Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 18. (Read 46564 times)

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.

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

Bitcoin is a production system that is known  (ok few glitches fixed)
 for operating correctly for more than 7 years now.

Every rule has been heavily scrutinized, many reviews have been made. Lots of people tested various stuff you have no idea about at all.

And now some clueless guy comes along and says you have to deploy XYZ next week/month. What the fuck?
Also people who thing Core team is in charge are deeply mistaken. The Core people simply serve the needs of the community.


Every new features from Core that don't affect consensus are heavily scrutinized. Core pretty much does not have a power to perform a hard fork just for fun. Everything has to be justified.


Toomim sitting in his basement flooding the system and then claiming it's real users demands is deeply mistaken that anybody is going to listen to that.




if you want to create cool new arbitrary rules, make an altcoin.

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.   Would you still call a fork that gets
75-95% an "altcoin"?

i think the difference is rather than 5 people with the github commit keys who ultimately in control of what gets implemented.
vs 100 intelliagent coders who discuss and choose what is best and more openly and distrubuted compared to just 5.

EG difference between the senate of dozens of senators making laws.. Vs the president and his vice making executive orders without being questioned

How does soft fork change the rules? the old system 1xxx addresses remains the same.

rewards are same. block cap is same.

Only new rules are added. But one who does not wish to make use of some new features, can

comfortably use the old features and they work same as for the last 7 years.




And when Unlimited takes over? It's again just a group of developers.

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.

I don't see any meaningful difference between:

"current rules for Bitcoin are set in stone unless the directors of the core repository say otherwise"

and

"a small group of developers should be in charge of deciding what Bitcoin is."

Since you agreed with the first, it follows that you agree with the second.
That is my logic. 

What? Where did I say that? There is something really wrong with your logic. Or you are a shill trying to use a diversionary tactic using one of your propaganda ideas.

Your statement is wrong on so many levels... it's not worth the time arguing with shills like you.

Many of the devs are extremely intelligent but some are poor communicators. We all need lessons in communication and empathy as well. The BIP process and governance model could be improved, but the consortium should be designed in a careful way to insure the incentives are aligned where buying favors(TBF) and politics is discouraged in general. We don't want democratic mob rule controlled by leading industry CEO's controlling bitcoin, that would be much worse than the current status quo. 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.  The one problem I see with this is volunteer developers lose the incentive of lack of recognition , so we could have their identity/ies hashed in the BIP and revealed when accepted.

sounds good.
also where all 50-200 devs be completely open and have opensource code and they all check it and tell the general population which version has dirty code and what version is just clean code... not based on personal emotions or biases in favour of who... but based purely on the codes legitimacy.

after all if there is no hidden agenda to be found in the code then there is nothing to rant on about the programmers emotions as their emotions are errelevant to what the code does.

You want to be careful because J toomin still hasn't explained Bitcoin Classics governance model clearly thus far you would be trading a small group of 45+ devs for 5 devs until he clarifies it. There has already been multiple examples of veto's where he threw out the voting process or the will of consider.it with a unilateral decision(which is fine as long as you are ok with the benevolent dictator governance model)

Perhaps a consortium can be created where all the implementations share their ideas and have a more formal governance model . More akin to the IETF than the bitcoin foundation?

(uh, no, he's not.)

Anyway, so we're clear:  you believe a small group of developers should be in charge of deciding what Bitcoin is.
That's fantastic. 

It's getting a little bit of heated in here.





HODL!

Well put... I am willing to change my mind based upon new data. I'll edited my post.


I believe its a mix of trolls, shills wanting to create wedge issues to damage bitcoin, the misinformed, and people with genuine intentions that have slightly different priorities than us.


Potentially. I have stated many times that Gavin's argument in which we must grow very quickly to insure that governments and banks can't subvert our project and increase decentralization is a valid strategy(a blitzkrieg like strategy that may increase decentralization). Such a strategy is dangerous and can also do the exact opposite as well. So we must temper such strategy with some safeguards in place.

Yes, there are a few small block purists out there but a majority of core and blockstream not only want the blocksize to grow but need it to grow to allow the Lightning network to properly work. I understand there are some conspiracy theorists out there that don't trust blockstream, but until they have good evidence their fears are misplaced and they need not worry, we will attack core and blockstream if they don't open source the lightning network and allow a level playing field for nodes.

 Perhaps we work together in solidarity and make a plan to decentralize mining and node count with set goals that if reached will prompt us to move forward with a maxBlockSize HF increase? If the strategy is that we need to move quickly, than we move quickly and demand bitfury sell those new chips to the public as they keep promising and roll out several plans to increase node count.

His vision is still relevant, it is a vision that I do also agree with. Not increasing the blocksize is a divergence from this original vision.

I quoted Satoshi because it is relevant to this discussion. I was responding to other people claiming that this was not the case. Lets at least have our facts straight, it is fine to disagree with the original vision. We must be able to think for ourselves, however I do think it is important to understand this original vision in the first place. We must be able to fully understand something before we should be able to fully critique it.

In regards to what chain is valid, I think strictly speaking the longest chain is what should be considered to be Bitcoin, as described in the whitepaper. Personally however, I think that what chain is considered valid is actually subjective.

FTFY. Don't poison your mind with static belief systems. The big blockists have very strong convictions but no understanding, which is why their principles are different.



Yes, you see this as well. So why assume that it's entirely an organic/natural development without any kind of deliberate disinformation effort by those with the most to lose (the oppressive elements, or control system)?

i said it before but it seems some people prefer to shout out their doomsday scenario of 2 chains..
so here is a nice picture..

W and X is the dooms-dayers mantra of there being 2 chains (altcoins).. which is simply wrong
W and X would only happen if X 2mb implementation never accepted blocks from miners (a) (b) that do not have (c) data because that have the 1mb rule and reject (c) automatically..

but where X only accepted blocks from miner(c) totally ignoring (a)(b) forever and always.. that way the (c) miner would have the (c) blocks in its chain..

but the reality is that (a) (b) and (c) all make blocks.. and if (a) and (b) win the next block.. knowing their blocks dont hold data/history of (c).. so then causing previous (c) blocks to gets orphaned (as shown by Y) and the result after orphaning off (c) would be Z..



so after orphaning off due to consensus and the blocks merkle chain of previous blocks.. there would be one chain of data (because Z is W)

in short

Not sure I can support your raping horses proposal. Is that a Bitcoin_Classic thing?

What about mining centralization? Wouldn’t raising max block size help weaken the Chinese mining cartel's stranglehold on hash?

Certainly. If bitcoin becomes so centralized that most of the nodes have KYC/AML/Blacklists or directly implements KYC in the protocol it will become an extremely dangerous tool of oppression and more problematic than physical Fiat.

I am not trying to be melodramatic and sensational, as I do think we may avoid this future, but it is important that those impatient get rich quick "to the moon" speculative investors realize there are still many of us around with principles and understanding. Principles and understanding which supersede profit and we will revolt if Bitcoin becomes a Paypal 2.0.

What is troubling about this is I hear very little  "exponential blockers"  empathizing with the centralization concerns and bargaining with their opposition with something like --- "We understand your concerns but if we as an ecosystem can create a plan and begin to reverse mining and node centralization and show a little progress in solidarity, perhaps we can both agree to raise maxBlockSize?"

Does this mean I am going to revolt if we do a rushed hardfork with BIP 102 to 2MB... of course not, I think it isn't ideal but it won't overly harm the ecosystem. Will I and others revolt if a dev team controlled by a voting mob starts exponentially increasing the blocksize with mob rule and with little regard to the technical implications... You bet!  


No its ... "rape the horses; ride off on the women"