Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 13. (Read 46564 times)

Yawn.  Wake me up if there is an "urgently needed" capacity increase.  I'm not expecting one for at least a year or two...

So long as competitive fees effectively pay for tx priority within Bitcoin's fee-for-service markets (plural because in- and out-of-band markets exist), Bitcoin is just starting to work the way it's supposed to.

The idea of FREE TX 4EVA is bunk; block subsidies won't last forever and we must have a better, loop-of-self-sufficiency-closing way to pay miners for our collective security.

If fee markets fail to develop as block subsidies decline, there will be less incentive for miners to secure the One True Blockchain.  And that would lead to talk of a tail emission, which might entail raising the 21e6 coin limit.

Do you really wan to go there?

If you want free tx, use a less popular, alternative chain with (effectively) no minimum fee.

* is #REKT

Keep at it; not long now

Better add Gmax to the list of big block shills.

A year ago I suggested that if increased capacity were urgently needed we could just do a 2MB hardfork-- which, while causing harm, wouldn't likely cause irrecoverable harm. It was aggressively opposed by the persons demanding effectively unlimited blocksizes.
https://np.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/42ftps/list_of_reputations_that_core_supporters_have/czcu3sw

So #rekt.

Oh really? Well how very Heinrich Himmler of you. 

That's the shittiest nazi comparison I've seen in a long time.

Still using the Goebbels approach, Zara?  ("repeat the lie so often that it becomes the truth")

Forget it. You'll get a hard fork to 2 MB this year.

Well they don't pay me...its not even traded yet! of course I will be pumping it for grins and chuckles...

Yes, let's all update our definitions of "many" to mean "two"!



LOL, you haven't been reading the Internet much, have you?


Why? Is Black's Law Dictionary your holy book, or what? Why are you treating "legal definitions", created by some supposedly "authoritative" person, as somehow superior to the actual original meaning of the word which people use?  

But so much is predicated on that wiki definition. Once we allow that bitcoin hodlers are an insignificant part of "economic majority," it's no longer implicit that the miners' interests should [rationally] be aligned with those of the hodlers ("here's a few billion bucks, make BTC worthless" example). In a closed system, that type of attack makes no sense (miners paid in BTC, by debasing BTC they're simultaneously making their reward worthless), but open it to fiat...


Which rules would those be?

I've recently been toying with the idea that the entire internet literally is world war 3. And that Einstein was wrong; it's the 5th world war that will be fought with sticks and stones.

And how would the majority vote look like in practice? Using their collective influence to change the user agent ? Or you prefer that we give you the finger by voting both for and against your proposal? I can certainly run both Toomim and Satoshi, how you are gonna know which one is used in production?

The thing is that you people can go fork yourself. You have no measurable objective to accomplish here. Better go create your altcoin if you piss on the Satoshi rules.

The truth is as the pressure on miners to enforce various know your customer, anti laundering and other crap grows, you know what they gonna do?

First of all they aren't gonna give a fork about stuff happening outside their nation. In fact the more a certain nation is hated globally, the more the rest of world is going to mine thefts and laundry happening there just to give them the middle finger. A global karma in action if you will.

Secondly sure they may be forced to do various orwel-tier account blacklisting and whatnot within their nation and so what? They can try but when's its confirmed it's too late to cry. There's no hotline to reverse it, some rich governor or lawyer or whatever can go fork himself. And I guarantee to you that majority of various scams the owner discovers it too late and what good is some anti-laundry once they notice, the clothes are already dry, ironed and in wardrobes all over the world.

Certainly I'm the person least giving a fuck, I never broke the law, these clowns (both criminals and establishment) can clown around in the real world but here they have no power.

I definitely prefer this sort of virtual war to world war 3. At least here the good guys seem to have an edge.

Ng1-f3

I disagree with the definition in the Bitcoin wiki, I have lost respect for that wiki after the censorship occurred on there. I define the economic majority more broadly, to represent the entire Bitcoin ecosystem. From exchanges, merchants, payment processors, holders, investors, users, wallet providers, full node operators and even the miners, among many more groups. Essentially I define the economic majority as the majority of economic participants on the network and their sum of collective influence. It is just another way of saying that the market rules Bitcoin and or that the people rule Bitcoin.

If we do not increase the blocksize, then transactions will become much more expensive and unreliable, I do not think Bitcoin would even gain increased adoption under these circumstances. We have had almost exponential growth of transaction volume so far, I do not think it is right to cap this growth now, so early in Bitcoins development.

In regards to you thinking that Bitcoin is not governed by the people, I think that you are wrong. If it is possible to hard fork tomorrow because of the will of the economic majority then Bitcoin has a governance mechanism today, since that governance mechanism does exist now, that possibility exists now. I do not think that you can deny this fact, you will only be ignoring the reality by not acknowledging this truth. It is even self evident from your own statements.

BITCOIN ORIGIN^TONIC FTW!

Only in your mind.

In reality, the community has rejected XT, Unlimited, and now "Classic". Your move.

I think Bitcoin is not governed by anyone and should not be. It will only become 'governed' once your hard fork attempts become successful. This 'governance' using populism would include a broad spectrum of people at first, but loosely manipulated by a group of interests. At the next hard fork, the group of interests will be stronger and the people left over to manipulate will be fewer and more ignorant. The group of interests at the center will use more advanced propaganda and the plebes will swallow it.

I'm sure you don't think there will be miraculous adoption after your hard fork. People are not waiting on the sidelines to jump onboard after the transaction fees drop from 0.0002 BTC to 0 BTC. Do you honestly believe that?

http://www.cointape.com/

Massive adoption after the massive 8 cents transaction fee gets out of the way?

I think your confusion lies in "Economic Majority" (as defined in Bitcoin Wiki) being a misnomer.

"Economic majority" only makes sense if we choose to go with BTC as the unit of account. But BTC is a ridiculous unit of account IRL. Or, rather, as appropriate for gauging the soundness of Bitcoin propositions as Beanie Babies are for gauging the soundness of Beanie propositions.

If this is still unclear, "Economic Majority" != "Those most invested in Bitcoin," those barely matter. Rational self-interest, for most, means maximizing *buying power,* which loosely translates to USD. By using USD as the unit of account, it becomes clear that economic majority is the fiat holders.

If the miners (or, rather, the 9 guys controlling 90% of the hashpower) are offered a few billion bucks to fork Bitcoin up de butt, do you really think they'd consult BTC hodlers? Assuming "rational [utilitarian] self-interest," that is?

TL;DR: fiat hodlers are the true economic majority in Bitcoin.

Not for much longer I suspect, the tide is turning.