Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 28.

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on January 18, 2016, 06:10:59 PM

Quote from: Peter R on January 18, 2016, 06:08:13 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on January 18, 2016, 06:04:48 PM

What's the Classic position on opt-in RBF?

Our polling shows that there is almost no support for it (and lots of opposition towards it). For this reason, opt-in RBF will not be included in Bitcoin Classic.

I hope you aren't giving votes to people like me. We know nothing!

I hope they will. Such is democracy. Here in Switzerland, wherever the entire population can vote on individual acts, everything works better than elsewhere on the planet where experts and Politbüros are deciding.
The Core developers and cheerleaders prefer to speak on armed squares. The Bitcoin Classic people prefer those squares:

http://www.myswitzerland.com/en-ch/landsgemeinden.html

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: Peter R on January 18, 2016, 05:39:03 PM

int array[10];
array[11] = 0;

/stupid programmer joke Cheesy

[1] Just kidding. My C code is running in semiconductor fabs all over the world including at Intel and Samsung.

Array out of bounds exception. Also C++ is better than C.

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on January 18, 2016, 05:36:55 PM

Being willing to listen someones arguments is equivalent to an attack now, is it? Thats what we used to call a debate.

I was not talking about you in that particular part, sorry that I did not clarify. I added an update to the post.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on January 18, 2016, 11:12:50 PM

Peter R has not engaged in censorship, unlike Theymos. Diverting my argument with a baseless attack? My point still stands.

Of course it does not, else you would not be discussing this here at all. Most of the censorship accusations were in fact invalid, but of course you would never admit to that. Moderation is something that only exists in fairy tales.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: Peter R on January 18, 2016, 06:08:13 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on January 18, 2016, 06:04:48 PM

What's the Classic position on opt-in RBF?

Our polling shows that there is almost no support for it (and lots of opposition towards it). For this reason, opt-in RBF will not be included in Bitcoin Classic.

Classic is censoring supporters of RBF! It's literally worse than the Khmer Rouge! Cry

Why not give users the option of enabling (disabled by default) RBF?

Is Classic "making zero-conf tx as safe as possible" to ensure Bitcoin is Starbucks-compatible? @BitFury doesn't like that "fancy Visa" BS.

Time to route around Classic's (unconscionably heavy-handed) RBF Ban by forking into Classic2 - where popular features won't be prohibited by law.

Good luck with your Toomin dictatorship and its (feature) killing fields. You can take our RBF, but you will never take our freedom!

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: TooDumbForBitcoin on January 18, 2016, 08:48:14 PM

Quote from: Peter R on January 18, 2016, 06:08:13 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on January 18, 2016, 06:04:48 PM

What's the Classic position on opt-in RBF?

Our polling shows that there is almost no support for it (and lots of opposition towards it). For this reason, opt-in RBF will not be included in Bitcoin Classic.

Can you provide more information?

Who was polled?

Who was excluded from the poll?

How was the question phrased?

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: Lauda on January 18, 2016, 04:57:27 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on January 18, 2016, 04:53:12 PM

Further on lifting Theymos up to developer status within Core by making him one of their signatories makes them even more complicit of his actions, they should not be supportive of people that carry out this sort of censorship. Inaction sometimes is wrong, I am sorry if you can not understand that. There is an old quote which I think is relevant here:

Quote from: Edmund Burke

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

You mean the same way as Classic lifted Peter Rizun to a developer on their list? You didn't complain about that. Definitely not biased, right?

Peter R has not engaged in censorship, unlike Theymos. Diverting my argument with a baseless attack? My point still stands.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: TooDumbForBitcoin on January 18, 2016, 08:48:14 PM

Quote from: Peter R on January 18, 2016, 06:08:13 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on January 18, 2016, 06:04:48 PM

What's the Classic position on opt-in RBF?

Our polling shows that there is almost no support for it (and lots of opposition towards it). For this reason, opt-in RBF will not be included in Bitcoin Classic.

Can you provide more information?

Who was polled?

Who was excluded from the poll?

How was the question phrased?

Overall about 50 internet randoms deluded enough to think they somehow matter.. some people clearly forgot their meds.

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Quote from: TooDumbForBitcoin on January 18, 2016, 08:48:14 PM

Quote from: Peter R on January 18, 2016, 06:08:13 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on January 18, 2016, 06:04:48 PM

What's the Classic position on opt-in RBF?

Our polling shows that there is almost no support for it (and lots of opposition towards it). For this reason, opt-in RBF will not be included in Bitcoin Classic.

Can you provide more information?

Who was polled?

Who was excluded from the poll?

How was the question phrased?

You're like a clever version of me. I like that about you.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on January 18, 2016, 06:10:59 PM

Quote from: Peter R on January 18, 2016, 06:08:13 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on January 18, 2016, 06:04:48 PM

What's the Classic position on opt-in RBF?

Our polling shows that there is almost no support for it (and lots of opposition towards it). For this reason, opt-in RBF will not be included in Bitcoin Classic.

I hope you aren't giving votes to people like me. We know nothing!

Thats the whole point.

TooDumbForBitcoin

legendary

Activity: 1638

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Peter R on January 18, 2016, 06:08:13 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on January 18, 2016, 06:04:48 PM

What's the Classic position on opt-in RBF?

Our polling shows that there is almost no support for it (and lots of opposition towards it). For this reason, opt-in RBF will not be included in Bitcoin Classic.

Can you provide more information?

Who was polled?

Who was excluded from the poll?

How was the question phrased?

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Quote from: Peter R on January 18, 2016, 06:08:13 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on January 18, 2016, 06:04:48 PM

What's the Classic position on opt-in RBF?

Our polling shows that there is almost no support for it (and lots of opposition towards it). For this reason, opt-in RBF will not be included in Bitcoin Classic.

I hope you aren't giving votes to people like me. We know nothing!

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on January 18, 2016, 06:04:48 PM

What's the Classic position on opt-in RBF?

Our polling shows that there is almost no support for it (and lots of opposition towards it). For this reason, opt-in RBF will not be included in Bitcoin Classic.

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Quote from: Peter R on January 18, 2016, 05:39:03 PM

Hey Lauda, I took your advice to learn C [1]. I've been playing around with arrays and I think I've found a technical solution to the block size limit debate:

Code:

#include 

int main()
{
   int array[10]; 
   array[11] = 0;
   printf("stick with core\n");
}

When I run my program, it gave me the answer:

Code:

>./decentralize_development
segmentation fault (core dumped)

It's time to dump the core!!

/stupid programmer joke Cheesy

[1] Just kidding. My C code is running in semiconductor fabs all over the world including at Intel and Samsung.

What's the Classic position on opt-in RBF?

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Hey Lauda, I took your advice to learn C [1]. I've been playing around with pointers and I think I've found a technical solution to the block size limit debate:

Code:

#include 

#define N 100000

int x;

int main()
{
   int * ptr = &x;
   *(ptr+N) = 0;
   printf("stick with core\n");
}

When I run my program, it gave me the answer:

Code:

>./decentralize_development
segmentation fault (core dumped)

It's time to dump the core!!

/stupid programmer joke Cheesy

[1] Just kidding. My C code is running in semiconductor fabs all over the world including at Intel and Samsung.

sAt0sHiFanClub

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Warning: Confrmed Gavinista

Quote from: Lauda on January 18, 2016, 04:42:19 PM

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on January 18, 2016, 04:32:19 PM

21 million reasons for 'thought re-alignment". It will be interesting to hear him reason out his change of view.

You are just finding ways of attacking individuals which does not benefit anyone.

Being willing to listen someones arguments is equivalent to an attack now, is it? Thats what we used to call a debate.

You have a pretty perverse understanding of it.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: Zarathustra on January 18, 2016, 05:07:09 PM

It is really unbelievable. They intend to rush this monster on us as a scaling 'solution' before the halving:

https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/688796294194704385

Oh great...Now Adam Back is trying to seduce Garzik over to the dark side.

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

It is really unbelievable. They intend to rush this monster on us as a scaling 'solution' before the halving:

https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/688796294194704385

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Quote from: Lauda on January 18, 2016, 04:57:27 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on January 18, 2016, 04:53:12 PM

Further on lifting Theymos up to developer status within Core by making him one of their signatories makes them even more complicit of his actions, they should not be supportive of people that carry out this sort of censorship. Inaction sometimes is wrong, I am sorry if you can not understand that. There is an old quote which I think is relevant here:

You mean the same way as Classic lifted Peter Rizun to a developer on their list? You didn't complain about that. Definitely not biased, right?

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on January 18, 2016, 04:50:47 PM

Fair enough..

I don't get the point of pulling up opinions that are 2 years old (or older). Are you trying to say that we have learned nothing since then?

Don't be grumpy. I'm just trying to understand.

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Quote from: VeritasSapere on January 18, 2016, 04:53:12 PM

Quote from: Lauda on January 18, 2016, 04:42:19 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on January 18, 2016, 01:39:18 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on January 18, 2016, 01:22:35 PM

I think that by not officially speaking out against the censorship Core is complicit in the censorship. They have even honored Theymos by allowing him to be one of the signatories of the road map when he is not even a developer himself.

This is another example of their unethical behavior, from the perspective of freedom loving people at least.

So basically if I don't comment on a issue that means that I'm supportive of a side? That does not sense.

Considering their position they should speak out against the censorship, not doing so is unethical because they are in a position of influence. Further on lifting Theymos up to developer status within Core by making him one of their signatories makes them even more complicit of his actions, they should not be supportive of people that carry out this sort of censorship. Inaction sometimes is wrong, I am sorry if you can not understand that. There is an old quote which I think is relevant here:

Quote from: Edmund Burke

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Devil's advocate: I don't think censorship is the right word. We've been going on about this stuff in daily threads forever. But thread after thread promoting contentious hard forks is probably pushing it. No?

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on January 18, 2016, 04:53:12 PM

Further on lifting Theymos up to developer status within Core by making him one of their signatories makes them even more complicit of his actions, they should not be supportive of people that carry out this sort of censorship. Inaction sometimes is wrong, I am sorry if you can not understand that. There is an old quote which I think is relevant here:

You mean the same way as Classic lifted Peter Rizun to a developer on their list? You didn't complain about that. Definitely not biased, right?

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on January 18, 2016, 04:50:47 PM

Fair enough..

I don't get the point of pulling up opinions that are 2 years old (or older). Are you trying to say that we have learned nothing since then?

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: theymos on January 18, 2016, 04:49:35 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on January 18, 2016, 04:43:33 PM

Theymos wanted bigger blocks 2 years ago!

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3k3kli/theymos_mike_hearns_view_is_similar_to_satoshis/cuugy1p

I think consensus according to your definition of "no significant disagreements" is no longer possible when
we're talking about the current situation with Bitcoin scalability.

It seems even less likely than it did before Hearn left.

Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 28. (Read 46564 times)