ROFL. That is so fucking classic! 
ToominCoin FTW
Is that poutrage? From icebreaker?? ToominCoin FTW
Y U always pick loosing side??
Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 34. (Read 46564 times)
January 16, 2016, 01:45:24 PM
Y U always pick loosing side??
January 16, 2016, 01:40:56 PM
Hdbuck appears to be stuck in his own dogma. Like many he drank the maxwellhouse koolaid but because he is also particularly abrasive and closeminded hes been on my ignore list for a while along with brg and icebreaker.
I am pleased to be on jonald's ignore list, because I despise hypocrisy.
What kind of person whines about others being "abrasive" after writing abrasive posts like these?
Fuck you and die.
you're a goddman fool
Fuck your politics and personalities
Fuck your politics and personalities
get your head out of your arse
Many drank the Maxwellhouse Koolaid
and are waking up from the stupor.
and are waking up from the stupor.
There is a special place in Hell for people like jonald.
I blame his parents. They should be slapped across the face by everyone on earth for raising such an intolerable brat and inflicting him on the rest of the planet.
January 16, 2016, 01:24:12 PM
So a legit proposal equals to him trolling them? Makes sense.
changing POW is a legit proposal? How? Why?
He submits a PR with a vague title like "Fix mining centralisation"
then lands the bombshell of HOW he wants to do it?
thats a pretty low rent effort.
Changing _Classic's POW is an excellent suggestion (which I've also previously made), and not only (or mainly) as a way to prevent/delay a repeat of the current situation where a handful of giant miners can credibly threaten to back contentious hard forks.
If _Classic wanted a clean break from Core, changing POW at the same time as the first (potentially) >1MB _ClassicBlock is the right way to do it.
Then there would be no
Lukejr wants Keccak, and I suggested an extra round of SHA256. Keccak would make current ASICs useless, SHA256^3 would not.
But that doesn't matter, because by rejecting the entirely logical 'change POW' proposition _Classic has shown their hand.
_Classic is not a technologically driven project. Changing 1MB to 2MB is only a trivial TPS increase, which SegWit will approximate.
_Classic is a politically motivated governance coup, which risks (or arguably entails) catastrophic consensus failure just to satisfy the egos of the Get Thermos Kill Blockstream Emasculate Mircea Destroy Core malcontents.
January 16, 2016, 01:02:51 PM
Can't you just add quotes? There are only so many forums I can follow. 
January 16, 2016, 12:50:18 PM
Will Core capitulate to 2 MB, should it begin to lose node share?
Now, now, Justus told you that "best" includes more than three implementations.
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-261
Is animating a fourth pie really that hard?
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
January 16, 2016, 12:28:09 PM
Hdbuck appears to be stuck in his own dogma. Like many he drank the maxwellhouse koolaid but because he is also particularly abrasive and closeminded hes been on my ignore list for a while along with brg and icebreaker.
January 16, 2016, 12:26:50 PM
Will Core capitulate to 2 MB, should it begin to lose node share?
January 16, 2016, 12:08:31 PM
I know by fact that the current bitcoin protocol by which I abided and invested was the one not allowing on chain mass adoption scaling coffee tipping bullshit whilst staying in the reach of low technology hardware so everybody got their access to it.
You should have read the
There was no mention of a block size limit there. There was no mention of transactions piling up in a queue, fighting with each other through "smart" fee estimation algorithms and RBFs. On the contrary, it was assumed that miners would confirm, into the next block, every transaction that paid a fee sufficient to make that worthwhile.
More importantly, there was no mention of a clique of developers having control of the protocol and deciding what the miners should do. According to the protocol, the only players that have any power over the system are the miners (which Satoshi called "nodes"), who vote with their hashing power. And this is not an accident, but an essential feature of the design, that no one knows how to change without breaking it.
Granted, Satoshi did not foresee that 70% of the mining would be concentrated into 4 Chinese companies. Raising the block size limit and letting the miners decide the fees, while conceptually the right thing to do, will not work in that context. However, the concentration of mining, by itself, already means bitcoin is broken.
Basically, the block size war is like a dispute among pilot and co-pilot about whether the plane that ran out of fuel in mid-Atlantic should be flown normally or upside-down while it falls.
Read again. I said CURRENT BITCOIN PROTOCOL. not WP.
But whatever, troll.
I think you are confusing reality with whats in your head again...
January 16, 2016, 11:34:07 AM
I know by fact that the current bitcoin protocol by which I abided and invested was the one not allowing on chain mass adoption scaling coffee tipping bullshit whilst staying in the reach of low technology hardware so everybody got their access to it.
You should have read the
There was no mention of a block size limit there. There was no mention of transactions piling up in a queue, fighting with each other through "smart" fee estimation algorithms and RBFs. On the contrary, it was assumed that miners would confirm, into the next block, every transaction that paid a fee sufficient to make that worthwhile.
More importantly, there was no mention of a clique of developers having control of the protocol and deciding what the miners should do. According to the protocol, the only players that have any power over the system are the miners (which Satoshi called "nodes"), who vote with their hashing power. And this is not an accident, but an essential feature of the design, that no one knows how to change without breaking it.
Granted, Satoshi did not foresee that 70% of the mining would be concentrated into 4 Chinese companies. Raising the block size limit and letting the miners decide the fees, while conceptually the right thing to do, will not work in that context. However, the concentration of mining, by itself, already means bitcoin is broken.
Basically, the block size war is like a dispute among pilot and co-pilot about whether the plane that ran out of fuel in mid-Atlantic should be flown normally or upside-down while it falls.
Read again. I said CURRENT BITCOIN PROTOCOL. not WP.
But whatever, troll.
January 16, 2016, 11:30:02 AM
I do not think that Bitcoin is broken due to excessive mining centralization, you should keep in mind that these are pools, who do not actually control the hashpower themselves. Pools act in a way that is similar to a representative democracy for the miners. This conception changes the evaluation of the state of mining centralization. It is not as bad as a lot of people are making it out to be, there is of course plenty of room for improvement, increasing mining decentralization would be best stimulated by an increased price actually.
January 16, 2016, 11:18:28 AM
I know by fact that the current bitcoin protocol by which I abided and invested was the one not allowing on chain mass adoption scaling coffee tipping bullshit whilst staying in the reach of low technology hardware so everybody got their access to it.
You should have read the
There was no mention of a block size limit there. There was no mention of transactions piling up in a queue, fighting with each other through "smart" fee estimation algorithms and RBFs. On the contrary, it was assumed that miners would confirm, into the next block, every transaction that paid a fee sufficient to make that worthwhile.
More importantly, there was no mention of a clique of developers having control of the protocol and deciding what the miners should do. According to the protocol, the only players that have any power over the system are the miners (which Satoshi called "nodes"), who vote with their hashing power. And this is not an accident, but an essential feature of the design, that no one knows how to change without breaking it.
Granted, Satoshi did not foresee that 70% of the mining would be concentrated into 4 Chinese companies. Raising the block size limit and letting the miners decide the fees, while conceptually the right thing to do, will not work in that context. However, the concentration of mining, by itself, already means bitcoin is broken.
Basically, the block size war is like a dispute among pilot and co-pilot about whether the plane that ran out of fuel in mid-Atlantic should be flown normally or upside-down while it falls.
January 16, 2016, 11:08:54 AM
Define spam.
Is Gambling spam?
Daily-payouts of cloudminers?
Every kind of blockchain-graffiti?
everything < 1$?
<5$
Who decides what spam is and what usecases to restrict? If you decide now that some kind of transaction are considered as spam and thus prohibited, you act like a regulator. Every node and miner can decide to prohibit spam - and should be allowed to chose his own definition of spam - but we don't need a central regime where a bunch of people decide which transactions are not worth to get in the chain.
Is Gambling spam?
Daily-payouts of cloudminers?
Every kind of blockchain-graffiti?
everything < 1$?
<5$
Who decides what spam is and what usecases to restrict? If you decide now that some kind of transaction are considered as spam and thus prohibited, you act like a regulator. Every node and miner can decide to prohibit spam - and should be allowed to chose his own definition of spam - but we don't need a central regime where a bunch of people decide which transactions are not worth to get in the chain.
Satoshi placed BTC in the "Small enough to include what you might call the top of the micropayment range" market segment.
If I had to take a guess, with paypal charging ~0.35$ for receiving money (plus % fees), I'd say that it's highly impractical for things that are close to 1$. Banks typically charge 0.30 euro to 0.35 euro for card transactions or epayments over here where I live. So BTC could probably be used for like 1$ transactions right now, but not a few cents. This could change in the future though.
Bitcoin isn't currently practical for very small micropayments. Not for things like pay per search or per page view without an aggregating mechanism, not things needing to pay less than 0.01. The dust spam limit is a first try at intentionally trying to prevent overly small micropayments like that.
Bitcoin is practical for smaller transactions than are practical with existing payment methods. Small enough to include what you might call the top of the micropayment range. But it doesn't claim to be practical for arbitrarily small micropayments.
Bitcoin is practical for smaller transactions than are practical with existing payment methods. Small enough to include what you might call the top of the micropayment range. But it doesn't claim to be practical for arbitrarily small micropayments.
Forgot to add the good part about micropayments. While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall. If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time. Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms. Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical. I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.
I am not claiming that the network is impervious to DoS attack. I think most P2P networks can be DoS attacked in numerous ways. (On a side note, I read that the record companies would like to DoS all the file sharing networks, but they don't want to break the anti-hacking/anti-abuse laws.)
If we started getting DoS attacked with loads of wasted transactions back and forth, you would need to start paying a 0.01 minimum transaction fee. 0.1.5 actually had an option to set that, but I took it out to reduce confusion. Free transactions are nice and we can keep it that way if people don't abuse them.
I am not claiming that the network is impervious to DoS attack. I think most P2P networks can be DoS attacked in numerous ways. (On a side note, I read that the record companies would like to DoS all the file sharing networks, but they don't want to break the anti-hacking/anti-abuse laws.)
If we started getting DoS attacked with loads of wasted transactions back and forth, you would need to start paying a 0.01 minimum transaction fee. 0.1.5 actually had an option to set that, but I took it out to reduce confusion. Free transactions are nice and we can keep it that way if people don't abuse them.
It would be nice to keep the blk*.dat files small as long as we can.
The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets.
But for now, while it's still small, it's nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won't matter much anymore.
There's more work to do on transaction fees. In the event of a flood, you would still be able to jump the queue and get your transactions into the next block by paying a 0.01 transaction fee.
The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets.
But for now, while it's still small, it's nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won't matter much anymore.
There's more work to do on transaction fees. In the event of a flood, you would still be able to jump the queue and get your transactions into the next block by paying a 0.01 transaction fee.
January 16, 2016, 11:00:05 AM
I find it surprising that you are even still trying to use Satoshi to support your position, considering that you the one that is going against his fundamental vision.
Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto
While I don't think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall. If Bitcoin catches on on a big scale, it may already be the case by that time. Another way they can become more practical is if I implement client-only mode and the number of network nodes consolidates into a smaller number of professional server farms. Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical. I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial.
Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto
Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section Cool to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware.
Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto
The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets.
Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto
But for now, while it’s still small, it’s nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won’t matter much anymore.
Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto
The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users.
Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto
It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit
It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.
When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.
Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto
The threshold can easily be changed in the future. We can decide to increase it when the time comes. It's a good idea to keep it lower as a circuit breaker and increase it as needed. If we hit the threshold now, it would almost certainly be some kind of flood and not actual use. Keeping the threshold lower would help limit the amount of wasted disk space in that event.
Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto
Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.
Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto
I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume.
January 16, 2016, 10:53:10 AM
From the same thread:
Therefore I think that you are taking this quote out of context.
Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto
A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me. It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in. If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version. If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version. This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.
Quote from: BitcoinXio
Clearly he is saying [to me] that if you fork bitcoin into another chain there are huge implications to this, and the bitcoin users on the minority chain could lose money, which was his concern. Knowing that Satoshi was almost always advocating for big blocks, wanting bitcoin to one day compete with "Visa" and that the 1MB artificial blocksize was only a temporary anti-DOS measure, I'm fairly confident in saying that when Satoshi wrote this, he had no idea that years later we would be fighting about the blocksize and wanting to fork bitcoin into a second implementation because the entire bitcoin community feels different than a small core set of developers.
Therefore I think that you are taking this quote out of context.
January 16, 2016, 10:36:33 AM
Whether he is trolling or not a Github pull request is the appropriate place to submit finished code ... not consider.it or slack.
He could have at least waited for all the NACk's to come in, but this does set an interesting example how consensus is formed in Classic.
I am not going to whine about censorship , because the Classic maintainers have every right to close that pull request, but lets not lie to ourselves and suggest that Classic is any more democratic than Core.
Having a wide range of choice between multiple implementations, is in fact more democratic compared to just having Core as the singular choice, which in reality is not really a choice at all, when there is only one option to choose from.He could have at least waited for all the NACk's to come in, but this does set an interesting example how consensus is formed in Classic.
I am not going to whine about censorship , because the Classic maintainers have every right to close that pull request, but lets not lie to ourselves and suggest that Classic is any more democratic than Core.
hmnope
I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network. The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.
Good idea or not, SOMEBODY will try to mess up the network (or co-opt it for their own use) sooner or later. They'll either hack the existing code or write their own version, and will be a menace to the network.
I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it. I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.
That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...
January 16, 2016, 10:30:38 AM
Whether he is trolling or not a Github pull request is the appropriate place to submit finished code ... not consider.it or slack.
He could have at least waited for all the NACk's to come in, but this does set an interesting example how consensus is formed in Classic.
I am not going to whine about censorship , because the Classic maintainers have every right to close that pull request, but lets not lie to ourselves and suggest that Classic is any more democratic than Core.
Having a wide range of choice between multiple implementations, is in fact more democratic compared to just having Core as the singular choice, which in reality is not really a choice at all, when there is only one option to choose from. He could have at least waited for all the NACk's to come in, but this does set an interesting example how consensus is formed in Classic.
I am not going to whine about censorship , because the Classic maintainers have every right to close that pull request, but lets not lie to ourselves and suggest that Classic is any more democratic than Core.
January 16, 2016, 10:18:02 AM
On the other side you and Lauda seem to fail to understand the other side - the big blockers - and so you built a conspiracy theory about some takeover through "leaders" and "companies" manipulating the markets. The truth may be more simple:
-snip-
There's no conspiracy theory. -snip- If their intentions were pure they would not even consider anything under 90+% knowing that this would harm the system. -snip-
You sniped the most important part of my quote
Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph
The truth may be more simple: the economy lost faith in core to solve the scalability problem.
And yes, this is a takeover. Core forgot that bitcoin is not just development, but also economy and politic. They ignored the needs of the economy, and the politics of consensus. It's not fair to only blame big blockers when we slide into a contentious hardfork.
If core only had said after Scaling workshop II: "we do 2MB now, than SW, than 4 Blocks" we had never been in this danger. Maybe their way can be considered technical better - but politically it was not the safest and secure, but the most dangerous way: the way that increased the risk of a contentious hardfork.
Maybe classic will teach core that consensus is not just technology but interdisciplinary.
About the threshold: As far as I'm informed, they didn't release the conditions by now. Why judge their intentions on things they did not release?
Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph
More reasons for the economy to loose faith in core:
- luke-jr prefers to lower the blocklimit
- peter todd doublespending coinbase
- core implementing rbf against massive complaint of the community (even with opt-in there are significant problems for not-updated wallet which I don't want to explain here)
- core wants a fee markets to raise = technicians deciding about politics which exceeds their competence and happens with a complete lack of rulesets for the decision = no predictability, no stability
- core denies to some part that there even is a problem with reaching capacity limit ("it's just spam" / "so fees have to raise"), while such an event will significantly limit the growth of nearly all bitcoin companies and make it impossible for many to even get ever profitable
- core defines to some part "legit" and "spammy" transactions thus overstretching their competence
- the defenders of core's decision act "strange" (ddos, censorship)
Do you really need a conspiracious takeover to understand why businesses support classic en mass?
- luke-jr prefers to lower the blocklimit
- peter todd doublespending coinbase
- core implementing rbf against massive complaint of the community (even with opt-in there are significant problems for not-updated wallet which I don't want to explain here)
- core wants a fee markets to raise = technicians deciding about politics which exceeds their competence and happens with a complete lack of rulesets for the decision = no predictability, no stability
- core denies to some part that there even is a problem with reaching capacity limit ("it's just spam" / "so fees have to raise"), while such an event will significantly limit the growth of nearly all bitcoin companies and make it impossible for many to even get ever profitable
- core defines to some part "legit" and "spammy" transactions thus overstretching their competence
- the defenders of core's decision act "strange" (ddos, censorship)
Do you really need a conspiracious takeover to understand why businesses support classic en mass?
Quote from: Lauda
Luke is just 1 developer and his viewpoint should not matter that much (only equally as every other contributors).
He is one of the Top-10-contributors and seems more in line with so called "developer-consensus" than andresen and garzik.
Quote
Peter Todd did it in order to prove something; if anyone else did it also for the same reason he would not be attacked.
When did companies become laboratory-mices for developers to publicly proove a thesis?
At least it was bad style from Todd, especially so short after coinbase said they support lightning and bitcoin.org relistet them. And if I remember correctly, on top of this Todd released a python-script how to doublespend coinbase.
Todd is another one of the most important people to deal with. Imagine you are a CEO.
But yes, as a good ceo, you should be able to ignore bad behaviour of an associate of your partners.
Quote
A good amount of transactions today are spam.
Define spam.
Is Gambling spam?
Daily-payouts of cloudminers?
Every kind of blockchain-graffiti?
everything < 1$?
<5$
Who decides what spam is and what usecases to restrict? If you decide now that some kind of transaction are considered as spam and thus prohibited, you act like a regulator. Every node and miner can decide to prohibit spam - and should be allowed to chose his own definition of spam - but we don't need a central regime where a bunch of people decide which transactions are not worth to get in the chain.
Quote
I acknowledge the other points aside from DDOS & Censorship. At the time of the "XT DDOS" a lot of nodes were under attack, it is just Core's policy not to publicly "panic" each time this happens.
Really? That's something I never heard.
Nice to hear you acknowledge the other points.
Quote
The alleged Censorship is debatable as far as reddit is concerned (I can not discuss this as I'm not active there), however no censorship was present on BTCT.
I remember posts not deleted but moved in altcoin-section. Hiding something in a niche is also some kind of censorship.
But after all censorship itself is not a problem for companies. They are interested in profit, not in politics or ethics. As long as it doesn't destabilize the economic environment or damages the ones reputation, companies have no problem with censorshop.
So I think this point is from minor relevance - just some marketing pressure.
January 16, 2016, 09:11:47 AM
So a legit proposal equals to him trolling them? Makes sense.
changing POW is a legit proposal? How? Why?
He submits a PR with a vague title like "Fix mining centralisation"
then lands the bombshell of HOW he wants to do it?
thats a pretty low rent effort.
How does one miss this? This is the kind of infantile horse shit Core is becoming known for. Put that zealot on a leash!
January 16, 2016, 08:58:45 AM
So when he sided with Core on Core vs XT, he ended up on the loosing side? Makes sense.
Nope. I've been on the same side all along. Only you just can't see that.
January 16, 2016, 07:42:16 AM
ROFL. That is so fucking classic!
ToominCoin FTW
Is that poutrage? From icebreaker?? ToominCoin FTW
Y U always pick loosing side??
Whether he is trolling or not a Github pull request is the appropriate place to submit finished code ... not consider.it or slack.
He could have at least waited for all the NACk's to come in, but this does set an interesting example how consensus is formed in Classic.
I am not going to whine about censorship , because the Classic maintainers have every right to close that pull request, but lets not lie to ourselves and suggest that Classic is any more democratic than Core .
Since they are trying to fork the whole system it is a legit move to bring back decentralization. Classic is not any more democratic than Core which is what we've witnessed with the pull request being closed even before it was discussed. They just want people to believe that it is.He could have at least waited for all the NACk's to come in, but this does set an interesting example how consensus is formed in Classic.
I am not going to whine about censorship , because the Classic maintainers have every right to close that pull request, but lets not lie to ourselves and suggest that Classic is any more democratic than Core .
On the other side you and Lauda seem to fail to understand the other side - the big blockers - and so you built a conspiracy theory about some takeover through "leaders" and "companies" manipulating the markets. The truth may be more simple:
-snip-
There's no conspiracy theory. All I'm saying is that they are trying to take over the "power" from Core and this is exactly what is going to happen if Classic does take off. SegWit is much better than a 2 MB block size increase; it will result in a equal amount (increase wise) in addition to carrying some other (very) important benefits along with it. If their intentions are pure, why would they want to fork at a lower consensus threshold (60-70%)? If their intentions were pure they would not even consider anything under 90+% knowing that this would harm the system. -snip-
More reasons for the economy to loose faith in core:
- luke-jr prefers to lower the blocklimit
- peter todd doublespending coinbase
- core denies to some part that there even is a problem with reaching capacity limit ("it's just spam" / "so fees have to raise"), while such an event will significantly limit the growth of nearly all bitcoin companies and make it impossible for many to even get ever profitable
- the defenders of core's decision act "strange" (ddos, censorship)
Luke is just 1 developer and his viewpoint should not matter that much (only equally as every other contributors). Peter Todd did it in order to prove something; if anyone else did it also for the same reason he would not be attacked. A good amount of transactions today are spam. I acknowledge the other points aside from DDOS & Censorship. At the time of the "XT DDOS" a lot of nodes were under attack, it is just Core's policy not to publicly "panic" each time this happens. The alleged Censorship is debatable as far as reddit is concerned (I can not discuss this as I'm not active there), however no censorship was present on BTCT. - luke-jr prefers to lower the blocklimit
- peter todd doublespending coinbase
- core denies to some part that there even is a problem with reaching capacity limit ("it's just spam" / "so fees have to raise"), while such an event will significantly limit the growth of nearly all bitcoin companies and make it impossible for many to even get ever profitable
- the defenders of core's decision act "strange" (ddos, censorship)
Update:
Corrections to post (more are probably needed).
Update 2:
I was not talking about you.
Jump to: