Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 32. (Read 46564 times)

I agree! This is a perfect example why we need to fork: Adam back thinks, btc fails because miner stopp believing whar adam back thinks that is logic and illogic

This should be left in this thread:

I agree.  After the successful Classic Hard Fork, it will be nice once Blockstream/Core has been kicked to the curb, we've returned to the Original Vision of Satoshi; and restored sound governance to Bitcoin, and then there will just be..... Bitcoin.

Bitcoin -> New Bitcoin (Sucky tasting Blockstream/Core Version) -> Bitcoin Classic -> Bitcoin

ahhh, the circle of life!

A fork is a fork you dummy. IDGAF whether it is blockstream softfork or classic hardfork. It will fail. Long live Bitcoin. The one a only.

By a non-consensual 'soft' fork.

You mean "when people start to ignore (their perceived) rational self-interest"?

they way i see it.. full nodes just need to follow a few basic rules.. which all nodes should follow.
which the consensus is that all implementations are agreeing to 2mb as the newest golden rule for all nodes to follow.

after that each implementation can put in their own little features (that dont cause forks) and do their own thing

its like telling banks that they have to
1. use an ISO standard bank note
2. audit their transaction
3. dont allow people to magic up new money outside of the mint


then give all the banks the freedom to allow contracts, loan agreements, escrows, multi-sign trusts, etc.. stuff that can be done locally without affecting the world

Nobody can control bitcoin.
Only forkers want to destroy bitcoin... by forking it.

Why even say something like that...Obviously the whole reasons classic exists is that certain people
have proven they refuse to work together.

There would be no war if people weren't selfish and following their own agenda
[/quote]
Well, we agree on something finally.  So... when are you lot going to stop DDOSing, Spreading FUD, Lying, Manipulating, and following a whiny & childish scorched earth policy of trying to destroy Bitcoin if you can't control it?

?

Some other bright folks know that both would result in a 'effective' block size of 4 MB which is not deemed as safe yet.

There would be no war if people weren't selfish and following their own agenda

To me it doesn't have to be a civil war... If we look at the specific proposals from a technical perspective and remove the politicas and characters we can make a decision with better clarity and without much contention.

I would likely choose to support Bitcoin Classic if it was BIP 102 + Segwit and attracted some more devs. As it stands right now , it simply is a less impressive proposal. When the technical merits are discussed and compared all I hear is vague allusions to the complexity and danger to segwit , when anyone who has really studied the changes in code and what has been tested knows that it really isn't that dangerous and in some aspects less dangerous being a soft-fork.

What would impress me is if Core and Classic made a commitment to work together and defined certain specific proposals.
If I understand Garzik's largest contention is that a sudden change in the economic model with a fee market event is dangerous and we need to study the economic effects first. I am sympathetic to Garzik's position but honestly don't assume that a fee market event is necessarily a bad thing to approach at the moment.

 I am certainly open to any ideas or proposals as to ways we can simulate this beforehand and am willing to contribute towards this effort. Part of me is doubtful that this can be done and thinks that perhaps it needs to be tested live eventually but I am open to suggestions.

One day this war has to end. 

Bitcoin Classic Is just BIP102 without Segwit , and would be a more interesting choice if it really did include both. As of right now Core + Segwit appears to be the better option. Perhaps another implementation is needed to differentiate itself enough.

This bolded bit is an odd thing to say. Some really bright folks think we can have both.

Great engineers like Gavin and Jeff? Is this some joke or an insult to the actual great engineers of the modern world?
2 MB is possible obviously, but it is redundant in comparison to SegWit. As things stand now, the deployment time for either option is going to be similar (even if Classic takes off). 2 MB blocks do not bring anything with them, SegWit brings a lot of benefits (and the increase in capacity is just a bonus).

We need the engineers to tell ideologues like myself what is possible. Great engineers like Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzick are saying that an increase to two megabytes is possible, I have no reason to think that is not the case.

Wait vor core 0.12. They'll integrate the option to ban other nodes

We need both IT experts, economists and political thinkers in order to fully understand and decide the paths we choose to take. Bitcoin requires a multidisciplinary approach in order to gain a better and wider understanding of its mechanisms and effects. Not everything in Bitcoin can be understood from an engineering perspective, economic arguments and issues have been highly prevalent in the blocksize debate for instance. This is why the Bitcoin Unlimited Articles of federation states this explicitly.
[/quote]
Should they all be working together? Yes. Should people who major in economics and politics decide what the infrastructure can and can not take or what the better approach between 2 is? No. That's a job for the engineers and this is what they've been studying for their entire life.

That's worse than the situation that we've had before and this has nothing to do with Satoshis vision.

Tidalwave^tm..





PS: n00bs.