Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 29. (Read 46564 times)

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:

I still agree with what I said there: increasing the max block size is compatible with the idea of Bitcoin. That doesn't mean that it's not extremely dangerous/damaging to attempt a "hostile hardfork", nor does it mean that any such hostile hardfork would be equal to Bitcoin at the time of its creation. Hardforks need to be done with consensus.

Fair enough..

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

Theymos wanted bigger blocks 2 years ago!

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1492629

Satoshi definitely intended to increase the hard max block size. See:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/patch-increase-block-size-limit-1347

I believe that Satoshi expected most people to use some sort of lightweight node, with only companies and true enthusiasts being full nodes. Mike Hearn's view is similar to Satoshi's view.

I strongly disagree with the idea that changing the max block size is a violation of the "Bitcoin currency guarantees". Satoshi said that the max block size could be increased, and the max block size is never mentioned in any of the standard descriptions of the Bitcoin system.

Maybe after 2 years everyone has learned a lot more or do you think that this is not possible? I don't agree with a fee market right now, but I don't see a problem with a change of view. You are just finding ways of attacking individuals which does not benefit anyone.

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

There's no end to them.

---

---

Update:
This is what I meant.

FTFY

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

When XTards sob alone in the forest, do they make a sound?

omg so busted.

And the fact that he wasn't laughed out of the community for suggesting 100 MB
blocks in 2013, versus today getting consensus on 2 MB is like pulling teeth...
just shows you how political this has all become and how dangerous centralized
development is.

This really deserves its own thread.  Great find Zarathustra!

Pieter Wuille 2013 and Pieter Blockstream Wuille 2015 are not the same persons:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41jw7z/pieter_wullie_my_suggestion_would_be_a_onetime/cz30pya

Obviously Bitcoin presents an overlap of technology and socioeconomics.
My point was that I (and many others) aren't willing to follow a group
of developers simply because they are experienced technicians.

I think Mike Hearn pointed out some of the key philosophical/technical
points held by Greg Maxwell.  Greg is obviously bright, but
based on everything I've heard from equally smart people
such as Gavin Andressen and Peter Rizun, I've
decided that I also disagree with Greg Maxwell's position and vision
for what Bitcoin should be and how to scale it.

As someone pointed out in a recent thread "people are not satifisfied
with Core's scalability roadmap".

You can disagree; I'm not here to try to change your opinion.  I'm
simply telling you mine.


 

 

You don't get it, even if it is demonstrated right before your eyes. The "consensus" of the technicians is meaningless, if it is no "consensus" / "compromise" with the miners. This is Bitcoins security against a a failure in development.

I don't want to say core failed. In fact I think they do the best they can and do a hard, brillant work, and they don't deserve what happens to them now. But they have been warned for a long time and it would have been easy for them to prevent it. It's just a fact, that the economy lost it's patience in core and is not satisfied with core's scaling roadmap.



If a large majority of users and economic acteurs agree - it's not relevant, because they could be manipulated.
But if 35 developers agree, even if it is against the will of users and economy - than that's the way. As if they couldn't be manipulated.


Sure. Just a greedy and instrusive business, hem?

Coinbase enables people to buy/sell bitcoins. Entrepreneurs like Brian Armstrong risked their freedom and their wealth to make this real. Think on Charlie Shrem. Which developer got imprisoned for submitting a bip? Which one got highly indepted because a hacker had stolen a mass of bitcoins from the website?

Without companies like Coinbase Bitcoin would be not more than any loosy altcoin.


Why is this the question? Mind-check? Are you Stalin?

Read my answer: curiosity, ideology and money. In this direction. ok?


Ok, I don't like politician either. Unfortunately their talents - negotiation and diplomacy - are needed, whenever humans built something like society.


Everybody does that if needed. It happens anytime whenever there is a discours with non-agreeing positions. Sciences are full of it.


Fine, that's right, this happens in society. You don't need a media campaign to let people squeeze exotic minorities. Whenever people build a mass of people, there are some assholes that love to punch the weakest - you see this behavior here when people are outlawed as trolls - which results in discriminating and misunderstanding of Minorities. That's not a nice feature of men ...


= yes


You mean, when you seek controll over bitcoin-development, than it would be a good opporunity, when developers have brought miners, business' and users in a revolt? Yes, it would be.

But ... wouldn't it be easier to fund a company that hires 4 core devs, instead of using long-term media campaign to start a revolt and wait more than a year till core fails to deliver a solution the miners are satisfied with? I never believed or told the blockstream-conspiracy. But I don't understand why you are heavy paranoid when it comes to Coinbase / Andresen, but not a bit paranoid when it comes to Maxwell/Blockstream.

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

An example? LOL. Everybody knows that they constantly 'communicate' via totalitarian forums.

Consensus within Bitcoin is the name for the governance mechanism of Bitcoin. It would be wrong to equate this with the literal meaning of the word consensus, which is that everyone agrees. With larger groups of people this becomes impossible. The consensus mechanism within Bitcoin allows us to resolve disagreements through proof of work and with the ability to split. Solving the problem of tyrrany of the majority. Thinking that consensus only refers to technical issues is false, many of these issues are inherently not just technical. "Consensus" in the literal meaning of the word is of course necessary for the continued operation of the Bitcoin network specifically on what I now call consensus critical issues, however as soon such issues become contentious the network is capable of diverging or changing. This is a very important feature of Bitcoin, which for me ensures the continued freedom and decentralization of the protocol.

One of the beautiful things about Bitcoin is how it incentivizes its participants towards the good of the network, which works towards the good for all. Coinbase wants what is best for Bitcoin, since that is what is best for them as well, the incentive is even stronger for the miners. This is how the game theory behind Bitcoin works, it does rely on certain aspects of human nature, we are a part of this great machine. The irony of Coinbase being a "Bitcoin Bank" so to speak, with custodial accounts, while being funded in part by Wall Street does not escape me. I suppose the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Consensus in the literal meaning of the word is impossible among large groups of people, as I already said previously. Therefore the only times "consensus" is possible among larger groups of people is through compromise. Unless more totalitarian and dictatorial approaches are taken. Politics is about influence and the distribution of power and resources within a given community. For you to think that this is not relevant to Bitcoin or that the premise behind this entire discipline of thought is questionable, I think that is out of touch with reality. Bitcoin does relate to politics, economics, psychology, engineering and computer science among many more fields of thought. To understand the full scope of what Bitcoin is and what we think it should become and how to achieve these goals, requires a multidisciplinary approach.

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.

If you think that an increase to two megabyte represents a "takeover" of Bitcoin, I would think that is ridiculous, unless you think this is about control? I do not think any one implementation or development team should be in "control" of Bitcoin. If this was a takeover, it would represent a community takeover from a development team that no longer represents the community and has grown out of touch with the users as well as the economic majority.

You do realise that reducing blocksize only requires a softfork?  It's much easier to go down than up.  It wouldn't take an emergency, either.  If there was even the slightest sign that larger blocks did jeopardise the network, the miners aren't going to hang around and let their source of income fall apart at the seams.  Either incentives align, or they don't and it quickly reverts back to how it was.

Alright, I suppose it would be reversible in an emergency situation in which the system is under such severe attack that everyone's coins are in jeopardy. Otherwise, good luck getting miners and others to agree to go back down to 1 MB.




An example, please, of Core developers "collaborating with Totalitarians"?

Yes, better in producing BS and collaborating with Totalitarians.

You do realize that the industry and the userbase is completely different now and in comparison to the time when the change of ~30 to 1 MB was made? It was much easier to get consensus back then and satoshi was still leading the development.

With 'no solution' I meant in XT. XT was mitigating the problem not solving it. Besides, unless someone ran enough tests we can not know if it was working.

So people who major in economics and politics/other random field should decide what the best technical approach is?

This is false.

Where do you get the notion that the changes being discussed are nonreversible?  If we can go from 30-odd mb down to 1mb, then I'm pretty sure we could find our way down from 2 if it was deemed necessary.