Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 16. (Read 46564 times)

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.

Yeah! Let's get back to our roots! Back to before roman law started poisoning our minds with their "presumption of innocence" and all that "rational" stuff!

Not as clear-cut as that. That alignment is *inferred*, and to reach it requires one to make multiple logical leaps.
Many possible stumbling blocks, like tragedy of the commons, for instance.

Yes it does, it is the equivalent of saying that the people rule Bitcoin. However unlike state democracies where the peoples vote is supposed to be equal, that is not the case in Bitcoin. The greater stake in Bitcoin a person has the greater influence this buys. This is why I think that economic majority is a more accurate term for this discussion.

This is exactly how the mining incentive works and how the miners are incentivized to follow the economic majority. Since it is the economic majority that gives any cryptocurrency its value, miners will chase profit and therefore do whatever is in the best interests of the network. This is why the miners are such a suitable proxy for the economic majority, furthermore proof of work is the only effective way to "vote" in Bitcoin, since nodes can be trivially Sybil attacked. We can not have a good governance mechanism in Bitcoin without an effective "voting" mechanism, so that the will of the economic majority can be accurately reflected.

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.

The contradiction of saying that Bitcoin is defined by the will of its participants, yet at the same time claiming that changing the blocksize means that it is no longer Bitcoin or that this is somehow not justified or to dangerous, even if an increase in the blocksize is what the economic majority wants. Credit where credit is due, you do acknowledge this contradiction in your following statement.

With the recent statement from the Chinese miners it seems like we will most likely fork the network at 90%. I agree, we could even fork with a mining minority, it is technically possible, forking with a high degree of consensus is preferable however, which is why I think it is wise to give this more time to find more consensus on these issues.

Agreed, however there is nothing wrong with attempting to persuade people over to my point of view, just like you are presently doing. It is through discussions like these that we can attempt to discover higher truths in the market place of ideas. That is a good thing, seems contradictory to me for you to criticize such efforts.

I suppose many old arguments are repeated and I end up repeating the same old counter argument, when my theories are proven wrong or my ideological opponents theories cease to exist or become less credible in the eyes of others, I am sure that then I will become less repetitive as well.

That the interests of the miners allign with the economic majority or holders is one of the premises that Bitcoin relies on. I would consider Bitcoin to be broken if that was not the case, I might even think that we can fix Bitcoin like Core does if I thought that. Though I still do not think that Bitcoin is fundamentally broken. I still think that it is working as intended and that we should allow the experiment to continue to run its course according to the original vision of its founder and many of its supporters over the years.

God yes, please do!

So I could start an "Analysis and list of top small block murderers and rapists" thread and that'll be ok because it's subjective?


Yeah, I've heard that from conspiracy theory nutters. When I use the term it just means "conspiracy theory nutters". Can't wait to see the new X-files movie tho.

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.

I've also seen this assumption somewhere.

---

---

I never said that it would be okay, I've just said that it is possible.

Big block supporters have been known to be miss informed, a lot of them think bitcoin transactions will be faster once block size is increased.
This is a myth. No matter how large the blocks you will never get instant confirmation or even confirmation under 10 minutes.

My point is I don't think we should call them Shills their just miss informed.


Its our own fault, from the very start the bitcoin community has been spewing out pro bitcoin propaganda that's just been wrong. Bitcoin will never be free, instant, or truly decentralized; it may not even be able to handle micro transactions. Bitcoins network security, reliability and usability are not forgone conclusions and are still in question, people need to understand the network we currently have is capable of far less then we have lead them to believe.

So if I see you as a shill, you're a shill? That's an odd way you have with language.

Why not? Where is your sense of curiosity? What naive assumptions must you be operating under to say such a thing? I'll reiterate the question I asked you on page 1: At what point, if at all, do you suppose an organized effort to protect the dying old comes into play?



Did you know that "conspiracy theory nutters" is a programmed unconscious euphemism for "people who haven't lost the ability to think for themselves due to having been able to resist the disempowering paradigm of equating truth with authoritativeness"?



You are right about that, however. Maybe "proponents and potential shills".



And that is what happens, but then a few of the persistent big blocks "proponents" like yourself are completely unable to integrate new information to upgrade/improve/enhance their understanding. That's what's so peculiar.

He does say this and there's no denying it. I've seen it say it multiple times in various threads while discussing with me.

Of course it can be subjective. Unless evidence presented, I could see someone as a shill while some other person might not see them that way (thus subjective).

Interestingly 'whoever' is behind all of this has managed to ensure that a decent amount of people think that Blockstream is deciding Bitcoin's fate while on the other hand Toomin wants consider.it to be the main platform for Bitcoin. I'd rather stick with people who don't claim that they use 'all programming languages'.

^That. "Economic majority" is a misleading bit of jargon, implying that the interests of the miners [always] coincide with the interests of the holders.

Excellent post there Veritas, you are clearly highly sophisticated

The part below I find more tricky:

No straw man. You always say Bitcoin should be governed by 'economic majority', whatever that means.

I still don't understand what you define as being 'economic majority'. If it has something to do with what people accept as being Bitcoin, then I don't think the miners act as a type of proxy for them. They only mine what is profitable to mine (price of the coin / forked coin / altcoin vs. quantity and quality of competition for that mined coin). I also think there is no governance mechanism for Bitcoin and there shouldn't be one, same as for gold.

What contradiction?

Ok, so... fork off right now to express your will for a 2MB max blocksize. You are confident the 'economic majority' (whatever that means) wants the 2MB max block size. What keeps you from forking?

You don't need 75% of hashpower to perform the fork. It is not a limitation.

But you are still trying to convince people what is good for them and how Bitcoin should be governed. Let them be free. Use your freedom, fork off, and let them come by their free will. Don't use persuasion. If the forked altcoin is better, they will come. And it will reign supreme. And it shall be called Bitcoin.

By repeating your points over and over, your discouse becomes similar to marketing techniques and propaganda.

That's just some cold-blooded shit to say to a motherfucker before he poops a cap in his ass.
Shalom!

@Lardo  Your moderate political views and high-minded approach to social problems has no place here. Go be reasonable somewhere else.

It is not a false dichotomy at all, it is not a false choice, it is a case of consistence. We need to choice between these two positions because they are contradictory, both can not be true at the same time.

It is not a straw man argument because I was saying that some people think that adopting another implementation is the same as just choosing a different group of developers to rule over Bitcoin, that is not the case since it is more about distributing this power, not centralising it more or moving the central point of control. This is not a straw man argument since I am responding accurately to what other people have said on this thread.

It is not productive going around calling people shills without evidence. It would be better to focus on the content of peoples arguments instead.

I do not disagree with this notion and I will not carry out a straw man argument by claiming that you have said otherwise. As far back as I remember you have been consistent on this point at least. There have been other people however that claim that we should not be free to fork and or that Bitcoin is not free. These are the types of totalitarian arguments I have been arguing against.

I consider their mentality and actions to be totalitarian, fortunately the rest of the community is starting to see that now.

If you think that the economic and mining majority forking Bitcoin in order to increase the blocksize turns it into an altcoin then that is fine, I will stick to the definition in the whitepaper and say that the longest chain is what defines Bitcoin in this situation. Ultimately I do not even really care which chain gets the original name, it is just semantics. I just do not want to see the Bitcoin I hold and care about to be crippled by arbitrarily restricting its capacity, even if that leads to a split.

Now you are arguing a straw man, I never said this. Bitcoin is ultimately what the economic majority wants it to be and the economic majority is made up of people. I think that the miners act as a type of proxy for the economic majority in the governance mechanism of Bitcoin, which we now call the consensus mechanism.

This brings me back to a very important point. If Bitcoin is what people accept it is, then it follows that if the majority of people want a two megabyte blocksize and we justifiably fork to express this will, then Bitcoin with a two megabyte limit is Bitcoin. This is the contradiction that has been pointed out to you in your position previously, which so far you have still failed to acknowledge.

Another straw man I suppose, I never said this. Genuinely rational people usually do not accuse other people of being shills without evidence. It does not strengthen your argument, it actually weakens it.

Let's look past the fact that you have no clue what Hegelian dialectics is and why it's a very random point to make in this situation. Let's look at what it says in the ... blog:

"Activists trained in methods derived from this tradition can be counted on to reliably attack by framing both poles of the debate they want to have as movements."

The people who's most forcefully introduced and perpetuated this framing of movements are in large part hdbuck, iCEBREAKER and brg444.

In your defence I'd say I seriously doubt it was due to a conspiracy whose goal was to apply "Hegelian dialectics" to "attack" Bitcoin on behalf of the USG. You are far-right bullies and that's what you do.

Let us not slide in this false argument for there would be no such thing as shills for the BITCOIN camp as XT/BU/Classic and all the crooks within the ecosystem are the one exclusively using proselyte tactics and invading social media to promote their scam.

Bitcoin works. Status Quo is not about some shills.

Core are to be respected for their work, and Blockstream are welcome to innovate (whilst not denaturing bitcoin obviously).

Anyhow, debunking (and insulting, for sometimes it just feels good) the socialist wannabes that spew their constant hate and political nonsense is not shilling but merely a natural response against those vile USGtrolls using Hegelian dialectics and raising the malicious stupidity of the herd, eg.Malpidity to try to instigate some governance coup whilst forking the shit of our sovereignty/money.

A list can't be subjective either. A person either is a shill or he/she is not a shill. It is not an opinion others have of him/her. For that to be determined you need very convincing proof. If you call it a list of people whose opinion you don't like or who agrees with people whose opinion you don't like, then the absurdity of it would be much more obvious, but it would also be more honest.

Edit: If this thread was called "Analysis and list of top big blocks proponents" that would be far less objectionable.