Pages:
Author

Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 19. (Read 46564 times)

legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
Satoshi Nakamoto on..
-snip-
Sometimes it is nice to reference what he said and remember, however this is an appeal to authority and you know it yourself. I don't care what he said a few years back. Actually I don't care what anyone said a few years back. What matters is the most recent research and opinions. Satoshi being gone means that his opinion is irrelevant.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1116
... There are many of us that will attempt to burn "The" bitcoin blockchain to the ground and restart if some basic principles are betrayed or it becomes too centralized (which make it vulnerable to becoming corrupt).

Don't forget to poison the wells & salt the fields.

And if there are women and children, leave them behind.
full member
Activity: 126
Merit: 100
... There are many of us that will attempt to burn "The" bitcoin blockchain to the ground and restart if some basic principles are betrayed or it becomes too centralized (which make it vulnerable to becoming corrupt).

Don't forget to poison the wells & salt the fields.
sr. member
Activity: 687
Merit: 269
I think these people are simply testing the waters, threw $ 8 000 000 000 , an attempt to game the system.

If everyting goes the way I understand it, they are going to be really really surprised about the result.
legendary
Activity: 994
Merit: 1035
One might as well argue about whether the people or politicians rule the world. You haven't really addressed the key point. The blockchain defines what is valid.

Sure you can campaign to get things changed, you can petition the exchanges and convince the users etc that one was is better than another but until you have a blockchain that reflects that its all hot air.


You used the term "The". There isn't simply one blockchain , but many. There are many of us that will attempt to burn "The" bitcoin blockchain to the ground and restart if some basic principles are betrayed or it becomes too centralized (which make it vulnerable to becoming corrupt).

So yes, I understand you are saying the longest chain of hashing double rounds of SHA256 is the only valid chain to you and we cannot stray from it. I am disagreeing and suggesting the users can and should make a decision to leave if Bitcoin becomes corrupt. The users have the power to vote , simply through inaction, by not upgrading as well.... and no group of developers, merchants, miners, or regulators can force them to decide otherwise.
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1087
Longest is a superlative adjective. By its very definition it refers to one thing. You cannot have two longest anything.

Yes, occasionally bitcoin has and will fork and the longer chain will be correctly orphaned off. This is why you need to clarify and make a distinction between simply the longest and longest valid PoW.

To do so the majority is going to have to make a longer chain. It does that by having more hash power, and the nodes to propagate.

History provides evidence of this. The 0.7/0.8 fork and reorg, 0.8 had more hash and pulled ahead, so this was the longest chain and during that time it defined what was valid. Anyone still on 0.7 was mining a shorter chain, they had there own idea about what was valid and as a result fell behind.

People could say ah, but 0.8 is invalid and 0.7 is actually valid, but that is just an opinion (however widely held) until the blockchain itself reflects it as reality.

Only by getting everyone back onto 0.7 could this be resolved, once the hash power was back on 0.7 that chain grew longer than the 0.8 chain, and redefined what was valid.

You are putting the cart before the horse, you are saying valid defines the chain. I am saying the longest chain defines what is valid.

If you change the rules as to what constitutes a valid chain, then you are going to need the miners and the nodes to actually follow it, otherwise your definition of valid is neither here nor their.

If you do not define what is valid, and instead look to the blockchain you will see what is considered valid because that will be the longest chain.

This is how consensus happens, on the blockchain. Not in meetings, or on reddit, or in here, or even on consider.it

I see, you do indeed misunderstand who is in control, I have no time to repeat what I have already explained but for others ---
http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/01/03/time-for-bitcoin-user-voice/


One might as well argue about whether the people or politicians rule the world. You haven't really addressed the key point. The blockchain defines what is valid.

Sure you can campaign to get things changed, you can petition the exchanges and convince the users etc that one was is better than another but until you have a blockchain that reflects that its all hot air.

That is to say I am not denying that the blockchain is not the end product of the competing interests, but it is the defect definition of validity.
sr. member
Activity: 687
Merit: 269
F2Pool Welcomes Bitcoin Classic Hard Forking Solution But Does Not Actively Support it



 Grin  Grin  Grin
legendary
Activity: 994
Merit: 1035
Longest is a superlative adjective. By its very definition it refers to one thing. You cannot have two longest anything.

Yes, occasionally bitcoin has and will fork and the longer chain will be correctly orphaned off. This is why you need to clarify and make a distinction between simply the longest and longest valid PoW.

To do so the majority is going to have to make a longer chain. It does that by having more hash power, and the nodes to propagate.

History provides evidence of this. The 0.7/0.8 fork and reorg, 0.8 had more hash and pulled ahead, so this was the longest chain and during that time it defined what was valid. Anyone still on 0.7 was mining a shorter chain, they had there own idea about what was valid and as a result fell behind.

People could say ah, but 0.8 is invalid and 0.7 is actually valid, but that is just an opinion (however widely held) until the blockchain itself reflects it as reality.

Only by getting everyone back onto 0.7 could this be resolved, once the hash power was back on 0.7 that chain grew longer than the 0.8 chain, and redefined what was valid.

You are putting the cart before the horse, you are saying valid defines the chain. I am saying the longest chain defines what is valid.

If you change the rules as to what constitutes a valid chain, then you are going to need the miners and the nodes to actually follow it, otherwise your definition of valid is neither here nor their.

If you do not define what is valid, and instead look to the blockchain you will see what is considered valid because that will be the longest chain.

This is how consensus happens, on the blockchain. Not in meetings, or on reddit, or in here, or even on consider.it

I see, you do indeed misunderstand who is in control, I have no time to repeat what I have already explained but for others ---
http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/01/03/time-for-bitcoin-user-voice/
sr. member
Activity: 687
Merit: 269
Greedy NY Bankers 0 : 1 Rest of the world


Chinese miners  ..!..

CLASSIC REKT
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
Fork off! Fork off now, Classic supporters! Why are you waiting for the ignorant chinese miners?

Huge blocks NOW! Or else Bitcoin fails...

Fork off while you still can!

We will jump to your coin after we finally see the imminent doom!

Fork off now!


That's what's so amusing about their position: they have no popular support, and so they can't. They have to stay on bitcointalk to keep twisting the narrative.


That's the delicious irony of the whole thing: these attempted infiltrators constantly parade around claiming victory in every way possible, yet they don't seem to understand that if they'd really convinced anyone, they wouldn't have to be here at all. Strange that.
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1087
Longest is a superlative adjective. By its very definition it refers to one thing. You cannot have two longest anything.

Yes, occasionally bitcoin has and will fork and the longer chain will be correctly orphaned off. This is why you need to clarify and make a distinction between simply the longest and longest valid PoW.

To do so the majority is going to have to make a longer chain. It does that by having more hash power, and the nodes to propagate.

History provides evidence of this. The 0.7/0.8 fork and reorg, 0.8 had more hash and pulled ahead, so this was the longest chain and during that time it defined what was valid. Anyone still on 0.7 was mining a shorter chain, they had there own idea about what was valid and as a result fell behind.

People could say ah, but 0.8 is invalid and 0.7 is actually valid, but that is just an opinion (however widely held) until the blockchain itself reflects it as reality.

Only by getting everyone back onto 0.7 could this be resolved, once the hash power was back on 0.7 that chain grew longer than the 0.8 chain, and redefined what was valid.

You are putting the cart before the horse, you are saying valid defines the chain. I am saying the longest chain defines what is valid.

If you change the rules as to what constitutes a valid chain, then you are going to need the miners and the nodes to actually follow it, otherwise your definition of valid is neither here nor their.

If you do not define what is valid, and instead look to the blockchain you will see what is considered valid because that will be the longest chain.

This is how consensus happens, on the blockchain. Not in meetings, or on reddit, or in here, or even on consider.it
sr. member
Activity: 471
Merit: 250
BTC trader
Fork off! Fork off now, Classic supporters! Why are you waiting for the ignorant chinese miners?

Huge blocks NOW! Or else Bitcoin fails...

Fork off while you still can!

We will jump to your coin after we finally see the imminent doom!

Fork off now!
sr. member
Activity: 687
Merit: 269

Satoshi is your God, respect your god and revert your implementation back to satoshis true vision-


Cry more because daddy won't let you burn more juice in his datacenter.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Satoshi Nakamoto on blocksize:

Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto
While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall.  If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time.  Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms.  Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical.  I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.
Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto
Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section Cool to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day.  Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes.  At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware.
Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto
The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets.
Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto
But for now, while it’s still small, it’s nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won’t matter much anymore.
Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto
The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users.
Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto
It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto
The threshold can easily be changed in the future.  We can decide to increase it when the time comes.  It's a good idea to keep it lower as a circuit breaker and increase it as needed.  If we hit the threshold now, it would almost certainly be some kind of flood and not actual use.  Keeping the threshold lower would help limit the amount of wasted disk space in that event.
Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto
Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.
Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto
I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume.
legendary
Activity: 994
Merit: 1035

Ahh , you are a proud Satoshi sheep fanboi, who cannot think for himself. May I introduce you to Satoshi's vision of bitcoin -


You are wrong. Further discussion is not necessary .

Satoshi is your God, respect your god and revert your implementation back to satoshis true vision-

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0042.mediawiki
sr. member
Activity: 471
Merit: 250
BTC trader
The longest valid chain is the longest one that follows the network rules of the current Bitcoin currency, the one that is accepted by people, the one that has a lot of liquidity behind it (can be exchanged for other currencies). After a potential blockchain fork, which you support, you will have 2 longest valid chains (and 2 sets of consensus rules). One will be considered valid by many, it's currency will be accepted by many people, will have a lot of liquidity behind it. Hashing power does not matter much, it is the means to provide security.

In the scenario of your dreams, hardfork, 99% of hashpower with the Classic chain, Classic still won't win if it's currency will not be accepted by people. The 1% miners would be mining $10.000 valued coins, while the 99% Classic miners would be mining $0.01 valued coins. Eventually, those stupid Classic miners will switch back to the more valued coin.

I am not worried. Bitcoin Classic is #REKT. People accept Bitcoin, not forked altcoins.


Longest is a superlative adjective. By its very definition it refers to one thing. You cannot have two longest anything.
One longest valid chain for the original coin, and another longest valid chain for the forked coin. 1 + 1 = 2

I'm happy that you only pointed out this irelevant semantics detail, and ignored the rest of the post.
sr. member
Activity: 687
Merit: 269

Ahh , you are a proud Satoshi sheep fanboi, who cannot think for himself. May I introduce you to Satoshi's vision of bitcoin -


You are wrong. Further discussion is not necessary .
legendary
Activity: 994
Merit: 1035
Longest is a superlative adjective. By its very definition it refers to one thing. You cannot have two longest anything.

Yes, but occasionally bitcoin has and will fork and the longer chain will be correctly orphaned off. This is why you need to clarify and make a distinction between simply the longest and longest valid PoW.

This is very dangerous way of thinking .

Exactly, my friend. That's why I think this way. Because it's dangerous to you .

Ahh , you are a proud Satoshi sheep fanboi, who cannot think for himself. May I introduce you to Satoshi's vision of bitcoin -

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0042.mediawiki

Doesn't the idea of "economic majority" have the underlying assumption that economics is the only or overwhelming motivating factor of the nodes in the network? What about ideology/understanding (creating a better money), and, more importantly, resourceful malicious parties who want to destroy the system?

Since Bitcoins incentive structure rewards currency based upon work and utility and not ideology than the economic consensus only indirectly is effected by the users ideologies. If most of the economic actors within bitcoins ecosystem decide to stray away from its cryptoanarchist roots bitcoin will indeed become something much different.... and will most likely become more valuable , quicker. This is the contention many of us have between a conservative approach to other who demand bitcoin grow quickly. 

sr. member
Activity: 687
Merit: 269

No, Satoshi implemented the 1MB maxBlockSize.... not that his opinion should matter more than other devs.


We do not discuss opinion. We discuss the code by Satoshi Nakamoto.


This is very dangerous way of thinking .

Exactly, my friend. That's why I think this way. Because it's dangerous to you .
sr. member
Activity: 433
Merit: 260
Doesn't the idea of "economic majority" have the underlying assumption that economics is the only or overwhelming motivating factor of the nodes in the network? What about ideology/understanding (creating a better money), and, more importantly, resourceful malicious parties who want to destroy the system?
Pages:
Jump to: