Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 58. (Read 46564 times)

Yes. It's like the government of the swiss says, "dear people of swiss, our constitution actually demands a referendum for us to do this properly. But since we don't trust your decision, we decided the best-solution is to tricky-track around the problem, so that we can do it without a referendum. That's brilliant. It ensures the system's stability."

The same is with RBF, no matter if opt-in or full. If it goes through, it forces every node to confirm the existance of rbf.

I'm really curious how many people will upgrade the next core version. It could happen we'll find bitcoin soon in some state of ungovernability, like belgium, where even the leading party (=core) is unable to push needed things forward.

While I'm for the decentralization of development, I'm not sure if such a state is better than what we have now.

U R French

How is being against XT, BU, blocksize increase, segwit and any soft/hard/flabby ph0rks in general, blockstream related? Fuck them too if they can't innovate without crippeling Bitcoin's PROTOCOL.

I'm against you fuckwit reddit wannabes, authority cravers and critically inapt herd forking the shit out of the Holy Ledger to please your VC master over at cali and their cash burning useless parasitic corporations to denature the only monetary system thats left sane in this sand castle that has become the financial world.

Please proceed with your inabilities and get a RFID chip on your butt already.

i recommend you listen to andreas's podcast again


so goodluck old clients. your just going to relay transactions that are uncheckable and meaningless and you cant do anything about it.. making you redundant and a limp node

its funny that miners raised the transaction fee to 0.0005(22cent) and then tell people the only way to get cheap tx fee's again is to upgrade!
oh and a 75% discount in fee's is still 0.000125(5.6cent), which is higher than last years 0.0001(4.5cent)

seriously you need to look outside the blockstream box to see the big picture. thats not consensus, thats corruption, blackmail and bribery and leaving those that dont follow your agenda to be left to rot

Problem is... you aren't the only one.  I personally am a bit taken back by the current situation.  Bitcoin has such promise.  If a few reasonable changes were made, it COULD become a global currency, probably THE global currency.  Honestly, it has everything going for it - a huge infrastructure buildout, pretty solid user base, good name recognition, almost 10 years of solid debugging and real world lab experience, and yet..... why the heck am I getting this impending sense of doom lately?

I am totally serious.  I am totally shocked that this little Blockstream Player / Core-Dev group is so blind to what they are squandering, and at how strongly rebellion is brewing.  Right now it would not take much for everyone to start running for the exits, or towards another solution. And we KNOW that other solutions are being worked on.

Honestly I am pissed off and disgusted, and I am honestly starting to keep my eyes on the exit door at all times.  And it is sad, totally sad that this is happening.

We should have LN working by 2017, and if blocks are full, we will see if raising it is a good idea or not. A massive risk just to save a tiny amount in transaction fees doesn't seem like it's something worth doing to me to be honest. I was anti small blocks back then but now I totally see the point of the dangers of centralized nodes.

Yeah, it's really funny where all this did go.

I'm watching this "Small block militia" for some month and this is their master-piece.

Funnily I never found them really discussing reasons about the problems with an increase of the blocklimits (I know that those problems exist, but I'd like to discuss them). Sometimes they answer questions, but if you discuss it, they leave. Usually their habbit is not to discuss, but to start personal attacks, insults, doxxings, character assasination. Their mindset seems to be best characterized by a slavish submissive to authority and hate for everyone whose worldview expands their very narrow perspective on bitcoin and everything else.

I wonder what they do here, since I thought bitcoin is about a free currency for free people.

Also I really wonder why the moderators tolerate that this gang of hooligans continuosly violates all rules of online-discussion. I don't know any forum where something like this would be tolerated more than two days.

I heard Theymos and the other moderators here are strictly with core and team small blocks. If so, they should be worried that this childish-faszist behavior of their supporters does much harm to the core devs and blockstream. Usually people are judged with by the behavior of their friends.

I personally am slightly for bigger blocks but am aware that there might be serious risks with hardforking to bigger blocks. But the "style" of the small block militia drives me away from supporting core, blockstream and small blocks.

That is true. But to claim consensus when the lines haven't moved is a bit weird and, in my view, quite problematic. A more honest approach would be to admit/accept that consensus could not be reached but that this particular group has decided to move forward with an agreed upon set of solutions.

At the very least accept that this consensus is not morally binding/normative for others in the community and cannot be used to brand people as saboteurs and bad actors.

The funny thing is, if only they didn't try to pass it off as "consensus" in this way, this is exactly the kind of decisive leadership Gavin's been shouting about for a year now. Which is good, I guess.


Sure, but you can do hookers and blow with money you should have used for taxes and claim it's because you have integrity.

Disclaimer: Posted on a shitty android phone. Typos and weird shit may occur.

Mostly it's just amusing that people around here like to think of themselves as crypto-anarchists, but only until someone disagrees.  Then they swiftly turn into crypto-fascists and start whining about "contentious issues" that shouldn't be discussed and attempting to justify stifling debate about it and calling people "shills".  You're about as anarchistic as the average teenager, but with slightly less of a spine.  

a few have been lobbying for and fanboying blockstream for months. but when actually asking them to explain in detail why people are wrong
they replies are "look at the picture of the features"(doesnt explain crap about reality)
they replies are "your a shill"
they replies are "your wrong and dont understand"

yet they do not put any hearty evidence, proof, numbers, examples of features, use case scenario's or hard details..

to them this is there general mindset..


i really hope they wake up one day and put numbers to paper, puts some features into real life scenario's and actually thinks outside of the box.. rather than just running with a plan that puts money in their pocket or keeps them friendly with the rich and powerful

i personally am not a XT fanboy or a blockstream fanboy. i just look rationally and throw things into scenarios and see all the possible implications of each path.
which plans can be backward compatible and which veer bitcoin down a one way street with no chance of a turnaround should something go wrong.

Good luck with your fairy tale. People call out on SegWit for its "complexity" but they have no problems with several implementations and different groups of developers (it certainly makes it "easier" for a person new to Bitcoin). Anyone who understands features like SegWit endorses them, the others (most, not all) are ignorant and quickly jump to conclusions. You sound a bit like Peter R to me.

Happens pretty much everywhere these days.

There will never be 100% consensus, especially not when bad actors are around. Get used to coming close to 100% (that's enough in the current system).

---

---

I feel like there is correlation with you not being able to understand SegWit properly. I recommend listening to the latest Bitcoin podcast, Andreas is talking about it.

It just shows how disconnected with reality the OP'er has become. This is a side effect of living under a censoring regime. When you only get to see one side of an argument, you start to believe that it is the only narrative.

seems some people are grabbing idea's from politics

its democracy because we dictate the plan, if you don't like it we will deem you saboteurs and terrorists. the community does not lead us, we lead them

Nope, no consensus at all, just majority of Bitcoin core developers which represents only small part in Bitcoin ecosystem. At least Bitcoin core developers are honest and telling clearly they cannot dictate the future of Bitcoin thus encouraging others for developing other full node clients working with (and defining) Bitcoin protocol, so no sabotaging at all, just finding full node client which gets widest popularity among Bitcoiners. There is not realistic other option than Bitcoin core today, but given the unpopular features like RBF, SegWit as scaling option, and full blocks in 2016/2017, Im pretty sure the competetion finally starts soon and we will be not in situation where one group of developers controls the future of the whole Bitcoin ecosystem anymore, especially when they are unwilling to hear substantional (if not majority) view.


About OP discussion, no wonder here is no analysis of top big blocks shills at all, beause they just worship small blocks without rational reasons behind, thus most lacking analytical skills at all.

...?

That's a pretty weird way of looking at it.

There are people who disagrees with the "consensus", which would lead one to believe that there isn't a consensus.

For key members of Core to come out and declare a consensus among the people who mostly agreed anyway, in order to silence the rest, sort of stinks, doesn't it?

At least if it's used the way you used it now.

Sry, I can't follow your numbers there with regards to block propagation. But mining centralization has already largely happened because of the economics of Bitcoin mining. If, however, someone wants to contribute with a basement space heater they can do so through the pool of their choosing with minimal network requirements to themselves.

Your last point is a good one. The chinese have cornered the market in large part due to artificially low electricity costs due to chinas centrally planned economy. If they lose out because they can't keep up with bandwidth and consistently gets stuck in the last 50th percentile when it comes to block propagation, then tough luck! If they can't compete then there is no reason for Bitcoin to keep them around. But there are ways around this problem, and the chinese miners know this, none of them are opposed to larger blocks.

It is pretty obvious that you have no clue to what propagation delay is and why it matters for Bitcoin, else you would not be mentioning Netflix.

I will. There is indeed consensus but there are still people trying to sabotage it.

Watch the first Scaling workshop again.

It is already a pain to verify the blockchain at current block size, it can take hours to catch up if my qt client is 2 weeks behind. You can imagine that in future no one would be able to download and install bitcoin through a normal way since it takes forever to verify those historical blocks

Most of the bitcoin data is generated in the latest 2-3 years, while in the beginning bitcoin core client was a super light application. If you don't put a limit on its growth, keep current trajectory, the grow will simply crash majority of the nodes in a couple of months. I think even a 2MB limit will be reached rather quick when we have another wave of rally at next reward halving, and still use blockchain to handle all types of transactions without prioritizing

Because a 100 btc transaction consumes exactly the same resource as a 0.01 btc transaction, it is a bad idea to put any transaction on the blockchain regardless of their value. It is socialism, not market based approach

I think eventually there will be a fee market, low value transactions will go off chain. But that is a good thing, because you don't always need the 100% trust-less model that is provided by the bitcoin blockchain

At what level do you need 100% trustless

"Centralization of mining due to slow propagation with bigger blocks" is mostly a strawman argument.

Even if the blocksize went up to 8MB with no increases in Internet speed,
you're talking about 8 seconds difference between an 8mbit connection and
a 16mbit connection.  Compare to the 600 seconds required to solve a block
and you get 8/600 = .0133~.    So that's a 1.3% advantage to the faster
miner.  Quite dubious to say that would be a crushing competitive advantage
given that there are other factors involved in mining costs such as electricity,
gear, and operations.