You don't? Lets see, can you name a few of them?
Attempting to compile a list of shills is just one of the various examples of shitty debate floating about. It's really hard for people not to get sucked into this, but my advice would be to end that line of inquiry right now. I'm not interested in who may or may not be a shill. Arguments on merit will always rise above those that are pure propaganda.
Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 17. (Read 46564 times)
January 25, 2016, 07:04:50 AM
January 25, 2016, 06:35:30 AM
A shill is a very specific phenomenon. Bitcoin has a lot of interconnected actors with loyalties and financial interests which will colour their reasoning with regards to contentious issues. Add finance nerds, computer nerds and conspiracy theory nutters into the mix and you have one very spicy soup.
I am certain that very, very few in this forum are purposefully hiding their affiliations in order to thunder in the forums to manipulate the mood.
Besides, it shouldn't matter. Most engaged in this debate have enough understanding of the issues and are stubborn enough to make up their own minds.
January 25, 2016, 06:26:03 AM
There is no 'my camp', nor do I ignore Core shills. I have banned some newbies/accounts created for this very purpose (since XT "wars").
You don't? Lets see, can you name a few of them?
Attempting to compile a list of shills is just one of the various examples of shitty debate floating about. It's really hard for people not to get sucked into this, but my advice would be to end that line of inquiry right now. I'm not interested in who may or may not be a shill. Arguments on merit will always rise above those that are pure propaganda.
January 25, 2016, 06:11:53 AM
There is no 'my camp', nor do I ignore Core shills. I have banned some newbies/accounts created for this very purpose (since XT "wars").
You don't? Lets see, can you name a few of them?
January 25, 2016, 05:41:55 AM
-snip-
And usually you find a small issue with my posts and imply that I'm evil. I don't think non-shills usually do this.
That is correct, they don't. I've noticed this pattern among a few people cheering for a fork. Nice post though.And usually you find a small issue with my posts and imply that I'm evil. I don't think non-shills usually do this.
In other words, those shills are themselves evil. Now, a newsflash: there are Core shills too, and I think they're evil.
What is more, since you deliberately ignore shills in your camp, that makes you evil too. Now that I've pointed
this out, I would not be surprised in the least if you were to think that I'm quite evil. And I await your forthcoming
response that will convince me yet more that you're all really evil.
See the pattern?
January 25, 2016, 05:26:21 AM
-snip-
And usually you find a small issue with my posts and imply that I'm evil. I don't think non-shills usually do this.
That is correct, they don't. I've noticed this pattern among a few people cheering for a fork. Nice post though.And usually you find a small issue with my posts and imply that I'm evil. I don't think non-shills usually do this.
There is no 'my camp', nor do I ignore Core shills. I have banned some newbies/accounts created for this very purpose (since XT "wars").
January 25, 2016, 04:13:22 AM
You either believe "Core"
(a small group of developers) should
decide what Bitcoin is (even if 75%
of the miners disagree), or you
believe a majority can fork Bitcoin
and change it and its still Bitcoin.
False dichotomy.(a small group of developers) should
decide what Bitcoin is (even if 75%
of the miners disagree), or you
believe a majority can fork Bitcoin
and change it and its still Bitcoin.
Some people do not understand yet that it is not the case of choosing one implementation over another to rule over us. But that it is a case of having multiple implementations for us to freely choose from, this is how the governance of Bitcoin should work. The three most popular alternative implementations are all compatible with each other after all, only Core is incompatible with a blocksize increase, even if the economic and mining majority wants a blocksize increase.
Straw man as usual.You guys are good propagandists (and shills).
What part of 'you are free to fork off' do you disagree with?
I say you are free to fork off - you reply Blockstream is totalitarian.
I say after a blockchain fork, you end up with an altcoin - you reply no, miners decide what Bitcoin is.
I say what people accept as Bitcoin is what Bitcoin is - you reply no, Bitcoin should be governed by node owners, miners, developers, etc.
And usually you find a small issue with my posts and imply that I'm evil. I don't think non-shills usually do this.
January 24, 2016, 10:15:40 AM
... Perhaps something as simple as having an open BIP submission process but force it to be completely anonymous to insure that we are required to study, test and peer review it thoroughly without appeals to authority or a popularity contest which would corrupt the process. ...
But peer review is an appeal to authority. Can anyone be a peer in your peer review process, only the qualified peers, or ...how would that work?
January 24, 2016, 09:23:32 AM
I believe in Satoshi Nakamoto.
January 24, 2016, 09:07:10 AM
I believe in Satoshi Nakamoto.
I also believe in his original vision. What I find confusing about your posts, is that you come on here saying that you support the original vision of Satoshi, yet you side with the small blockists. Satoshi was very clearly in favor of increasing the blocksize. Not increasing the blocksize represents a divergence from this original vision. January 24, 2016, 09:04:05 AM
You either believe "Core"
(a small group of developers) should
decide what Bitcoin is (even if 75%
of the miners disagree), or you
believe a majority can fork Bitcoin
and change it and its still Bitcoin.
I think that you are spot on Jonald.(a small group of developers) should
decide what Bitcoin is (even if 75%
of the miners disagree), or you
believe a majority can fork Bitcoin
and change it and its still Bitcoin.
Some people do not understand yet that it is not the case of choosing one implementation over another to rule over us. But that it is a case of having multiple implementations for us to freely choose from, this is how the governance of Bitcoin should work. The three most popular alternative implementations are all compatible with each other after all, only Core is incompatible with a blocksize increase, even if the economic and mining majority wants a blocksize increase.
Quote from: tsondar
XT, Classic, and Unlimited have now formed a Nakamoto coalition.
January 24, 2016, 09:02:52 AM
I believe in Satoshi Nakamoto.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
January 23, 2016, 09:21:46 AM
The altcoin is the one that diverges from the current network rules of the Bitcoin currency. Is this hard to understand?
Which one came first? The altcoin or the Bitcoin?
So the "current rules for Bitcoin" are set in stone unless the directors of the core repository say otherwise?
Do I have your position understood correctly?
Valiz, then if we had a miscommunication , I'll ask you again (SEE ABOVE).
If you're now saying "NO" (the rules arent set in stone), then
that means the rules can change. And if there is no consensus,
the change will be by fork.
I agreed with what watashi-kokoto said, not with what you said. 
His 'yes' was for the first part of your post anyway, not for the second propaganda part. That second part is ignored automatically by every non-shill around here.
His 'yes' was for the first part of your post anyway, not for the second propaganda part. That second part is ignored automatically by every non-shill around here.
'So the "current rules for Bitcoin" are set in stone' -> YES
'unless the directors of the core repository say otherwise' -> propaganda part
Who cares what Bitcoin Core does. If they do a hard fork, that's still an altcoin.
Would you still call a fork that gets 75-95% an "altcoin"?
Every hard forked coin is an altcoin. Gets 75%-95% of what? Trolls?Now, since you are a shill, I'm wasting my time with you.
1. People that take a different opinion than you aren't necessarily 'shills'.
Perhaps you should look up the word in a dictionary.
2. Obviously "75%" means 75% of mining power.
I guess you weren't paying that much attention
during the XT debate.
3. You said "YES" to "Bitcoin is literally set in stone"
That means it can never change (and it can never scale).
4. You consistently contradict yourself.
You can't have it both ways:
You either believe "Core"
(a small group of developers) should
decide what Bitcoin is (even if 75%
of the miners disagree), or you
believe a majority can fork Bitcoin
and change it and its still Bitcoin.
January 23, 2016, 04:35:32 AM
a fork does not become an altcoin unless the fork ignores certain miners and only talks to miners that correspond with the new rules.
EG
if miner A and miner B are 1mb blocks.. and miner C is 2mb blocks.. and 2mb user nodes accepted any block from A, B and C then the fork will rectify itself every time a node accepts a block from A, B.. because A and B dont contain any C blocks headers... making C orphaned and ultimately all nodes have just <1mb data, once the orphans are sorted..
eg
but if the 2mb implementation only got 2mb blocks from C and totally ignored 1mb blocks from A B .. then it would be an altcoin that follows C's chain of headers.. and everyone else just follows A,B where there is no crossover or orphaning inbetween... just 2 disctinct chains with totally separate data
so as long as 2mb nodes also get A B.. there wont be an altcoin. as the image shows, it would just be alot of orphans.. and resyncing
EG
if miner A and miner B are 1mb blocks.. and miner C is 2mb blocks.. and 2mb user nodes accepted any block from A, B and C then the fork will rectify itself every time a node accepts a block from A, B.. because A and B dont contain any C blocks headers... making C orphaned and ultimately all nodes have just <1mb data, once the orphans are sorted..
eg
but if the 2mb implementation only got 2mb blocks from C and totally ignored 1mb blocks from A B .. then it would be an altcoin that follows C's chain of headers.. and everyone else just follows A,B where there is no crossover or orphaning inbetween... just 2 disctinct chains with totally separate data
so as long as 2mb nodes also get A B.. there wont be an altcoin. as the image shows, it would just be alot of orphans.. and resyncing
And that's why XT failed. Nobody is actually stupid enough to be the first to defect from 1MB consensus. They would lose block rewards (if miners) and BTC (if users). Everyone simply waits (perhaps while paying lip service to the big-block idea for marketing/trolling purposes) until somebody else is "brave" enough to stick their neck out on the (orphan) chopping block.
The ToominCoin Short strategy enables defenders with economic leverage, in that defenders may spend ToominCoins in ToominBlocks (in exchange for real BTC or gold or whatever), then laugh as the block is orphaned in the next reorg. That process may be repeated until miners get tired of mining worthless ToominBlocks and merchants get tired of accepting worthless ToominCoins.
January 23, 2016, 02:34:05 AM
Nobody is 'dictating' anything, everyone is free to fork off.
Dislike Bitcoin Core? Fork off NOW!
Dislike Bitcoin Core? Fork off NOW!
Processing...
January 23, 2016, 02:29:58 AM
Nobody is 'dictating' anything, everyone is free to fork off.
Dislike Bitcoin Core? Fork off NOW!
Dislike Bitcoin Core? Fork off NOW!
January 23, 2016, 02:22:36 AM
The altcoin is the one that diverges from the current network rules of the Bitcoin currency. Is this hard to understand?
Which one came first? The altcoin or the Bitcoin?
So the "current rules for Bitcoin" are set in stone unless the directors of the core repository say otherwise?
Do I have your position understood correctly?
Valiz, then if we had a miscommunication , I'll ask you again (SEE ABOVE).
If you're now saying "NO" (the rules arent set in stone), then
that means the rules can change. And if there is no consensus,
the change will be by fork.
I agreed with what watashi-kokoto said, not with what you said.
His 'yes' was for the first part of your post anyway, not for the second propaganda part. That second part is ignored automatically by every non-shill around here.
His 'yes' was for the first part of your post anyway, not for the second propaganda part. That second part is ignored automatically by every non-shill around here.
'So the "current rules for Bitcoin" are set in stone' -> YES
'unless the directors of the core repository say otherwise' -> propaganda part
Who cares what Bitcoin Core does. If they do a hard fork, that's still an altcoin.
Would you still call a fork that gets 75-95% an "altcoin"?
Every hard forked coin is an altcoin. Gets 75%-95% of what? Trolls?Now, since you are a shill, I'm wasting my time with you.
January 22, 2016, 06:15:41 PM
Yeah, scammers shouldn't have any say at all in what's
best for the network as far as I'm concerned
January 22, 2016, 06:07:33 PM
"a small group of developers should be in charge of deciding what Bitcoin is."
And when Unlimited takes over? It's again just a group of developers.
And quite a few economists too. The idea is to arrive at way of dynamically
adjusting the block size limit (or more generally, block validation metrics) by
a process that mimics the free market as closely as possible.
Unlimited denies that any dev group have powers to dictate what is best
for the network as a whole.
you forgot scammers.
Jump to: