Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 23. (Read 46564 times)

Don't you think this business about forever threatening contentious hard forks is potentially disasterous? And almost certainly bad for business?

I've been told I post a lot for someone without any real technical insights. I actually come here to learn. Mr. Buck is right to be hostile.


Doesn't this give nodes the ability to unilaterally change consensus? Once somebody mines a bigger block, boom, bigger blocks?

You seem to believe that those who (like myself) wish to give node operators the ability to easily adjust their block size acceptance limits ...

Since yesterday's recap of the sad track record of the USG, the toomim clown received some bad news, with which he coped in the usual manner : by having a rather amusing public meltdown under the influence. Meanwhile the poopaganda machine came out in force with a pathetic chorus bemoaning "Bitcoin's death".

Whatever. For once we do agree : it's time to move on. Please do.

Bitcoin was never for you. Bitcoin was never for the poor ; Bitcoin was never for the voluble if worthless "social media" tramp ; Bitcoin was never for the soi-dissant "activist" aka scammer. Bitcoin was not for you.

And since we're doing this, let's proceed to dispell some myths.

I. It is false that Bitcoin has to be used by you for it to be valuable.

You believe man to be the measure of all things. This is a purely religious belief, exactly identical, and directly reducible, to the notion that there's a magical teapot spinning in the sky.

You believe that you are man, in the strict and strictly laughable sense that everything is equal to everything else and thus therefore you see yourself as not merely a uniquely bent spoon, vaguely related to various other better implementations of an ideal spoon and thus twice removed from that ideal but instead fully and completely, in and by yourself, equal and idempotent to everything man is, ever was or ever could be. This is also a religious belief, I suppose, although more indicative of psychopathology than what usually is called religion - on the continuum between the buddhist chanting and the fanatic beheading this sort of nonsense is certainly past the fanatic, hapilly floating in a schizoid sea towards waxy flexibility.

You put these two together and what comes out is the directly falsifiable notion that in order for Bitcoin to be valuable, it has to be usable by you. This is obviously not so : cars your whole bloodline could never, no matter what, ever afford are still cars, and valuable and enjoyed by those of your betters that can actually buy one. That nobody in your family ever wore shoes does not imply that shoes are now worthless, or "not usable". It certainly does not imply that shoes should be doing things differently. Learn a trade, marry well, do something with your life so that you too might enjoy the glory of footwear, perhaps, however briefly, however distantly in the future.

II. It is false that Bitcoin has to "do good" in order to continue to exist.

Bitcoin can kill all your friends, and all the people you respect, and every other kitten. It can poop in your drink and insult your friendship and rape your pets for all the difference it makes. If lightning strikes where you sit, whether you feel a warm cozy sort of love for it or the most burning hatred imaginable is strictly irrelevant - electricity stays. If tomorrow your house burns down you'll be advised to take more care - blaming the victim as it were. Nobody's ever going to try change the fire. More generally : the world is not built on emotions, whether you "love" world peace or "hate" world peace or both or neither makes exactly not one grain of difference to world peace.

Bitcoin is not a product, like a belt that's tied too tight and so you can adjust to be less tight, or like an engine that runs too hot and so you can adjust to run a little cooler. Bitcoin is a rule, and if you're not happy with how it works you have to change, just like if you're unhappy with the effects gravitation has on your planned plane, you must change the plan. You can't attempt to change gravitation.

And there is no such thing as voting rules. The things you vote upon are laws, not rules. They really don't matter one bit.

There are other silly things ESLi muppets believe, such as that they are creative (they're not, and I don't mean that they aren't the most creative - I mean they're below average, and markedly so) and that they're "civilised" (god help you), and that the only way they've ever seen things done is necessarily the best possible way (do read Voltaire when you have a moment) and on it goesii. But let's keep things simple and sweet, in step with the comprehension and attention span of five year olds captive in seemingly adult bodies : it's time to move on. Please do.

Bitcoin really is not for you.

Please come provide some comic relief at the new forum once and a while: https://bitco.in

There must be a better answer to this somewhere.

There is no block size limit--it is a shared dream from which we're now waking up from.

Bitcoin is governed by the code people freely choose to run.

This is the way I see things playing out in the short term:

i think those that voted for removing theymos, was because theymos has already shown public bias and censorship towards gavins proposals..
(moving posts in favour to gavins proposals to the altcoin category, and also the drama on reddit that is biased against gavins proposals)

so i think some would assume that theymos might send out malicious alerts to scare people from using it.

to be honest i no longer care about gavin, theymos, lukejr or gmaxwell personal opinions. i havent even bothered to find out who toomim is.. its all just drama.. all that should be made important is the code itself and what the code will or wont do.

putting the code into scenario's is important.. but the social drama is starting to over shadow what bitcoin is really about. CODE

Don't you think this business about forever threatening contentious hard forks is potentially disasterous? And almost certainly bad for business?

Is this really how open source projects 'function'?

Both are correct.

I wasn't talking to you directly although it might seem like I was. I'm talking about those who voted in favor.

Have you ever tried filet mignon from a spherical cow?  It pairs well with big blocks and segmentation faults.  

The sacred 1 MB cow is being prepared for slaughter.

Both are correct.

I heard that Toomim is a stoner and Rizun is a charlatan who farms spherical cows.  

I didn't mean to imply I approved or disapproved of the move. I don't vote.

So let's remove the alert keys from a known and very trustworthy person of the community where there has been zero evidence of any kind of potential abuse? Smart move. Who should get access to this kind of key; Toomin, Rizun?  What a joke.

Sheer folly.

Appointing Theymos Guardian of the Forum and Keeper of the Sacred Alert Key was Satoshi's greatest (external) triumph.

The Toominista "2MB Right Fucking Now Because Reasons" plan is all cost with no benefit.

That's why Classic is #rekt and DOA.

Crazy things are proposed all the time-- and there is nothing wrong with that, it's part of how understanding is advanced.

They've voted 89% in favour of removing Theymos alert key access.

https://bitcoinclassic.consider.it/

The problem is that if we deploy 2 MB blocks right now we have to postpone SegWit. A combination of those would be similar to a increase to 4 MB which is definitely unsafe, especially considering that a transaction at 2 MB could be created that would take over 10 minutes to validate. It is either 2 MB block size or SegWit right now. Tell me again what benefits come with a 2 MB block size? None.

They've voted 89% in favour of removing Theymos alert key access.