Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 3.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Lauda on February 03, 2016, 04:38:19 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on February 03, 2016, 04:30:22 PM

I think 90% is just unrealistic in this situation, but more to the point: If consensus cannot be reached, the only alternative is a split.

Call it tyranny if you want, but I say its the freedom of choice.
People can run whatever code they want to, and no one,
not Gavin, not Satoshi, not Greg Maxwell, not Santa Claus
can force anyone to do anything.
It is what it is.

So you're willing to accept a network split and harm both chains just to get your own way? Quite irrational and egoistical behavior. Why not fork off at 5% then, you don't need the remaining network? While you technically can't force anyone to run anything, you can easily manipulate them. I've seen a lot of manipulation attempts from the 'forkers'.

nah, they dont fool anyone anymore. Roll Eyes

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on February 03, 2016, 04:30:22 PM

51%, 75%, 90%, 95%,...those are just different shades of consensus.

They're not. 90-95% ensures that almost everyone is on board with the plan and leaves less than 10(or 5)% of the room for a veto of the change. Another factor that needs to be considered is time. Given enough time (and not rushing unnecessary forks) this ensures that the old chain dies. This way the network successfully achieves a 'upgrade'.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on February 03, 2016, 04:30:22 PM

I think 90% is just unrealistic in this situation, but more to the point: If consensus cannot be reached, the only alternative is a split.

Call it tyranny if you want, but I say its the freedom of choice.
People can run whatever code they want to, and no one,
not Gavin, not Satoshi, not Greg Maxwell, not Santa Claus
can force anyone to do anything.
It is what it is.

So you're willing to accept a network split and harm both chains just to get your own way? Quite irrational and egoistical behavior. Why not fork off at 5% then, you don't need the remaining network? While you technically can't force anyone to run anything, you can easily manipulate them. I've seen a lot of manipulation attempts from the 'forkers'.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on February 03, 2016, 04:24:06 PM

You're conveniently ignoring VertiasSapere's crucial point Angry

Core is tyranny Cry

VertiasSapere's crucial point ("True consensus in the original sense of the word is impossible among larger groups of people") has two fatal errors.

1. It uses the No True Scotsman fallacy.

2. Nakamoto Consensus gives us a way for true consensus to be possible among arbitrarily large groups of people.

The fact neither of you two noticed those problems demonstrates you have no business telling us how to run, much less scale, Bitcoin.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: Lauda on February 03, 2016, 04:25:51 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on February 03, 2016, 04:24:06 PM

You're conveniently ignoring VertiasSapere's crucial point (bolded) above.
By ignoring that fact, and combined with the fact that Core is the currently
used implementation, you've convinced yourself that any change away from
Core is tyranny.
Undecided

This is wrong and a misunderstanding of my views. If Classic had set up a 90 or 95% consensus threshold I would have a lot less arguments against it. Even if we disregard a lot of things in the current situation, I just can't accept a network split. I would never show my support to anyone who wants to do something harmful to the network.

51%, 75%, 90%, 95%,...those are just different shades of consensus.

I think 90% is just unrealistic in this situation, but more to the point:
If consensus cannot be reached, the only alternative is a split.

Call it tyranny if you want, but I say its the freedom of choice.
People can run whatever code they want to, and no one,
not Gavin, not Satoshi, not Greg Maxwell, not Santa Claus
can force anyone to do anything.

It is what it is.

WestHarrison

full member

Activity: 187

Merit: 100

Guys, let's chillax and just make consensus proposals via consider.it^TM

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on February 03, 2016, 04:24:06 PM

You're conveniently ignoring VertiasSapere's crucial point (bolded) above.
By ignoring that fact, and combined with the fact that Core is the currently
used implementation, you've convinced yourself that any change away from
Core is tyranny.
Undecided

This is wrong and a misunderstanding of my views. If Classic had set up a 90 or 95% consensus threshold I would have a lot less arguments against it. Even if we disregard a lot of things in the current situation, I just can't accept a network split. I would never show my support to anyone who wants to do something harmful to the network.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: Lauda on February 03, 2016, 03:54:58 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 03, 2016, 03:08:04 PM

There should be no such thing as a main implementation, and if there is a reference implementation like there is now, power and control should be taken away from this point of centralization.

Nonsense. You're pulling up your own biased opinion. Bitcoin has always had a main implementation (QT now Core). There is no reason for which this has to change.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 03, 2016, 03:08:04 PM

To think that we should only change the network when we have consensus is the equivalent to saying that we should never change the rules of the protocol. True consensus in the original sense of the word is impossible among larger groups of people. Enforcing such an idea is no different then a tyranny of the minority. Bitcoin is freedom, it even solves the problem of tyrrany of the majority, exactly because of this ability to hard fork. Which I think is a crucial feature of Bitcoins governance mechanism which helps to ensure the continued freedom and decentralization of the protocol.

I think you misunderstood the 'tyaranny of the majority' part. What Classic is proposing is exactly the kind of tyranny that I'd expect from the people who are behind it. The minority (which is the wrong word for 1/4 of the network) is left with no choice but to join or quit completely. Another thing that you're trying to sell here is that the network can't reach consensus; this is wrong. Miners have demonstrated that this is possible with several soft forks. With enough time and support a hard fork can be easily deployed with 90% consensus and probably more.

You're conveniently ignoring VertiasSapere's crucial point (bolded) above.
By ignoring that fact, and combined with the fact that Core is the currently
used implementation, you've convinced yourself that any change away from
Core is tyranny.

Undecided

bargainbin

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: Lauda on February 03, 2016, 03:54:58 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 03, 2016, 03:08:04 PM

There should be no such thing as a main implementation, and if there is a reference implementation like there is now, power and control should be taken away from this point of centralization.

Nonsense. You're pulling up your own biased opinion. Bitcoin has always had a main implementation (QT now Core). There is no reason for which this has to change.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 03, 2016, 03:08:04 PM

To think that we should only change the network when we have consensus is the equivalent to saying that we should never change the rules of the protocol. True consensus in the original sense of the word is impossible among larger groups of people. Enforcing such an idea is no different then a tyranny of the minority. Bitcoin is freedom, it even solves the problem of tyrrany of the majority, exactly because of this ability to hard fork. Which I think is a crucial feature of Bitcoins governance mechanism which helps to ensure the continued freedom and decentralization of the protocol.

I think you misunderstood the 'tyaranny of the majority' part. What Classic is proposing is exactly the kind of tyranny that I'd expect from the people who are behind it. The minority (which is the wrong word for 1/4 of the network) is left with no choice but to join or quit completely.

mi·nor·i·ty
məˈnôrədē/
noun: minority; plural noun: minorities
1. the smaller number or part, especially a number that is less than half the whole number.

So yeah, 1/4 is THE MINORITY. And no one is stopping you from doing shit, or making you join anyone. Do what you want. Mine, not mine, keep your coin, sell it -- the future is yours, baby!

Quote

Another thing that you're trying to sell here is that the network can't reach consensus; this is wrong. Miners have demonstrated that this is possible with several soft forks. With enough time and support a hard fork can be easily deployed with 90% consensus and probably more.

Again, from wikip:
"...Possible decision rules for consensus vary within the following range:

   Unanimous agreement
   Unanimous consent (See agreement vs consent below)
   Unanimous agreement minus one vote or two votes
   Unanimous consent minus one vote or two votes
   Super majority thresholds (90%, 80%, 75%, two-thirds, and 60% are common).
   Simple majority
   Executive committee decides
   Person-in-charge decides"

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 03, 2016, 03:08:04 PM

There should be no such thing as a main implementation, and if there is a reference implementation like there is now, power and control should be taken away from this point of centralization.

Nonsense. You're pulling up your own biased opinion. Bitcoin has always had a main implementation (QT now Core). There is no reason for which this has to change.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 03, 2016, 03:08:04 PM

To think that we should only change the network when we have consensus is the equivalent to saying that we should never change the rules of the protocol. True consensus in the original sense of the word is impossible among larger groups of people. Enforcing such an idea is no different then a tyranny of the minority. Bitcoin is freedom, it even solves the problem of tyrrany of the majority, exactly because of this ability to hard fork. Which I think is a crucial feature of Bitcoins governance mechanism which helps to ensure the continued freedom and decentralization of the protocol.

I think you misunderstood the 'tyaranny of the majority' part. What Classic is proposing is exactly the kind of tyranny that I'd expect from the people who are behind it. The minority (which is the wrong word for 1/4 of the network) is left with no choice but to join or quit completely. Another thing that you're trying to sell here is that the network can't reach consensus; this is wrong. Miners have demonstrated that this is possible with several soft forks. With enough time and support a hard fork can be easily deployed with 90% consensus and probably more.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 03, 2016, 03:08:04 PM

There should be no such thing as a main implementation, and if there is a reference implementation like there is now, power and control should be taken away from this point of centralization. Cry

Bitcoin is consensus critical. And thus the implementation is the spec.

If you feel that's a "point of centralization" perhaps you should move on to greener pastures, like your friend Mike Hearn has already done.

Cuidler

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Quote from: Carlton Banks on February 03, 2016, 01:06:40 PM

Well, if you're the economic majority, then who are all these (real life) bitcoin users that are loudly and publicly refusing to turn their fortune over to some rogue bankster infested dev team that wants to destroy Bitcoin?

Undoubtedly some of the loudests are altcoin lovers who can only profit from limiting Bitcoin.

Let the hashpower talk, thats how Bitcoin work, so everybody voice will be heard by the amount the person supports security of the Bitcoin network, not some anonymous internet discussion as a measurement of support.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

fascinating as usual Veritas why don't any of your beloved "popular" blockchain forks ever materlialise? how many failed forks have you backed so far now? third, or is it up to four now?

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: Lauda on February 03, 2016, 01:08:04 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 03, 2016, 12:30:05 PM

So this is about control? Who do you think should be in control?

It is certainly nothing else. You are unable to get your own (and silly) way with Bitcoin and thus you want to get a grip on the main implementation.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 03, 2016, 12:30:05 PM

I think that the economic majority rules Bitcoin, therefore the majority of the economic participants of Bitcoin ultimately control Bitcoin. If we collectively wanted an increased blocksize limit then the blocksize limit will be raised. This is what I think will happen and is happening now. The incentives are continuing to align.

75% is not a this 'economic majority' nor is it consensus. You're talking one thing but doing the opposite. You're talking about a split all in the name of the 'majority's wishes' while in fact the underlying idea it to take away the control over the main implementation.

There should be no such thing as a main implementation, and if there is a reference implementation like there is now, power and control should be taken away from this point of centralization.

I think that the majority is justified in forking the network. Even the minority I think has this right. To think that we should only change the network when we have consensus is the equivalent to saying that we should never change the rules of the protocol. True consensus in the original sense of the word is impossible among larger groups of people. Enforcing such an idea is no different then a tyranny of the minority. Bitcoin is freedom, it even solves the problem of tyrrany of the majority, exactly because of this ability to hard fork. Which I think is a crucial feature of Bitcoins governance mechanism which helps to ensure the continued freedom and decentralization of the protocol.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 03, 2016, 12:30:05 PM

So this is about control? Who do you think should be in control?

It is certainly nothing else. You are unable to get your own (and silly) way with Bitcoin and thus you want to get a grip on the main implementation.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 03, 2016, 12:30:05 PM

I think that the economic majority rules Bitcoin, therefore the majority of the economic participants of Bitcoin ultimately control Bitcoin. If we collectively wanted an increased blocksize limit then the blocksize limit will be raised. This is what I think will happen and is happening now. The incentives are continuing to align.

75% is not a this 'economic majority' nor is it consensus. You're talking one thing but doing the opposite. You're talking about a split all in the name of the 'majority's wishes' while in fact the underlying idea it to take away the control over the main implementation.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 03, 2016, 12:30:05 PM

Quote from: watashi-kokoto on February 03, 2016, 12:17:34 PM

396 508 smaller than 1MB blocks Grin

We're still in control! Grin

So this is about control? Who do you think should be in control?

I think that the economic majority rules Bitcoin, therefore the majority of the economic participants of Bitcoin ultimately control Bitcoin. If we collectively wanted an increased blocksize limit then the blocksize limit will be raised. This is what I think will happen and is happening now. The incentives are continuing to align.

Well, if you're the economic majority, then who are all these (real life) bitcoin users that are loudly and publicly refusing to turn their fortune over to some rogue bankster infested dev team that wants to destroy Bitcoin?

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Quote from: watashi-kokoto on February 03, 2016, 12:17:34 PM

396 508 smaller than 1MB blocks Grin

We're still in control! Grin

So this is about control? Who do you think should be in control?

I think that the economic majority rules Bitcoin, therefore the majority of the economic participants of Bitcoin ultimately control Bitcoin. If we collectively wanted an increased blocksize limit then the blocksize limit will be raised. This is what I think will happen and is happening now. The incentives are continuing to align.

watashi-kokoto

sr. member

Activity: 687

Merit: 269

396 508 smaller than 1MB blocks Grin

We're still in control! Grin

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 03, 2016, 11:00:13 AM

Here is a discussion I had with Greg Maxwell about blocksize and governance. I re posted it so that it is easy to find and read. Thought some of the people in here might find it interesting.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/discussion-with-greg-maxwell.841/

That thread just links back to Bitcointalk. Desperate for traffic much? Wink

Now that the (hopelessly idealistic) Unlimiturd fad is over, Frap.doc's silly rump forum is also dying.

And so, we Bitcointalkers again have the pleasure of his clique's company. Apparently you all have forgiven thermos for his sensor ships. Tongue

Nobody even bothered to make an Unlimited #REKT thread.

But that poor bikeshed collapsed under the weight of all the paint, didn't it? Cheesy

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: VeritasSapere on February 03, 2016, 11:00:13 AM

Here is a discussion I had with Greg Maxwell about blocksize and governance. I re posted it so that it is easy to find and read. Thought some of the people in here might find it interesting.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/discussion-with-greg-maxwell.841/

nothing relevant, basically gmax is pissing in the wind.

VeritasSapere

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Here is a discussion I had with Greg Maxwell about blocksize and governance. I re posted it so that it is easy to find and read. Thought some of the people in here might find it interesting.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/discussion-with-greg-maxwell.841/

Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 3. (Read 46564 times)