Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 36. (Read 46564 times)

Don't you think then, if that really is the case, that Bitcoin has failed?

While I find some of the things you've put out to be... questionable and sometimes even absurd... this I like! That's a great way to visualize the way we each are compartmentalized in regards to our understanding of Bitcoin, cryptocurrency, the decentralized ledger technology, and decentralization. Many people are ignoring some or many of those "sectors". To me the toughest one to grasp is #1, but I'm getting there. My primary area of research has been #5. I'd suggest we all make use of this chart to notice where our understanding might be weak, helping lead to a more wholistic understanding of what it is we really are dealing with.

Well done, Peter R, "big blockist" or not!

The Coon strikes again!

Glad to hear you think Subchains are interesting!  There are several of us that hope to continue developing them through Unlimited and Classic, in cooperation with some of the bigger miners.


Do you mean what am I writing code for?  I haven't written much Bitcoin-related code since working on Sigsafe [video, paper, dev] last year.  

If instead you mean what am I working on, well one of the things I'm working on is to make "Unlimited" the preferred client for users and "Classic" the preferred client for miners.  I see these two implementations as not only complementary, but symbiotic.  I'm working on getting the first 1.1 MB block mined into the Blockchain and decentralizing development away from Core.  

You do bring up a good point with the semantics behind the word "developer" though.  Due to perhaps some historical accident, there is a lot of emphasis placed on "writing code" in the Bitcoin community and less emphasis on scientific research and engineering development (and even less emphasis on the social sciences).  As Bitcoin matures in industry and academia, I wonder if we'll adopt labels such as "researcher", "engineer," "programmer," "scholar," etc.

One of my goals with Ledger was to build an academic and interdisciplinary communication channel that would allow bright minds in economics, sociology, physics, law and political science to contribute at the highest-level towards the evolution of Bitcoin--something previously dominated by those writing the code.  One of the ideas I'm working on is the "five sectors of cryptocurrency knowledge" shown below:



I like this diagram because "consensus and mining" is right in the middle where (IMO) it belongs.  Bitcoin achieves consensus not for technical reasons alone, but because of the interaction between technology and the people running that technology.

The "Bitcoin System" boundary encloses not only the node software and mining hardware--it encloses each and every one of us too.

It is wrong. You think it is right but you can't really prove this anyhow. I have only quickly looked at the subchains and I can't quickly judge, but they seem rather interesting (I'd need a 3rd party opinion first unless I read it soon). This doesn't answer the question though and is somewhat off-topic; what are you developing? Probably nothing; if this is the case they should move you from the Developers list.

Its a lot more than 5, mate. Most existing core contributors are welcome to join, I dont believe there is any issue in that respect - its a free choice.

As for bitterness - I will leave that to others.

edit: looks like even peterTodd has dropped into Classic for a chat......

Lauda, I understand that you think my fee market work [paper, talk] is wrong; do you think Subchains [paper, animations] are nonsense too?

Most of those merchants will simply follow Coinbase and Bitpay which both are in favor increasing this year with a hardfork. The chinese miners seem the most reasonable as they have such narrow margins and large investments that they want the talent of the 45 Core devs , but with the consensus of the community to come together.

This hardfork discussion has renewed my faith in the fact that increasing the 21 million limit will never happen ever .... If doing something as small as increasing maxBlockSize from 1-2 MB is so contentious , we are safe from Inflation, blacklists, and KYC ever being added to the protocol.

Of course it is a bad idea. What people also seem to forget with such moves is that it is not about the miners.
We can only hope that 'most' means almost everyone (99%) stays on the right chain.

You think its a good idea to alienate 45 developers and replace them with 5? Even if half of those core devs start contributing towards classic eventually that will be a huge loss for our community ... all in the name of what? Bitterness? Hopefully both groups can move beyond this for the sake of everyone,.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIt7GLxxIpY
 

There will be no collaboration between Classic and Core - Core's objectives will never align with Classic. There was plenty of opportunity to reach agreement, but I think we are well past that now. The community will be offered an alternative to Core, with an alternative roadmap for segwit-like functionality, and it will be a free choice to run with it or run with Core.

Thats what bitcoin was always about. If you dont like what one product does, you can fork off to another.  

Over 50% Mining behind Classic now, Its not looking good for Core.

What? Collaborate with the totalitarian idiots?
Game over for Core:

https://twitter.com/valeryvavilov/status/688054411650818048?s=09
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/413w2s/check_out_bitcoinclassics_miners_support_list_now/cyzd9ds

Fair Enough ... He does maintain and code - Bitcoin unlimited... although some would be correct to question his abilities as a developer. Smart of them to remove Marshall Long from their list.

I wasn't expecting Bitfury to jump on board as they have been primarily conservative with blocksizes. One thing to be aware of is not just the total hashing power but the total combined ASIC manufacturing in support of classic now ... Between KnCMiner, Bitmain/antminer, and Bitfury that is most of the ASICs being produced these days. Bitfury alone is believed to have a chip that could increase their hashing percentage from 13% to over 50% if they didn't resell them...

Classic and Core need to start collaborating, and give up a bit for the good of consensus. Perhaps Segwit released softfork in 1-2 months and than a 2-4 hardfork BIP later in 2016 with collaboration between all devs.

 

I was just about to ask the same question. He does nothing and is full of nonsense. They'd put anyone on that list just to show that they have support.

---

---

Hearn is a manipulative person.
Well played R3CEV.

What does Peter Rizun develop exactly?

Perhaps no code is needed because they prefer to reconcile with Core as the differences between both implementations are so small that all they need to accomplish is get enough consensus to bring Core around to the idea of a hardfork in 2016?

Consensus is soon, I just wish there were more details as to what Bitcoin Classic represents as I cannot give my opinion on the matters until there is.

My best guess is that it is a 2 -4 plan with Segwit hardforked???
https://bitcoinclassic.consider.it/merge-3-v0112-2mb-4mb?results=true

Miners supporting Classic

    Bitmain/Antpool - 27%
    BitFury - 13%
    BW.COM - 4%
    HAOBTC.com -
    KnCMiner - 5%
    Genesis Mining

= over 49%

Companies supporting Classic

    Coinbase
    OKCoin
    Bitstamp
    Foldapp
    Bitcoin.com
    Bread Wallet
    Snapcard.io
    Cubits


Developers

    Jonathan Toomim
    Gavin Andresen
    Ahmed Bodiwala
    Jeff Garzik
    Peter Rizun



Hopefully there will be some reconciliation between Core and Classic and the can find consensus together as there is a lot of support and talent within both groups.

You're the one who fails to understand basic concepts. I never said that we should increase blocksize to X in X amount of time, I was making an example. I said that it is possible that the network can safely take a much bigger block size in the future. We would only know this by running tests at said time; only after those tests are successful would we increase the block size. This is not contradictory nor nonsense. Either get a degree in IT or stop posting false information related to what the network can take and what it can not.

That's possible but I'm not into politics nor am I familiar with many terms due to English not being my native language.

They're planning something.

The word 'urgent' is contradictory to a compromise. If something is urgent you can't compromise on something much lesser, else it was not urgent in the first place.

---

---

Something nice from IRC:

Think twice before posting such contradictory out of gavin's ass sorta hypothetical nonsense.

PS: Moore is dead.

So we see it technically nearly identical. I think we most differ politically.

If it is easy to code it what are they waiting for then? This is why it is suspicious for me. I could edit the code to 2 MB myself without knowledge of the required languages.