Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 31. (Read 46564 times)
January 18, 2016, 06:54:36 AM
Poor miCEBREAKER needs to clutch the last straw, the miserably failed tactics of his totalitarian idols. Your self-destroying agitation is a great support to trigger the fork even faster than without your efforts.
January 18, 2016, 06:43:36 AM
The core development team had more than enough time now to design a version of Bitcoin that allows scalability.
Core has already designed "a version of Bitcoin that allows scalability."
Is that the one that Nobody Wantstm?
Nobody Wants a contentious hard fork and subsequent catastrophic consensus failure, except XT/Unlimited/Classic dead-enders (but you guys don't matter, because Bitcoin is not a democracy).
The people who matter support Core. Here, have some Fact Welfare you poor, low-information Toominista.
https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases
Why don't you follow your role model Mike Hearn's example, and ride off into the sunset?
You've got the whining part down, now you just need to GTFO.
January 18, 2016, 06:18:17 AM
The core development team had more than enough time now to design a version of Bitcoin that allows scalability.
Core has already designed "a version of Bitcoin that allows scalability."
Is that the one that Nobody Wantstm?
January 18, 2016, 06:14:53 AM
No, it is not. 2 MB blocks could be designed so that they have nodes forking everywhere around the world (SegWit is safer). Good luck trusting a broken network.
Are you referring to unbounded hashed bytes for sigops? Why not bound them? And are all these transactions isStandard()?
January 18, 2016, 05:32:46 AM
Quote
It’s possible to construct a transaction that takes up almost 1MB of space and which takes 30 seconds or more to validate on a modern computer (blocks containing such transactions have been mined). In 2MB blocks, a 2MB transaction can be constructed that may take over 10 minutes to validate which opens up dangerous denial-of-service attack vectors. Other lines of code would need to be changed to prevent these problems.
Hmm ... let's write some lines of code to restrict transaction size to let's say 1 MB instead of writing 500 lines of code for Segregated Witness that quadripples the complexicity of bitcoin and brings less capacity to a later point in time?
January 18, 2016, 03:26:08 AM
The core development team had more than enough time now to design a version of Bitcoin that allows scalability.
Core has already designed "a version of Bitcoin that allows scalability."
They have been testing Segwit, Elements (sidechains), and Lightning since last year. _Classic is the faction trying to roll back RBF and CLTV.
Oh wait, you are a Toomininsita and thus don't give a shit about exhaustive testing for new features being added to a consensus-critical distributed database.
2MB blocks "don't require much testing" so we should just roll them out Right Fucking Now, right?
Thanks for reminding the good people of Yorba Linda why _Classic is #R3KT.
January 18, 2016, 01:56:12 AM
Indeed. Bitcoin is supposed to be governed by the code people freely choose to run. If a company like Blockstream can co-opt Core, force the adoption of "illogical" features that the user do not want, and prevent the community from migrating to a new repo, then that would demonstrate a failure of Bitcoin.
Yes, governed by the people manipulating the masses to run code by others. Code that is redundant in comparison to SegWit. You are forcing the industry into an illogical move, not helping it avoid one.As a developer for Bitcoin Classic, and co-Chief Architect along with jstolfi,
Is this some kind of joke?Oh great idea! Let's enable DDoSing as a feature! 
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yulwv/any_examples_of_the_10_minute_script_thats_a/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yulwv/any_examples_of_the_10_minute_script_thats_a/
The core development team had more than enough time now to design a version of Bitcoin that allows scalability. The original Bitcoin never had the 1MB limitation and raising it now to 2MB will not kill the currency, it's simply adjusting the code to new requirements, gives BTC the potential to grow further and seems to reflect minimal consensus needed at this point in time. Let BTC thrive with 2MB blocks. Very simple. Classic it is!
No, it is not. 2 MB blocks could be designed so that they have nodes forking everywhere around the world (SegWit is safer). Good luck trusting a broken network. January 18, 2016, 01:44:02 AM
The core development team had more than enough time now to design a version of Bitcoin that allows scalability. The original Bitcoin never had the 1MB limitation and raising it now to 2MB will not kill the currency, it's simply adjusting the code to new requirements, gives BTC the potential to grow further and seems to reflect minimal consensus needed at this point in time. Let BTC thrive with 2MB blocks. Very simple. Classic it is!
Sounds like you've been misled by soundbites, and aren't very technically oriented. If Bitcoin is hardforked to 2MB by a majority of hashrate, businesses, and users... Bitcoin haz failed, K? It's only logical. Antifragile ftw.
January 18, 2016, 01:38:51 AM
The core development team had more than enough time now to design a version of Bitcoin that allows scalability. The original Bitcoin never had the 1MB limitation and raising it now to 2MB will not kill the currency, it's simply adjusting the code to new requirements, gives BTC the potential to grow further and seems to reflect minimal consensus needed at this point in time. Let BTC thrive with 2MB blocks. Very simple. Classic it is!
January 17, 2016, 10:02:18 PM
The best question nobody can answer:
Seriously, core should just increase the blocksize to 2MB in a regular maintenance update. They could even roll this into release candidate v0.12.0. It was never intended to be a consensus rule - only a temporary measure.
Oh great idea! Let's enable DDoSing as a feature!
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yulwv/any_examples_of_the_10_minute_script_thats_a/
Quote
It’s possible to construct a transaction that takes up almost 1MB of space and which takes 30 seconds or more to validate on a modern computer (blocks containing such transactions have been mined). In 2MB blocks, a 2MB transaction can be constructed that may take over 10 minutes to validate which opens up dangerous denial-of-service attack vectors. Other lines of code would need to be changed to prevent these problems.
Good answer?
January 17, 2016, 09:59:17 PM
The best question nobody can answer:
Seriously, core should just increase the blocksize to 2MB in a regular maintenance update. They could even roll this into release candidate v0.12.0. It was never intended to be a consensus rule - only a temporary measure.
Oh great idea! Let's enable DDoSing as a feature!
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yulwv/any_examples_of_the_10_minute_script_thats_a/
January 17, 2016, 09:56:55 PM
The best question nobody can answer:
Seriously, core should just increase the blocksize to 2MB in a regular maintenance update. They could even roll this into release candidate v0.12.0. It was never intended to be a consensus rule - only a temporary measure.
January 17, 2016, 09:56:34 PM
As a developer for Bitcoin Classic, and co-Chief Architect along with jstolfi, you should have input into the message stored in the Classic "genesis block" that will be produced in a few months.
Oops, thanks for reminding me. The Toomims tasked me with doing something momentous that will be the headline of /The Times/ on the launch date. Maybe start a war, find Elvis, or commandeer a UFO to abduct the Pope from a nudist beach and demand ransom in bitcoin.
Only that it will not be a Genesis block, of course, but a Nativity block.
January 17, 2016, 08:28:21 PM
He [Dr. Adam Back] is not even an active contributor to core code. I did never understand why he pretents he's a speaker for core.
meh, he is trying to put out fires all over the place. They are way over schedule with their LN plans ( as in nothing works yet) and I'd say gregory maxwell probably got the blame for that - hence why we dont hear from him. I'd say if he cant convince his backers on Monday morning that he has a workable plan to counter Classic he could be in real trouble. His rather weak effort to misrepresent the f2pool announcement makes me think he is out of ideas.
He is really clutching at straws - he is even quoting that half baked Cohen article on Hearne, as if its credible.
Bram "BitTorrent" Cohen lost more cypherpunk cred by being late to the Bitcoin party than the entire TumorBlock mob will ever have. His roast of [email protected] helped ensure that shitlord's credibility is completely and permanently blown.
Adam Back is three moves ahead of the Tooministas and will force you all to concede, just like he made Hearn flip the board and storm off in an (exceptionally whiny) Epic Rage Quit.
Nobody except politicized pro-governance coup/contentious hard fork advocates favor 2MB TumorBlocks over Dr. Backamoto's 1MB tx + 2MB witness blocks. The rest of the world wisely seeks to avoid catastrophic consensus failure, while you relish the cheesy Hollywood TV Trope narrative of a cathartic moment that cleanses Bitcoin of its filthy Blockstream infection.
The more strenuously you push for "doesn't need much testing" TumorBlocks with none of the advantages of well-tested segwit (tx malleability fix, etc), the more foolish and desperate you look to those outside your manufactured-dissent-afflicted Reddit Army.
The cherry on top is the political pressure from the most malcontented reflexively anti-Blockstream to modify _Classic such that it intentionally breaks RBF, CLTV, Lightning, sidechains, and segwit.
Those innovations, which are being painted as undesirable, are starting a food fight in the _Classic bikeshed that will never end.
The logical outcome is that the anti-Blockstream haters take over _Classic, while the less rabid more reasonable Toomincoiners fork off into _Classic++ or _Classic Ultra or whatever the hell Brian Armstrong's vision for Bitcoin_Classic Pro software-as-a-$3000/month-service is.
_Classic is already #REKT by internal contradictions (EG Justus R type liberatarians vs jackboot-licking SJWs). If it manages to avoid being stillborn, it will quickly succumb to birth defects.
January 17, 2016, 08:10:12 PM
This should be left in this thread:
Indeed. Bitcoin is supposed to be governed by the code people freely choose to run. If a company like Blockstream can co-opt Core, force the adoption of "illogical" features that the user do not want, and prevent the community from migrating to a new repo, then that would demonstrate a failure of Bitcoin.
As a developer for Bitcoin Classic, and co-Chief Architect along with jstolfi, you should have input into the message stored in the Classic "genesis block" that will be produced in a few months.
Will it be your avatar signature, or your post signature?
January 17, 2016, 07:34:59 PM
This should be left in this thread:
Indeed. Bitcoin is supposed to be governed by the code people freely choose to run. If a company like Blockstream can co-opt Core, force the adoption of "illogical" features that the user do not want, and prevent the community from migrating to a new repo, then that would demonstrate a failure of Bitcoin.
January 17, 2016, 07:34:36 PM
He is not even an active contributor to core code. I did never understand why he pretents he's a speaker for core.
Sure, Go Peter R classic bitcoin! Such code, much gifs.
January 17, 2016, 07:12:09 PM
He is not even an active contributor to core code. I did never understand why he pretents he's a speaker for core.
meh, he is trying to put out fires all over the place. They are way over schedule with their LN plans ( as in nothing works yet) and I'd say gregory maxwell probably got the blame for that - hence why we dont hear from him. I'd say if he cant convince his backers on Monday morning that he has a workable plan to counter Classic he could be in real trouble. His rather weak effort to misrepresent the f2pool announcement makes me think he is out of ideas.
He is really clutching at straws - he is even quoting that half baked Cohen article on Hearne, as if its credible.
January 17, 2016, 05:45:48 PM
He is not even an active contributor to core code. I did never understand why he pretents he's a speaker for core.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
January 17, 2016, 05:37:43 PM
Why should we give one iota of credence to what Adam Back says?
He's the cofounder of Blockstream and therefore has a huge bias.
Besides, his statement is nothing but rhetoric.
(Whose to say what's political and whats illogical)
He's the cofounder of Blockstream and therefore has a huge bias.
Besides, his statement is nothing but rhetoric.
(Whose to say what's political and whats illogical)
Jump to: