Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 24. (Read 46564 times)

Recognize that this change injected subjectivty into the system.  Greg called it a bug fix, implying that he knew that Bitcoin's nature was something other than what was defined by the code.  And I would agree.  

This is an excellent jumping off point for the broader discussion of "what is Bitcoin?" Was Bitcoin's nature written in stone when Satoshi created the reference client?  Or is its nature free to evolve through a market-based process, or something else?

Most of us would agree--based on our intuitive understanding of what Bitcoin ought to be--that the reward distribution probably shouldn't reset back to 50 BTC/block in 2140.  For this reason, the rules as defined by the code were changed to prevent another 21 million coins from being mined after 2140.  

Bitcoin is a product of the market--defined by the code we freely choose to run.  There are no sacred cows.<sup>1

1</sup>Even of the spherical variety.

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

Though in this case, Pieter proposed no such thing.  Bitcoin's creator did:  The original 21 million limit didn't work right and after a few hundred years would have repeated the coin distribution all over again, and we fixed it. The april-1stness of BIP42 was just the the silly way this trivial soft-fork fix to Bitcoin's consensus rules was described.

I figured that's what you meant.

I should have read it more carefully before quoting it. It actually looks like 89 people in favour of it, not 89%.

i should probably read more thorough. i didn't mean it literally. i meant keys to the house that is bitcoin development.

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

https://bitcoinclassic.consider.it/

from my pov the 'keys' have not changed hands, just new 'keys' were added.

He got me. 

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13614666

I'm fairly sure that was sipa's (Pieter Wuille) april fool joke for the year, I vaguely remember going all *WTF*, then suddenly noticing 4/1/2014 as the published date

I don't see why core would need to become "obsolete".  Let's say classic takes off and an economic majority
forks away from a version of core that only supported 1MB.  Well, Core could then update to 2MB and not
be obsolete.  Then, Bitcoin unlimited nodes could also be running.  Now you have at least 3 implementations
and no one is in control of Bitcoin.

What's wrong with that?

Let's assume that Classic takes off and Core becomes obsolete. Technically the 'keys' have changed hands. This is especially true for those that claim that Core is in 'control' of the development. In this scenario, Classic would be in 'control'.

Each repo has it its own permissions, yup..pretty clear on that.

You do realize that certain people have commit keys and certain people have alert keys, and that is a thing? It is not like you could just 'walk' into Github and merge your own code at will (in the Bitcoin repository).

Lauda, you are clearly in the paradigm of centralized development
when speak of things like "handing over the keys".

SegWit is needed for LN and it comes with bonuses in addition to an increase of the total amount of transactions that we can have per block.

Overwhelming support? No. 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.


Should I put aside the fact that we are handing over the commit keys to 'newbie developers' (except Gavin)? Or the fact that we are moving from a much bigger group of contributors to a much smaller one?


This is FUD, and a lot of people are trying to use this against Core. Any developer has the right to create a proposal. Don't you remember that Pieter Wuille proposed that we increase the supply to 42million (after the first 21 million have been mined)? This does not mean that the proposal will be implemented. IRC sipa said that they would not merge this.

Ok, I'll give this one an 8/10 for humor.  Good job! 

Name calling is a poor substitute for substance.

When the name calling isn't even accurate,
you've really sunk to a new level of fail.

^ Hahaha, brilliant!




It's a fact that you have the impression that "the economy lost [its] patience in core and is not satisfied with core's scaling roadmap". What I'm saying is that that impression seems to have been generated as a reaction to a contrived "problem" (urgency of block size scaling) for the purpose of getting non-technical people to naively seek a compromised (in both senses of the word) "solution".



That's the correct order, yes, though I would change "ideology" with "understanding". The question is that because you don't seem to understand what exactly it is that Bitcoin, or rather cryptocurrency, fundamentally and most relevantly addresses, in our world. How do you suppose your grandfather or great-grandfather (nothing personal, just playing along with your Stalin remark) fell for the rhetoric of authoritarian collectivist clowns? It's because of exposure to particular information sources to the exclusion of others. That's how people are easily led, their energy herded and harnessed into desired destructive results, usually by means of making them feel as if they are part of a collective, by promoting vague/abstract ideas such as "economic majority" or "democratic majority".



I think you're missing the idea that it isn't actually as urgent as it is repeatedly alleged, and that SegWit does essentially the same thing (with bonuses) in about the same timeframe.

And also that a hard fork is riskier and harder to carefully pull off (i.e. more unpredictable) than the big blockists want to believe.

And you seem to be assuming that a Gavinista hardph0rk would somehow not increase centralization by moving developmental control/influence toward a smaller number of developers.

And soon enough they would feel (or pretend to feel) the urgency of increasing it to 4MB, perhaps after attempting "stress tests" to see if they can execute withholding attacks that may become viable due to the increased block processing time of 2MB blocks.



You may have missed Maxwell's next post down, where he says: "I was just answering to feasibility. Changing the POW is a well understood, though extreme, measure available to address dysfunction in the mining ecosystem.
If miners do something that harms some network of nodes; thats exactly what they'll do. And Luke-Jr had already offered a patch to Classic to address the complaints Mike's article was making."



Hardly so. Does fungibility and antifragility mean nothing to you? There is a reason why hard forks are supposed to be, and should be, extremely hard to do unless there is an overwhelming consensus (i.e. virtually no opposition).

BETT YOU ARE INCREDIBLY SMART AND A SUPER COOL GUY TO BE WITH

WHY THANK YOU JONALD YOU'RE TOO KIND AND MOST CHARISMATIC

Does classictard suit you better?

Reddit has sadly been useless as a source of any good information for well over a year. It is exactly as you describe, an echo chamber. I don't even bother with it anymore.