Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 14. (Read 46564 times)
January 26, 2016, 10:55:07 AM
This topic is still a thing in the Bitcoinland?
January 26, 2016, 10:35:01 AM
^Not sure what you're saying here. You don't believe there are scenarios in which interests of >51% of hashpower are at odds with those of the hodlers?
I suppose that is what I think yes. It might be more accurate to say that I do not think that the majority of the hashpower will go against the economic majority. I think that the game theory of Bitcoin is designed in such a way, that it ensures the continued decentralization and freedom of the protocol. In the case of a fifty one percent attack, I think the miners are definitely disincentivized to carry out such an attack, it would be irrational while requiring collective effort from separate entities, this I think is very unlikely, especially also considering the lessons learned over the past few years. Of course we could dream up of scenarios where this could happen, however it is very unlikely. Like many things in Bitcoin it is more about having a high probability of certainty as opposed to actually having absolute certainty. This works well enough, just like zero confirmation does in most retail situations.In the short run, the majority of the miners could choose to stick with the 'wrong' Bitcoin fork.
I find this to be a strange statement, there is no "wrong" fork. Even if the miners did stick with a fork that over time would cease to be the dominant chain in terms of value, miners could simply switch back to the more valuable chain under such a scenario. This also allows the market to choose and test these concepts in the real world.Another flaw in this concept is that it assumes there shall be only one Bitcoin, which can be changed with hardforks all the time, as long as people accept it.
I do not assume that there will only be one Bitcoin actually. I think over the long run Bitcoin splitting is unavoidable and off political necessity. But if something like 60% of people accept Bitcoin A (original, pre-fork) and 40% of people accept Bitcoin B (forked), then there will be 2 'economic majorities', and both sides would survive.
Under such a scenario there would not be two economic majorities since the currency would have split. Holders would intersect across both chains obviously however the governance of each chain would be distinct and separate.But because of the sudden fork and the lack of knowledge from average Joe, this could create widespread chaos, and both sides of the fork would lose value rapidly.
So you are saying that: Increasing the blocksize to two megabyte will create chaos! Your Bitcoins will lose their value rapidly! Paraphrasing you here to make a point. I think that you are fear mongering, if you are not doing this on purpose then I might suggest that you are scared of this situation. Fear is a strong emotion, it is one of the strongest emotions that is capable of overriding peoples reasoning. This is especially true with something like Bitcoin, where there is peoples wealth at stake.First of all this upcoming fork to two megabytes will most likely have the support of more then ninety percent of the hashpower. Furthermore most of the major companies and wallets are also in support of this change. Therefore it will not be confusing at all to average Joe, since it will be clear to him at least, who is in the majority, since average Joe does not run a full node, his wallet provider will take care of that side of things.
* Average Joe A wants to perform some tero financing for his friend TeroDrone B. Both barely know what a wallet is. Joe A has a wallet working with Bitcoin A while TeroDrone B has a wallet working with Bitcoin B. The transaction would not work as expected, both would be severly disappointed. Bitcoin is no good.
* Average Joe B wants to buy a frapuccino from some local merchant. Joe B uses a Bitcoin B wallet. Unfortunately, the merchant was too noob to upgrade the wallet, and still accepts Bitcoin A. No frapuccino for Joe B or no payment for the merchant. Bitcoin is no good.
If the smaller chain survives then it will be like other altcoins, in the sense that Bitcoin is not more difficult to use because of the existence of Litecoin for example. Its not like the existence of Litecoin addresses breaks Bitcoin? * Average Joe B wants to buy a frapuccino from some local merchant. Joe B uses a Bitcoin B wallet. Unfortunately, the merchant was too noob to upgrade the wallet, and still accepts Bitcoin A. No frapuccino for Joe B or no payment for the merchant. Bitcoin is no good.
The example you give here will not occur in the situation we are in now, I suspect it will only be the diehards in terms of this small blockist philosophy that will stay behind on the old chain. People that are capable of running full nodes, will at least be smart enough to know the difference between two separate cryptocurrencies. Credit where credit is due, the small blockist camp do tend to be very technically inclined, if you do not mind me generalizing in a more positive sense about my ideological opponents here.
This bring me back to another point however, lets say hypothetically if we did have a 40/60 split. I presume you would think that either the 40% or the 60% should be "forced" to live under any rule changes or lack of changes that they disagree with or leave? This is a lot like a government that rules by force using the majority as a justification for its tyranny, or even worse a minority. If people where truly so divided in their vision of Bitcoin then a split is the best solution and justified, it solves the problem of tyranny of the majority. If you do not think we should be able to split what do you suggest we do instead under this hypothetical scenario? I can not imagine a solution that is as graceful as the one that is inherent within the Bitcoin protocol. Even if you can think of a better alternative to splitting, which I can not imagine being the case under the hypothetical scenario I describe, since it is the ability to split that best preserves the principles of freedom and self determination. Whatever you do think it does not change the reality that Bitcoin can split, whether you like it or not, you should embrace this concept, or question your involvement in Bitcoin.
But people like Veritas disregard this scenario. They will fork without widespread consensus. They think they know the will of the 'economic majority'.
Well this is a complete straw man argument, I have never said this. In fact I have clearly stated the opposite, we intend to fork with a high degree of consensus and I do not know the will of the majority. However collectively the network can know the will of the economic majority through proof of work and market dynamics, emergent consensus can form, this is the new dawn of decentralized governance. I also think there is no governance mechanism for Bitcoin and there shouldn't be one, same as for gold.
I do think that you are wrong on this point. The rules of gold can not be changed, the rules of Bitcoin can be changed, this is one of the reasons why Bitcoin is better then gold. Since Bitcoin does represent a community of people that follow certain common rules, any change to these rules or even just continuing to uphold these rules requires a form of governance. This is a human necessity that can not be escaped, even anarchism requires forms of governance. Fortunately Bitcoin already has a governance mechanism build into the protocol.Slowly, but surely, this governance will become more and more centralized, and it will reach the point where it would multiply the existing Bitcoins. Afterwards, it's over. Perhaps some other crypto will take it's place.
I suppose that I think that the governance of Bitcoin will become more decentralized over time, especially with increased adoption. Why do you think that the governance of Bitcoin will become more centralized? I do not have any reason to think that myself, obviously I think the opposite will happen.Every currency controlled by man fails. Gold is still here.
I think that you are to quick to reach that conclusion, Bitcoin has not been around for that long for the history of currencies. Bitcoin also has a decentralized governance mechanism, which I think is one of the most important innovations that could make the difference in its success compared to currencies that came before. Bitcoin is much more then just a currency as well of course, which I think will further contribute to its success. I was going to argue that Bitcoin is controlled by the people, but I realize now that you already know this. And that this is why you think that Bitcoin will fail. I suppose you might think that we can radically change Bitcoin so that it is not controlled by the people, I do not think this is possible however since you will not be able to solve the problem of "who decides". Furthermore it would be wrong to attempt to do this to Bitcoin without a split or just starting a new project from scratch. Since that is not what people originally signed up for and it can be argued that this breaks the social contract of Bitcoin.
Quote from: tsontar
In my discussions with various members of Core, I have reached the conclusion that most of them simply disagree with the design of Bitcoin, which by design allows the consensus rules to be changed by a sufficient majority of miners and users, independent of what any group of technocrats wish. It is important to remember not to attribute malice where ignorance is equally explanatory. All of the devs I engage with are very strong in cryptography and computer science, which may make them less accepting of the fact that at its core, Bitcoin relies in the economic self-interest of the masses to govern consensus, not a group of educated technocrats. As an educated technocrat myself I can understand the sentiment. It would be better if math and only math governed Bitcoin. But that's not how Bitcoin is actually governed. At the end of the day, if social engineering and developer manipulation can kill Bitcoin, well then we're all betting on the wrong horse.
January 26, 2016, 09:49:00 AM
January 26, 2016, 07:55:43 AM
What should we shill next u guise? Now that we're all REKT, I mean. We could brigade the climate change Reddit for a while? I guess.
You could always have a martini and watch Mash reruns...Do you guys actually make money at this...?
cheers
.5[btc/post base pay +, but it's not about the money.
And yourself?
Honestly I've never received anything for posting...not even 1 Satoshi! Even at my lowest point as a homeless retail investor I couldnt get one free coffee for all my free BTC chart tips!
Disclaimer:Future owner of Fatman soup kitchen! "No shirt No Shoes No problem"
January 26, 2016, 04:22:58 AM
^Not sure what you're saying here. You don't believe there are scenarios in which interests of >51% of hashpower are at odds with those of the hodlers?
I suppose that is what I think yes. It might be more accurate to say that I do not think that the majority of the hashpower will go against the economic majority. I think that the game theory of Bitcoin is designed in such a way, that it ensures the continued decentralization and freedom of the protocol. In the case of a fifty one percent attack, I think the miners are definitely disincentivized to carry out such an attack, it would be irrational while requiring collective effort from separate entities, this I think is very unlikely, especially also considering the lessons learned over the past few years. Of course we could dream up of scenarios where this could happen, however it is very unlikely. Like many things in Bitcoin it is more about having a high probability of certainty as opposed to actually having absolute certainty. This works well enough, just like zero confirmation does in most retail situations.This 'economic majority' would affect the miners only in the long run. In the short run, the majority of the miners could choose to stick with the 'wrong' Bitcoin fork. Another flaw in this concept is that it assumes there shall be only one Bitcoin, which can be changed with hardforks all the time, as long as people accept it.
But if something like 60% of people accept Bitcoin A (original, pre-fork) and 40% of people accept Bitcoin B (forked), then there will be 2 'economic majorities', and both sides would survive. But because of the sudden fork and the lack of knowledge from average Joe, this could create widespread chaos, and both sides of the fork would lose value rapidly:
* Average Joe A wants to perform some tero financing for his friend TeroDrone B. Both barely know what a wallet is. Joe A has a wallet working with Bitcoin A while TeroDrone B has a wallet working with Bitcoin B. The transaction would not work as expected, both would be severly disappointed. Bitcoin is no good.
* Average Joe B wants to buy a frapuccino from some local merchant. Joe B uses a Bitcoin B wallet. Unfortunately, the merchant was too noob to upgrade the wallet, and still accepts Bitcoin A. No frapuccino for Joe B or no payment for the merchant. Bitcoin is no good.
But people like Veritas disregard this scenario. They will fork without widespread consensus. They think they know the will of the 'economic majority'.
I also think there is no governance mechanism for Bitcoin and there shouldn't be one, same as for gold.
I do think that you are wrong on this point. The rules of gold can not be changed, the rules of Bitcoin can be changed, this is one of the reasons why Bitcoin is better then gold. Since Bitcoin does represent a community of people that follow certain common rules, any change to these rules or even just continuing to uphold these rules requires a form of governance. This is a human necessity that can not be escaped, even anarchism requires forms of governance. Fortunately Bitcoin already has a governance mechanism build into the protocol.
Every currency controlled by man fails. Gold is still here.
January 25, 2016, 07:57:38 PM
What should we shill next u guise? Now that we're all REKT, I mean. We could brigade the climate change Reddit for a while? I guess.
You could always have a martini and watch Mash reruns...Do you guys actually make money at this...?
cheers
.5[btc/post base pay +, but it's not about the money.
And yourself?
Fuck sakes. I'm getting ripped off.
Bitcoins are for closers!
January 25, 2016, 07:54:51 PM
What should we shill next u guise? Now that we're all REKT, I mean. We could brigade the climate change Reddit for a while? I guess.
You could always have a martini and watch Mash reruns...Do you guys actually make money at this...?
cheers
.5[btc/post base pay +, but it's not about the money.
And yourself?
Fuck sakes. I'm getting ripped off.
January 25, 2016, 07:51:01 PM
We all had to start somewhere.
January 25, 2016, 07:30:23 PM
What should we shill next u guise? Now that we're all REKT, I mean. We could brigade the climate change Reddit for a while? I guess.
You could always have a martini and watch Mash reruns...Do you guys actually make money at this...?
cheers
.5[btc/post base pay +, but it's not about the money.
And yourself?
January 25, 2016, 07:24:00 PM
What should we shill next u guise? Now that we're all REKT, I mean. We could brigade the climate change Reddit for a while? I guess.
I thought that was what we were doing?
Climate change is next Wednesday.
But I was warned there would be severe consequences if I don't produce results on this block size thing.
January 25, 2016, 07:12:13 PM
What should we shill next u guise? Now that we're all REKT, I mean. We could brigade the climate change Reddit for a while? I guess.
You could always have a martini and watch Mash reruns...Do you guys actually make money at this...?
cheers
January 25, 2016, 07:08:37 PM
What should we shill next u guise? Now that we're all REKT, I mean. We could brigade the climate change Reddit for a while? I guess.
I thought that was what we were doing?
January 25, 2016, 07:06:26 PM
What should we shill next u guise? Now that we're all REKT, I mean. We could brigade the climate change Reddit for a while? I guess.
January 25, 2016, 07:05:35 PM
Hmmm.... ok then.
January 25, 2016, 07:03:48 PM
January 25, 2016, 06:44:00 PM
The Humpty-Dumpty Theory of Language.
Quote
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory'," Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't- till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't- till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."
January 25, 2016, 06:38:02 PM
...
In demolition there is a term which makes physicists tear their hair out. It's called a "Building Implosion". Demolition engineers like to explain to people that when they blow up buildings they don't actually explode, they implode. But the fact is that there is no implosion occurring. A "Building Implosion" is a series of timed explosions which causes the building to fall in on itself. The word "implosion" walks away unschated.
A bomb explodes, as the air around it implodes. A submarine implodes, as the water explodes into it.In demolition there is a term which makes physicists tear their hair out. It's called a "Building Implosion". Demolition engineers like to explain to people that when they blow up buildings they don't actually explode, they implode. But the fact is that there is no implosion occurring. A "Building Implosion" is a series of timed explosions which causes the building to fall in on itself. The word "implosion" walks away unschated.
All a matter of perspective.
no
Quote
Also In an implosion-type nuclear weapon design, a sphere of plutonium, uranium, or other fissile material is imploded by a spherical arrangement of explosive charges., which is sorta like your building thing.
Or not.
Or not.
Nope, the explosion compresses the mass, causing it to implode which leads to the nuclear material achieving critical mass, which leads to messed up hair and eerie tone cluster compositions by poles.
Quote
What does his have to do with Bitcoin? Destruction, demolition, doom, helplessness and disease (err... dis-ease).
@2112: You should go and edit Wikipedia, too. They need you!
@2112: You should go and edit Wikipedia, too. They need you!
I hope he embraces his non-offensive interpretation of the word and starts using it consistently. He can report back how long it took before he got punched to the ground.
January 25, 2016, 06:22:15 PM
That doesn't change the meaning of the word. It creates an industry specific term which is not applicable in other contexts.
Are you available for parties?
The word party has several uses...blablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablablabla
blablablablablablablablablablablab......bleeeeeehhhhhh.....blablablablablablabl ablablablablabl
ablablablablablablablablablablab......bleeeeeehhhhhh.....blablablablablablablab lablablablablablab
lablablablablablablablablablab......bleeeeeehhhhhh.....blablablablablablablabla blablablablablabl
ablablablablablablablablablab......bleeeeeehhhhhh.....blablablablablablablablab lablablablablabla
blablablablablablablablablab......bleeeeeehhhhhh.....blablablablablablablablabl ablablablablablabl
ablablablablablablablablab......bleeeeeehhhhhh.....blablablablablablablablablab lablablablablabla
blablablablablablablablab......bleeeeeehhhhhh.....blablablablablablablablablabl ablablablablablab
lablablablablablablablab......bleeeeeehhhhhh.....blablablablablablablablablabla blablablablablabla
blablablablablablablab......bleeeeeehhhhhh.....blablablablablablablablablablabl ablablablablablab
lablablablablablablab......bleeeeeehhhhhh.....blablablablablablablabla..... Will there be free drinks?
January 25, 2016, 06:19:55 PM
So if I see you as a shill, you're a shill? That's an odd way you have with language.
You're the one who's odd at understanding. I could make up a list of planets in our Solar System that includes Laudaria as the biggest planet. Just because I've created the list, that does not mean that the things on it are true. As far as the subjective list goes, I said it could be created but that it does not mean that people on those list are in fact shills.A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization. Whether or not a person is a shill is an objective matter of fact. There's nothing subjective about it.
Dictionary definition: Appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. Interpretation of "shill" is highly personal and subjective.
You just made my list of Potatos, Mister.
Don't worry tho. It's only a subjective list. Until you prove you aren't a potato.
January 25, 2016, 06:14:36 PM
...
In demolition there is a term which makes physicists tear their hair out. It's called a "Building Implosion". Demolition engineers like to explain to people that when they blow up buildings they don't actually explode, they implode. But the fact is that there is no implosion occurring. A "Building Implosion" is a series of timed explosions which causes the building to fall in on itself. The word "implosion" walks away unschated.
A bomb explodes, as the air around it implodes. A submarine implodes, as the water explodes into it.In demolition there is a term which makes physicists tear their hair out. It's called a "Building Implosion". Demolition engineers like to explain to people that when they blow up buildings they don't actually explode, they implode. But the fact is that there is no implosion occurring. A "Building Implosion" is a series of timed explosions which causes the building to fall in on itself. The word "implosion" walks away unschated.
All a matter of perspective.
Also In an implosion-type nuclear weapon design, a sphere of plutonium, uranium, or other fissile material is imploded by a spherical arrangement of explosive charges., which is sorta like your building thing.
Or not.
What does his have to do with Bitcoin? Destruction, demolition, doom, helplessness and disease (err... dis-ease).
@2112: You should go and edit Wikipedia, too. They need you!
Jump to: