Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 40.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: hdbuck on January 13, 2016, 05:30:47 PM

Quote from: BitUsher on January 13, 2016, 05:27:15 PM

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on January 13, 2016, 04:46:04 PM

Where did you read that segwit is to be included? That would be very unlikely.

That is where the votes are - https://bitcoinclassic.consider.it/ and 2 of 3 devs are in favor of a hardfork segwit on bitcoin classic.. so it will likely be included. If it isn't included we should definitely avoid Bitcoin classic as SegWit does some amazing things beyond 1.75 capacity.

OMG, you actually think the whole bitcoin network rely on ~50 whatnots bubble voting on the inernet.. +2 or 3 devs! Cheesy

A dozen nobodies and a couple corporatist puppets. YUP! Sounds like consensus to me!

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: BitUsher on January 13, 2016, 05:27:15 PM

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on January 13, 2016, 04:46:04 PM

Where did you read that segwit is to be included? That would be very unlikely.

That is where the votes are - https://bitcoinclassic.consider.it/ and 2 of 3 devs are in favor of a hardfork segwit on bitcoin classic.. so it will likely be included. If it isn't included we should definitely avoid Bitcoin classic as SegWit does some amazing things beyond 1.75 capacity.

OMG, you actually think the whole bitcoin network rely on ~50 bubble voting whatnots on the internet.. +2 or 3 devs! Cheesy

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Zarathustra on January 13, 2016, 05:08:53 PM

Quote from: brg444 on January 13, 2016, 04:57:10 PM

Quote from: sgbett on January 13, 2016, 01:50:02 PM

We can't both be quite happy with how things are changing, because one of us keeps frantically trying to protect the status quo

We'd just all be happy if you could leave Bitcoin alone and take care of your altcoins.

Everytime one of you forkers open his mouth with yet another flavored governance coup the market drops.

I mean, I'm expecting moon this year and you damn f0rkers are NOT going to ruin this Angry

Moon without scaling. Is there an even dumber desire anywhere out there? That a majority has the desire to fork you totalitarian Pseudobitcoiners with your Blockstream Altcoin out of the game should not be a surprise.

Don't get it twisted the totalitarians are the forkers attempting to subvert Bitcoin with the tyranny of the majority.

I know it's the oldest trick in the book to point fingers and say the other one did it but you're not 5 years old, are you?

BitUsher

legendary

Activity: 994

Merit: 1035

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on January 13, 2016, 04:46:04 PM

Where did you read that segwit is to be included? That would be very unlikely.

That is where the votes are - https://bitcoinclassic.consider.it/ and 2 of 3 devs are in favor of a hardfork segwit on bitcoin classic.. so it will likely be included. If it isn't included we should definitely avoid Bitcoin classic as SegWit does some amazing things beyond 1.75 capacity.

Quote from: ATguy on January 13, 2016, 04:48:49 PM

...you should wait for more people/players to vote to get better idea of result.... but let see later...

Well that was my originally position. To withhold judgment until an actual proposal is made and code released. You than suggested it was clear which isn't the case as the Bitcoin classic group is still formulating a proposal. It is quite scary we have people Ack'ing a "non-proposal" as well... why aren't people being reasonable and waiting to see what is being proposed before agreeing to it? Additionally, why are people attacking "it" when there is nothing to attack except personalities. People should judge the proposal or BIP on its technical merits and not on the people who develop it , because after all this is open source and one good idea can be copied by all.

Fatman3001

legendary

Activity: 1554

Merit: 1014

Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC

Quote from: brg444 on January 13, 2016, 04:57:10 PM

Quote from: sgbett on January 13, 2016, 01:50:02 PM

We can't both be quite happy with how things are changing, because one of us keeps frantically trying to protect the status quo

We'd just all be happy if you could leave Bitcoin alone and take care of your altcoins.

Everytime one of you forkers open his mouth with yet another flavored governance coup the market drops.

I mean, I'm expecting moon this year and you damn f0rkers are NOT going to ruin this Angry

You are detached from reality. Leave this to people with their heads soldered on the right way and you and your fascist buddies will, unfortunately, benefit as well.

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: brg444 on January 13, 2016, 04:57:10 PM

Quote from: sgbett on January 13, 2016, 01:50:02 PM

We can't both be quite happy with how things are changing, because one of us keeps frantically trying to protect the status quo

We'd just all be happy if you could leave Bitcoin alone and take care of your altcoins.

Everytime one of you forkers open his mouth with yet another flavored governance coup the market drops.

I mean, I'm expecting moon this year and you damn f0rkers are NOT going to ruin this Angry

Moon without scaling. Is there an even dumber desire anywhere out there? That a majority has the desire to fork you totalitarian Pseudobitcoiners with your Blockstream Altcoin out of the game should not be a surprise.

shinohai

full member

Activity: 267

Merit: 109

Quote from: brg444 on January 13, 2016, 04:57:10 PM

Quote from: sgbett on January 13, 2016, 01:50:02 PM

We can't both be quite happy with how things are changing, because one of us keeps frantically trying to protect the status quo

We'd just all be happy if you could leave Bitcoin alone and take care of your altcoins.

Quite. To put it succinctly: http://therealbitcoin.org/ml/btc-dev/2015-December/000184.html

Quote

any implementation that does not validate the entire blockchain during initial sync, including transaction signatures, may not be considered a Bitcoin client

How hard is that to understand?

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: sgbett on January 13, 2016, 01:50:02 PM

We can't both be quite happy with how things are changing, because one of us keeps frantically trying to protect the status quo

We'd just all be happy if you could leave Bitcoin alone and take care of your altcoins.

Everytime one of you forkers open his mouth with yet another flavored governance coup the market drops.

I mean, I'm expecting moon this year and you damn f0rkers are NOT going to ruin this Angry

ATguy

sr. member

Activity: 423

Merit: 250

Quote from: BitUsher on January 13, 2016, 04:15:52 PM

Quote from: ATguy on January 13, 2016, 03:57:44 PM

I think it is pretty clear:

Quote

We call our code repository Bitcoin Classic. It is a one-feature patch to bitcoin-core that increases the blocksize limit to 2 MB. We will have ports for master, 0.11.2, and -86, so that miners and businesses can upgrade to 2 MB blocks from any recent bitcoin software version they run.

In the future we will continue to release updates that are in line with Satoshi’s whitepaper & vision, and are agreed upon by the community.

The BitPay adaptive blocks are under investigation. If it proves to be best option in future, 2 MB will be replaced with adaptive blocks, otherwise 2-4-8 MB deployed when blocks become almost full. Pretty reasonable, not like the unrealistic Bitcoin Core so called "scalling plan"

Sounds to me like you are suggesting BIP102 hard fork now and than perhaps future hardforks?

As you can see here they appear to be voting democratically on the technical specifications at the moment -
https://bitcoinclassic.consider.it/

With this pull request being merged -

https://bitcoinclassic.consider.it/merge-3-v0112-2mb-4mb?results=true

Mainnet parameters are:
2 MB cap
... doubling every two years
... for two years
... earliest possible chain fork: 1 Mar 2016
... after miner supermajority (750/1000 blocks)
... and 4 week grace period once supermajority achieved

This appears to contradict your claim, that it is simply BIP 102, and looks more like a 2- 4 plan but realistically an effective 3.5MB - 7MB plan because it looks as if they are going to copy over segwit as well

About the bitcoinclassic.consider.it voting, you should wait for more people/players to vote to get better idea of result. Also democratic voting is bad word, obviously large exchange/top miners/main code contributors have higher voice than random person. Especially for SegWig, as this is not necessary feature anymore in my opinion, just mostly now supported by random people, but let see later...

Also, hard forks are nothing to fear, happened in the past and saved Bitcoin already. No need to maintain status quo with the necessary consensus (100%) anymore which just helped small block militia and Blockstream agenda which just blocked everything with just minority support required.

sAt0sHiFanClub

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Warning: Confrmed Gavinista

Quote from: BitUsher on January 13, 2016, 04:15:52 PM

This appears to contradict your claim, that it is simply BIP 102, and looks more like a 2- 4 plan but realistically an effective 3.5MB - 7MB plan because it looks as if they are going to copy over segwit as well

Where did you read that segwit is to be included? That would be very unlikely.

You are correct, its a 2-4 plan.

BitUsher

legendary

Activity: 994

Merit: 1035

Quote from: ATguy on January 13, 2016, 03:57:44 PM

I think it is pretty clear:

Quote

We call our code repository Bitcoin Classic. It is a one-feature patch to bitcoin-core that increases the blocksize limit to 2 MB. We will have ports for master, 0.11.2, and -86, so that miners and businesses can upgrade to 2 MB blocks from any recent bitcoin software version they run.

In the future we will continue to release updates that are in line with Satoshi’s whitepaper & vision, and are agreed upon by the community.

The BitPay adaptive blocks are under investigation. If it proves to be best option in future, 2 MB will be replaced with adaptive blocks, otherwise 2-4-8 MB deployed when blocks become almost full. Pretty reasonable, not like the unrealistic Bitcoin Core so called "scalling plan"

Sounds to me like you are suggesting BIP102 hard fork now and than perhaps future hardforks?

As you can see here they appear to be voting democratically on the technical specifications at the moment -
https://bitcoinclassic.consider.it/

With this pull request being merged -

https://bitcoinclassic.consider.it/merge-3-v0112-2mb-4mb?results=true

Mainnet parameters are:
2 MB cap
... doubling every two years
... for two years
... earliest possible chain fork: 1 Mar 2016
... after miner supermajority (750/1000 blocks)
... and 4 week grace period once supermajority achieved

This appears to contradict your claim, that it is simply BIP 102, and looks more like a 2- 4 plan but realistically an effective 3.5MB - 7MB plan because it looks as if they are going to copy over segwit as well

ATguy

sr. member

Activity: 423

Merit: 250

Quote from: siameze on January 13, 2016, 07:31:47 AM

Quote from: theymos on January 12, 2016, 08:47:22 PM

I hope that they get 75% miner support right away so that I can watch their miners saying, "Oh shit, we just mined a ton of worthless altcoins!".

I can't wait either. As iCEBREAKER pointed out a few posts back this is mearly a wedge attempt, but at least this time with "Bitcoin Classic" they don't mince words and admit they want to fork Bitcoin.

Let 'em I say. I'll just grab some popcorn and watch it play out like all reddit-fueled drama does: "Yay, we did it!" euphoria followed by "Oh shit!" when holders of the Bitcoin Classic altcoin realize they were socially engineered.

With majority of Bitcoin economy showing support for Bitcoin Classic as the new client for Bitcoin protocol (check soon for this new Bitcoin client), it is pretty desilusional anyone running/mining with Bitcoin core client will be using Bitcoin anymore. Basically the hardcore small blockers (maybe Blockstream supporters as well) will represents forked version with no relevance to Bitcoin anymore.

Quote from: BitUsher on January 13, 2016, 09:07:49 AM

There still isn't clarity if this is a 2MB kick the can proposal, and 2MB immediate, and 4MB later proposal , or and 2MB immediate and doubling every 2 years BIP 101 style proposal. (We are also unaware of the specifics to the hardfork transition) Since the normal BIP process isn't being followed and no whitepaper exists, I cannot give my opinion on Bitcoin Classic. I would suggest that I do find it backwards and disheartening that so many are ACk'ing a proposal that isn't even clarified formally in either a whitepaper, BIP, or code which should all come before people judge it, IMHO.

I think it is pretty clear:

Quote

We call our code repository Bitcoin Classic. It is a one-feature patch to bitcoin-core that increases the blocksize limit to 2 MB. We will have ports for master, 0.11.2, and -86, so that miners and businesses can upgrade to 2 MB blocks from any recent bitcoin software version they run.

In the future we will continue to release updates that are in line with Satoshi’s whitepaper & vision, and are agreed upon by the community.

The BitPay adaptive blocks are under investigation. If it proves to be best option, 2 MB will be replaced with adaptive blocks in future, otherwise 2-4-8 MB deployed when blocks become almost full. Pretty reasonable and in line with Satoshi’s whitepaper & vision, not like the unrealistic Bitcoin Core so called "scalling plan"

sgbett

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1087

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on January 13, 2016, 08:15:30 AM

Quote from: sgbett on January 13, 2016, 08:00:17 AM

"Furioser and furioser!" said Alice.

Fear does funny things to people.

Wasn't your precious XT fork supposed to happen today?

Or was that yesterday?

Either way, for all the sturm und drang last year the deadline turned out to be a titanic non-event.

Exactly as the small block militia told you it would be.

The block size is still 1MB, and those in favor of changing cannot agree when to raise it, nor by how much, nor by what formula future increases should be governed.

You are still soaking in glorious gridlock despite all the sound and fury, and I am loving every second of your agitation.

We can't both be quite happy with how things are changing, because one of us keeps frantically trying to protect the status quo

Fatman3001

legendary

Activity: 1554

Merit: 1014

Make Bitcoin glow with ENIAC

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on January 13, 2016, 09:44:56 AM

Quote from: BitUsher on January 13, 2016, 09:07:49 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 12, 2016, 09:38:26 PM

Bitcoin classic = 2mb?

Um OK, let's do it.

There still isn't clarity if this is a 2MB kick the can proposal, and 2MB immediate, and 4MB later proposal , or and 2MB immediate and doubling every 2 years BIP 101 style proposal. (We are also unaware of the specifics to the hardfork transition) Since the normal BIP process isn't being followed and no whitepaper exists I cannot give my opinion on Bitcoin Classic. I would suggest that I do find it backwards and disheartening that so many are ACk'ing a proposal that isn't even clarified formally in either a whitepaper, BIP, or code which should all come before people judge it, IMHO.

Voting for this at this moment appears to be more of a political anti-vote against core than any technical vote upon the merits of the proposal.

Here, I'll clarify.

2MB immediate + 4MB later then stop = Bitcoin Pro

Bitcoin Pro + double block limit every 2 years forever = Bitcoin Platinum

Platinum + 90% trigger = Bitcoin Tournament Edition

BTE - RBF + SegWit - CLTV = Bitcoin Coin of the Year Collectors Pack

BCotYCP - checkpoints + TOR blacklists = Bitcoin XT Klassic Limited Edition

BXTKLE + unlimited blocks right now + 42 million coin total emission - halvings = Gavinista Peoples' Front Bitcoin Christmas Bonus Special Offer of the Month Club

Is that clear now?

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on January 13, 2016, 09:44:56 AM

Quote from: BitUsher on January 13, 2016, 09:07:49 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 12, 2016, 09:38:26 PM

Bitcoin classic = 2mb?

Um OK, let's do it.

There still isn't clarity if this is a 2MB kick the can proposal, and 2MB immediate, and 4MB later proposal , or and 2MB immediate and doubling every 2 years BIP 101 style proposal. (We are also unaware of the specifics to the hardfork transition) Since the normal BIP process isn't being followed and no whitepaper exists I cannot give my opinion on Bitcoin Classic. I would suggest that I do find it backwards and disheartening that so many are ACk'ing a proposal that isn't even clarified formally in either a whitepaper, BIP, or code which should all come before people judge it, IMHO.

Voting for this at this moment appears to be more of a political anti-vote against core than any technical vote upon the merits of the proposal.

Here, I'll clarify.

2MB immediate + 4MB later then stop = Bitcoin Pro

Bitcoin Pro + double block limit every 2 years forever = Bitcoin Platinum

Platinum + 90% trigger = Bitcoin Tournament Edition

BTE - RBF + SegWit - CLTV = Bitcoin Coin of the Year Collectors Pack

BCotYCP - checkpoints + TOR blacklists = Bitcoin XT Klassic Limited Edition

BXTKLE + unlimited blocks right now + 42 million coin total emission - halvings = Gavinista Peoples' Front Bitcoin Christmas Bonus Special Offer of the Month Club

Is that clear now?

GPFBCBSOotMC FTW!

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Zarathustra on January 13, 2016, 10:50:03 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on January 13, 2016, 08:34:36 AM

Quote from: Zarathustra on January 13, 2016, 08:21:11 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on January 13, 2016, 08:15:30 AM

Quote from: sgbett on January 13, 2016, 08:00:17 AM

"Furioser and furioser!" said Alice.

Fear does funny things to people.

Wasn't your precious XT fork supposed to happen today?

Or was that yesterday?

Either way, for all the sturm und drang last year the deadline turned out to be a titanic non-event.

Exactly as the small block militia told you it would be.

The militant small block comedians already decided to raise the limit before the halving date, to 4 MB (to get 1.5 MB).

Aww, so gullible.

It's their roadmap, signed by the members of the Politbüro.

ftfy.

Besides you know there is actually more people outside the internet?

If bitcoin was to be highjacked by couple thousand redditards and governed by ~50 bloggers, it would not be bitcoin.

Zarathustra

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1004

Quote from: hdbuck on January 13, 2016, 08:34:36 AM

Quote from: Zarathustra on January 13, 2016, 08:21:11 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on January 13, 2016, 08:15:30 AM

Quote from: sgbett on January 13, 2016, 08:00:17 AM

"Furioser and furioser!" said Alice.

Fear does funny things to people.

Wasn't your precious XT fork supposed to happen today?

Or was that yesterday?

Either way, for all the sturm und drang last year the deadline turned out to be a titanic non-event.

Exactly as the small block militia told you it would be.

The militant small block comedians already decided to raise the limit before the halving date, to 4 MB (to get 1.5 MB).

Aww, so gullible.

It's the roadmap, signed by the members of the Politbüro.

BitUsher

legendary

Activity: 994

Merit: 1035

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 13, 2016, 10:06:09 AM

don't know, but any raising of the limit is good. The worst thing we can do IMO is just keep the limit at 1MB while transaction volume keeps growing.

I believe the consensus around core is to increase capacity to ~1.75 MB with SegWit. So the context of analyzing this proposal should be in comparing 1.75 vs 2 or 3.5 bitcoin classic +segwit... but realistically we don't have much to discuss as nothing has been formally proposed... and we are all just speculating.

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 13, 2016, 10:06:09 AM

Quote from: BitUsher on January 13, 2016, 09:07:49 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 12, 2016, 09:38:26 PM

Bitcoin classic = 2mb?

Um OK, let's do it.

There still isn't clarity if this is a 2MB kick the can proposal, and 2MB immediate, and 4MB later proposal , or and 2MB immediate and doubling every 2 years BIP 101 style proposal. (We are also unaware of the specifics to the hardfork transition) Since the normal BIP process isn't being followed and no whitepaper exists, I cannot give my opinion on Bitcoin Classic. I would suggest that I do find it backwards and disheartening that so many are ACk'ing a proposal that isn't even clarified formally in either a whitepaper, BIP, or code which should all come before people judge it, IMHO.

Voting for this at this moment appears to be more of a political anti-vote against core than any technical vote upon the merits of the proposal.

don't know, but any raising of the limit is good. The worst thing we can do IMO is just keep the limit at 1MB while transaction volume keeps growing.

I understand it is hard for you brainwashed internet kids to wrap your buttheads around, still, Bitcoin is/would not be "broken" in any way.

You've just been lied to by the gavintonopoulos from the beginning Cry

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: BitUsher on January 13, 2016, 09:07:49 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 12, 2016, 09:38:26 PM

Bitcoin classic = 2mb?

Um OK, let's do it.

There still isn't clarity if this is a 2MB kick the can proposal, and 2MB immediate, and 4MB later proposal , or and 2MB immediate and doubling every 2 years BIP 101 style proposal. (We are also unaware of the specifics to the hardfork transition) Since the normal BIP process isn't being followed and no whitepaper exists, I cannot give my opinion on Bitcoin Classic. I would suggest that I do find it backwards and disheartening that so many are ACk'ing a proposal that isn't even clarified formally in either a whitepaper, BIP, or code which should all come before people judge it, IMHO.

Voting for this at this moment appears to be more of a political anti-vote against core than any technical vote upon the merits of the proposal.

don't know, but any raising of the limit is good. The worst thing we can do IMO is just keep the limit at 1MB while transaction volume keeps growing.

Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 40. (Read 46564 times)