will tell you this. they even made those buzzwords and even pretty pictures to show its true and they also went as far as making a guide to say that those not upgrading to cores new rules will be set as a lower tier than the fullnode relay network.
try to do some research. its been months but your still stuck at the same echo excuses and fud of previous myths which even the devs were happy to admit were myths.
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
Quote
The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision
making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone
able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority
decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested
in it.
making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone
able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority
decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested
in it.
Thank you for proving my point. The longest chain told incompatible clients to gtfo and they did. It's almost as though it does exactly what it says on the tin.
Quote
Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism
Yes. A rule was enforced with the consensus mechanism to disconnect nodes flagging bit 6 and bit 8. It literally says right there in the whitepaper that new rules can be enforced and that's precisely what happened. Now that you've literally just explained it to yourself, does it make sense now?
I swear if Inigo Montoya were here, he'd tell you that he doesn't think those words mean what you think they mean. And he'd be right.
now...
show me in the white paper where it says the network should be run by one team of devs code where everyone has to be sheep to that one trusted party
show me in the white paper where it says the network should be run by one team of devs code where everyone has to be sheep to that one trusted party
First you'd have to convince me that's what we currently have. I can't use written documents to confirm or deny things that only exist in your imagination. You should try speaking to a therapist.
strangely those wanting smll blocks and LN want people to lock funds into factories and let the factories be the fullnodes(multinetwork masternode servers) while millions of users just use auto-piloted phone apps that trust that the servers are not going to mess around
Strangely, those who can't understand that Lightning now has more nodes than every forkcoin combined are not taken seriously by anyone when they spread FUD about technologies that haven't even finished being developed yet. Troll harder.
I think many big blockers believe that non-mining nodes aren't relevant to the consensus.
Which becomes all the more amusing when they deny that non-mining nodes are the very reason why they aren't getting all the "improvements" they think should be implemented.
The point of the topic is "what do Mike Hearn, Gavin Andresen, and Craig Wright have in common, and why?".
Bigger blocks. But why? I know Mike Hearn, and Gavin Andresen understand the ramifications of it on the network, but why were they pushing for it? What was their agenda?
Bigger blocks. But why? I know Mike Hearn, and Gavin Andresen understand the ramifications of it on the network, but why were they pushing for it? What was their agenda?
I don't doubt that Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen believed they were doing the right thing. I just think they miscalculated (as did I, along with many others at the time) the level of resistance they would encounter. I think in the earlier stages of the dreaded blocksize debate, some people (again, myself included) generally weren't aware of the now-self-evident phenomenon I raised earlier in this topic:
if you can't get what you want without taking away what other people already have (and deem valuable, like decentralisation), it shouldn't come as a surprise when those other people decide that what you want is not very good. Why should they give up what they have for what you want?
It wasn't until we saw consensus in action that it became more apparent just how strongly people feel about it. Those people who are supporting this network without reimbursement by running a non-mining node have already paid a cost, so understandably they will enforce rules on the network which prevent increasing that cost against their will. More people now seem to respect this logic.
The point of the topic is "what do Mike Hearn, Gavin Andresen, and Craig Wright have in common, and why?".
Bigger blocks. But why? I know Mike Hearn, and Gavin Andresen understand the ramifications of it on the network, but why were they pushing for it? What was their agenda?
Bigger blocks. But why? I know Mike Hearn, and Gavin Andresen understand the ramifications of it on the network, but why were they pushing for it? What was their agenda?
They may have been okay with the idea of mostly SPV users and vastly fewer full nodes. I think many big blockers believe that non-mining nodes aren't relevant to the consensus. I also think a lot of people legitimately don't understand Bitcoin's economic design and think infinite near-zero fees are actually viable.
It's possible they had a deliberate agenda to centralize the network, but I don't think we'll ever find out either way. If they did, at least we know they failed.
strangely those wanting smll blocks and LN want people to lock funds into factories and let the factories be the fullnodes(multinetwork masternode servers) while millions of users just use auto-piloted phone apps that trust that the servers are not going to mess around
after all whos going to carry around their PC to buy coffee on LN
also
those that want bitcoin network scaling dont want gigabytes by midnight. they just want some actual movement in the scaling to get passed the implied 600k tx limit a day known about since 2010
i really find is amusing at the same time as facepalming that small blockers still think the options are only server farms of LN hubs or server farms of gigabyte bitcoin blocks... and then they go on to presume that server farms of LN hubs are the solution. and that people should avoid using bitcoins blockchain
The point of the topic is "what do Mike Hearn, Gavin Andresen, and Craig Wright have in common, and why?".
Bigger blocks. But why? I know Mike Hearn, and Gavin Andresen understand the ramifications of it on the network, but why were they pushing for it? What was their agenda?
Bigger blocks. But why? I know Mike Hearn, and Gavin Andresen understand the ramifications of it on the network, but why were they pushing for it? What was their agenda?
They may have been okay with the idea of mostly SPV users and vastly fewer full nodes. I think many big blockers believe that non-mining nodes aren't relevant to the consensus. I also think a lot of people legitimately don't understand Bitcoin's economic design and think infinite near-zero fees are actually viable.
It's possible they had a deliberate agenda to centralize the network, but I don't think we'll ever find out either way. If they did, at least we know they failed.
Please quote the part of the whitepaper where it declares the purpose of Bitcoin is to have a bunch of incompatible proposals in a constant state of deadlock, where no one is able to move forward with any new ideas.
While more diversity would be nice, it has never been a prerequisite. The level of diversity other users are willing to accept is yet another one of those things you don't get to decide for them.
Run what you want. Respect what others run. It's really not that hard.
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
^ read it.. seriously, read it.. it seems you have not read it or you would have your answer
here are just some parts explaining that satoshi knew thr would be diversity and incompatibility
Quote
The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision
making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone
able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority
decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested
in it. If a majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the
fastest and outpace any competing chains.
Nodes always consider the longest chain to be the correct one and will keep working on
extending it. If two nodes broadcast different versions of the next block simultaneously, some
nodes may receive one or the other first. In that case, they work on the first one they received,
but save the other branch in case it becomes longer. The tie will be broken when the next proof-
of-work is found and one branch becomes longer; the nodes that were working on the other
branch will then switch to the longer one
making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone
able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority
decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested
in it. If a majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the
fastest and outpace any competing chains.
Nodes always consider the longest chain to be the correct one and will keep working on
extending it. If two nodes broadcast different versions of the next block simultaneously, some
nodes may receive one or the other first. In that case, they work on the first one they received,
but save the other branch in case it becomes longer. The tie will be broken when the next proof-
of-work is found and one branch becomes longer; the nodes that were working on the other
branch will then switch to the longer one
Quote
They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of
valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on
them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism
^ this is about the orphan mechanism of consensusvalid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on
them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism
.. care to wonder why core dislike diversity and kills off other nodes early. .. to prevent there being votes against their desires
the idea WAS that diverse nodes would aim to follow the active rules via remaining HONEST to ensure they got to spend their incentives. thus not causing orphans/rejects purposefully so that the majority stays with the mainchain
and only activating new rules when they had HONEST majority
Quote
The incentive may help encourage nodes to stay honest. If a greedy attacker is able to
assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes,
..
He ought to
find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than
everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth.
assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes,
..
He ought to
find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than
everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth.
Quote
To solve this, we
proposed a peer-to-peer network using proof-of-work to record a public history of transactions
that quickly becomes computationally impractical for an attacker to change if honest nodes
control a majority of CPU power. The network is robust in its unstructured simplicity. Nodes
work all at once with little coordination. They do not need to be identified, since messages are
not routed to any particular place and only need to be delivered on a best effort basis. Nodes can
leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what
happened while they were gone. They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of
valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on
them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism
proposed a peer-to-peer network using proof-of-work to record a public history of transactions
that quickly becomes computationally impractical for an attacker to change if honest nodes
control a majority of CPU power. The network is robust in its unstructured simplicity. Nodes
work all at once with little coordination. They do not need to be identified, since messages are
not routed to any particular place and only need to be delivered on a best effort basis. Nodes can
leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what
happened while they were gone. They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of
valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on
them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism
but core instead want to ignore the consensus, and just get rid of competition early.
this making core become the 'trusted party' of code rules by having no competition thus no vote required(compatibility/inflight upgrades/mandated changes).
and yes you trust and admire and are devoted to wanting core to remain as a trusted group without competition
now...
show me in the white paper where it says the network should be run by one team of devs code where everyone has to be sheep to that one trusted party
what you dont understand is the usage of throwing nodes off the network before activation is CONTENSIOUS
Oh, boo-hoo. Cry me a river.
consensus is about nothing bad happening before activation, and only activating a feature when there is enough majority to AVOID a fork.
consensus is about not using contensious-forks to instigate a activation.
consensus is about not using contensious-forks to instigate a activation.
Consensus is whatever users decide it is. Your wishful thinking is inconsequential. It's about what you can enforce in code. If you can't enforce your wishes in code (and you definitely can't), then you are wasting your time telling us how you'd like it to be.
That belief is not correct. The other option, which apparently needs to be explained to you a billion times over, is that users can enforce rules that disconnect alternative clients. To reiterate, clients following current consensus rules can introduce new rules that effectively fork other clients off the network. That's entirely their prerogative. Not your call. Your obsession with dates is as meaningless as the utter drivel you spout in every topic you derail. Kindly get a clue.
^ that statement i just quoted, is called CONTENTIOUS event. and nothing to do with consensus.
i do not deny that it could happen. i just have been repeatedly informing you that doing contentious forks to bypass/fake a consensus activation, is not what bitcoins purpose was about 2009-2013
the whole point of bitcoins invention and blockchains is to have a system where diversity can come to an agreement without fighting to then progress the rules and without creating an ultimate central leader..
Please quote the part of the whitepaper where it declares the purpose of Bitcoin is to have a bunch of incompatible proposals in a constant state of deadlock, where no one is able to move forward with any new ideas.
While more diversity would be nice, it has never been a prerequisite. The level of diversity other users are willing to accept is yet another one of those things you don't get to decide for them.
Run what you want. Respect what others run. It's really not that hard.
Jump to: