Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 56. (Read 46564 times)

I am a 1MB block supporter who feels 1MB is enough for many years to come. We have a network run on Raspberry Pi's and old laptops from the 90s, We need a stronger network and a stronger world wide web and a stronger Tor network; we need better mempool protocols to allow for rebroadcasting transactions with higher transaction fees and many other features like client side minimum fee requirement prediction but what we do not need is a larger block size. Bitcoin was never meant to be a free system, higher transaction fees are the only way to secure the network from government manipulation and control.

Hardforking now is impossible, consensus is everything and it will not be won by force, A hard fork now would mean fracturing the network into two distinct camps the 1MB faction and the others, it would be war.  A war the 1MB camp will win.
There can only be one Bitcoin and one Bitcoin network and the new fork would be seen as nothing more then an alt coin bootstrapping itself with the Bitcoin Blockchain. When in doubt people will side with the 1MB faction and people know it, this is the only thing preventing a hardfork now.

Higher transaction fees mean more incentive for mining pools to process transactions and reinvest profits in the cutting edge hardware needed to stay ahead of the mining difficulty wave.  The total cost of all transaction fees is more or less = to the amount of money spent on mining hardware, as that price falls so dose the price needed to manipulate the network. If miners are not constantly reinvesting profits to buy new hardware then governments will gain control simply by waiting for our mining hardware to become antiquated.  We should only raise the block size after transaction fees grow to a point where they become prohibitive to the growth of the network that inflection point will be around 1 to 5 USD per transaction. Again Bitcoin was never meant to be free. Freedom is not free and nether is Bitcoin.  

When transactions hit the 1MB limit nothing will happen other then through natural selection, the higher transaction fees will start culling out the useless tiny transactions (spam) of the network.

I understand SegWit pretty well and I have two issues with SegWit:

First there is already complain Bitcoin is not easy enought for average person, now add two types of transactions, normal and SegWit ones and different security under different clients (full core, little core, SVP clients) for both types of transactions and average person will not get it at all and will be not able to understand the small risks associated with SegWit transactions. Not to mention some hardcore small blockers (including services) might choose not accepting SegWit transactions at all and it can become mess for average users.
 
Second it makes technical analysis of future scalling much harder because with SegWit total block sizes can be from 1 MB to about 2-3 MB all based how much SegWit transactions actually become used by Bitcoin users. Now when you consider scale Bitcoin peer-to-peer transactions more with increasing the base 1 MB to more like 2 MB, all of sudden you get possible total block sizes from 2MB to about 6 MB again based how much SegWit transactions become used. Now it might come to technical conclusion over 4 MB are not recommended safe with the technology at that time and althought maximum block sizes fit 1.5 MB all the time (with SegWit signatures) and more scaling is necessary for more peer-to-peer transactions, it might be risky because potential attack of generating about 6 MB blocks can be used as a argument for not scaling Bitcoin at that time at all, even though simple scaling to 3 MB or 4MB without using SegWit would be acceptable.

Transaction mallebeality can be solved in more elegant way than SegWit with much simpler scalling to just 2MB in the same long planed hardfork and no complicated SegWit is necessary (I guess SegWit is applauded by supporteers only because it can be done in soft fork).

Fitting a message about big blocks is placed near the part of the anatomy that produces shit.

Tits or GTFO

It seems to me that most people want bigger blocks, but they do not agree in size. As for me, I do not understand much about the tech stuff and I am happy with just Bitcoin going on and keep working lol.

Not bad to do a list however.

Long live La Serenissima.

@siameze join us sometimes on #bitcoin-assets

Now you're saying the mods are too tolerant?  After months of whining about HitlerThermos's Sensor Ships?  Make up your mind FFS.

Yes, the small block militia stopped Gavin and Mike's attempted governance coup.  I understand you are very butthurt about that.   

You failed to understand Bitcoin's necessarily inherently reactionary nature, as well as the mechanisms by which it confers all possible advantages to defenders of its status quo.  So now you wallow in self-pity, and blame the venue (boo-hoo mods boo-hoo I thought this was America boo-hoo) rather than look inward for explanations why the Gavinista putsch failed.

You were warned in advance this outcome was inevitable.  And yet you still insist Bitcoin is a democracy and its engineering should be decided via Reddit populism.

I conclude you are hopeless.  Your manufactured dissent has no power here.  We don't need or even want your support.   Please find a new hobby, or accept your role as a jester in the Court of La Serenissima.   

Do some research noob, or go back to the echo chamber (reddit) before calling people liars. I certainly have done my homework on the subject. How do we know for sure it isn't a reckless path? Your appeals to authority don't do your argument any justice.

Yes, I believe the correct word is not culminate but rather aufheben, or sublate to those of us who don't speak Nazi.

Every moderator? No. While quite a lot have not expressed their views strongly like I have, there are others that have. E.g. Hostfat, he is in a strong disagreement with theymos on the matter (I think he even supports XT, I'm not sure).

This is what I was referencing (such blocks might occur):


When I see a good alternative that isn't biased by various suspicious people, then I might consider it. I would be okay with a decent alternative implementation, but you do have to admit that more implementations make the ecosystem more complex. This isn't good if one wants to keep Bitcoin simpler while introducing it to more people (e.g.Telling someone that they have to choose between X, Y, Z implementations).

Profound homespun wisdom. You must be from Cincinnati as well. 

Spreading lies doesn't help the discussion. For most members of the community it is NOT established.

If people like you would explain honestly and patiently why big blocks are bad, and if you would discuss this reason, instead of insulting people, claiming a non-existent consens, bullying alternatives and praising authority, you MAYBE would persuade some people to believe how "reckless" larger blocks are. But with just throwing a false statement into discussion you just ridicule your side.

Currentyl there are several well known developers (e. G. Gavin, Mike Hearn, Andreas Schildbach, Jeff Garzik) that believe that large blocks are possible. With them there are some akteurs of the economy (blockchain, bitpay, coinbase, btcchina, bitstamp, xapo) as well as the majority of the miners and a good bunch of members of bitcointalk that I remember as being most sophisticated early in 2013.

So no, it is not established that larger blocks do harm at this time. Please - stop spreading lies.

Apologies accepted.

If you say moderators are independent, I believe you. But it's hard to believe that every moderator in this forum came freely to the conclusion that there should be no alternative client who violates consensus and that the blocks should not be raised now. It sounds more like the unity of a party than of free men. Or did I miss something?

Tell me more about the 8MB blocks. What could they do? I follow this debate for long, more on reddit then here, but - I never heard really confessing reasons for not raising the limit. Bandwith? Space? CPU? Node-Centralization? Mega-Transactions? None of this problem seemed like a problem large enough to stall development of bitcoin and / or scaling it completely in a way that's not the original bitcoin (lightning).

The other thing I deeple disargue with you is, as other people said: You and your team seem not to be willing to allow a free market of alternative clients and you hinder the community to collect informations to express their opinion with the choice of the client. This is a major democratic element in open source and in bitcoin, it's the major mechanism to protect bitcoin for an destructive takeover by developers (I explicitly don't mint this on Core!). If you deny and surpress this possibility, - what you say you do - you are no longer in a consensus of democracy. And bitcoin needs its own kind of democracy to survice.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. So by consensus you mean majority. Regardless of what they do and where they are in the system. I see they've even got Charlie Lee to sign it. Kind of begs the question: majority of what?

To be clear, I'm not even saying that there isn't consensus among key people in the community, just that there are enough key people in dissent for there to be room for differing viewpoints. And when you get to the general community level there really is no good reason to force consensus. And as you must have seen, it doesn't even work. And this insane hunt for shills in this forum is seriously unhealthy. I don't believe hdbuck, iCEBREAKER or even brg444 are shills. And even if they were, so what? Judge them on what they write(as I have done many many times, admittedly with a little colour added). If words can wreck this party then there really isn't any point in trying anyway.

Ah, the gif that made core devs feel "unsafe"?

source: here

Thanks for this list, dunno how I didn't find it sooner. Most of the obvious shills you listed are consistent with what I have seen in other threads.

I too agree with this. It has already been established that larger blocks at this time are reckless.

Perhaps after realising the futility of trying to prevent it.  The intent was clearly to the contrary.  It certainly wasn't in the spirit of collaborating.



You're not open to allowing people to choose what software they run?  Consider carefully what it is you're actually saying here.  Personally, given the choice, I'd prefer to have the option of a potential "takeover", although I'd argue that's still a word loaded with bias.  The alternative would be a closed-source coin where only a single group of developers (or possibly even a single individual) can decide the rules as they please.  I wouldn't be here if that were the case.  Would you?

What is your opinion on the idea that Bitcoin is ultimately governed by the code people freely choose to run?  



If this is the case, is there any way to hold back the invisible hand of the market?