Quote
The [classitards] roadmap is based on assumptions about economics, group psychology, ethics, and many other things which we have no reason to believe classic developers (if any?? 
)have any special skill in
)have any special skill inFTFY
Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 6. (Read 46564 times)
January 29, 2016, 05:41:27 PM
Where did this quote come from? I see nothing but nonsense.
FTFY
January 29, 2016, 05:37:21 PM
Bitcoin will eventually need some form of L2 meta chain. Your mistake is to believe that LN, as it currently stands, will be that solution. Unless Rusty can address some of the fundamental flaws inherent in its design, it should self-immolate in the near future to allow a fresh approach to be taken.
You can't go around talking about 'fundamental flaws' without listing any of them if you want someone to take you seriously. I've encountered nothing about any flaws yet. May you list them? It's highly likely that they're a result of misinformation but let's see. try this
Quote
The [bitcoin core] roadmap is based on assumptions about economics, group psychology, ethics, and many other things which we have no reason to believe Core developers have any special skill in
From here
January 29, 2016, 05:30:02 PM
Bitcoin will eventually need some form of L2 meta chain. Your mistake is to believe that LN, as it currently stands, will be that solution. Unless Rusty can address some of the fundamental flaws inherent in its design, it should self-immolate in the near future to allow a fresh approach to be taken.
You can't go around talking about 'fundamental flaws' without listing any of them if you want someone to take you seriously. I've encountered nothing about any flaws yet. May you list them? It's highly likely that they're a result of misinformation but let's see. Quote
The [bitcoin core] roadmap is based on assumptions about economics, group psychology, ethics, and many other things which we have no reason to believe Core developers have any special skill in
January 29, 2016, 05:14:46 PM
...
Just ignore the 'Blockstream is evil' shill. I gave up already.
Just ignore the 'Blockstream is evil' shill. I gave up already.
Who am I shilling for? (Unless you're simply trying to be rude, in which case disregard)
Have explicitly stated that
Quote
... not pushing the Toomin bros, just saying that a fox guarding your chickens is a bad idea, not that you should hire a weasel to do the job.
January 29, 2016, 05:13:07 PM
Quote
The [bitcoin core] roadmap is based on assumptions about economics, group psychology, ethics, and many other things which we have no reason to believe Core developers have any special skill in
January 29, 2016, 05:01:01 PM
This toxic community doesn't *want* it. Take your wooden pony & go home.
Then saying that the community is dumb would be a huge understatement. Bitcoin will never be able to scale to a global level without technologies such as LN.Bitcoin will eventually need some form of L2 meta chain. Your mistake is to believe that LN, as it currently stands, will be that solution. Unless Rusty can address some of the fundamental flaws inherent in its design, it should self-immolate in the near future to allow a fresh approach to be taken.
January 29, 2016, 04:59:57 PM
Blockstream is evil
I don't think that's fair. Just because someone sells their soul doesn't necessarily make them evil.
(Does it Fatty?)
January 29, 2016, 04:54:43 PM
Please explain how that particular setup becomes a pressing conflict of interest issue. Who gets money from whom? What is implemented into the Bitcoin code due to this voting solution rather than any other voting solution?
The more popular Consider.it becomes the more valuable it becomes? Centralized voting systems are useless anyhow and vulnerable (as recently demonstrated by a Sybil attack). 
January 29, 2016, 04:39:07 PM
>They have only 1 developer on the payroll working on it IIRC.
Other core devs on their payroll, like Wuille and Maxwell. One's enough tho. Hard to ignore the potential for conflict of interests.
1 developer working on LN. Mentioning Wuille and Maxwell is a straw man argument. Since you've mentioned 'conflict of interest': The Toomin brothers are working hard to make consider.it the main platform (decision wise) for Bitcoin. There's no conflict of interest there obviously. Other core devs on their payroll, like Wuille and Maxwell. One's enough tho. Hard to ignore the potential for conflict of interests.
Please explain how that particular setup becomes a pressing conflict of interest issue. Who gets money from whom? What is implemented into the Bitcoin code due to this voting solution rather than any other voting solution?
January 29, 2016, 04:35:53 PM
A fundamental problem: you gotta trust somebody. One that Bitcoin hasn't quite solved
That ain't enough, clearly. Otherwise we wouldn't be chatting & BTC price wouldn't be where it is
P.S. I'm sorry your trusting nature got you into this predicament, SFYL.
January 29, 2016, 04:30:23 PM
A fundamental problem: you gotta trust somebody. One that Bitcoin hasn't quite solved
January 29, 2016, 04:26:36 PM
This toxic community doesn't *want* it. Take your wooden pony & go home.
Then saying that the community is dumb would be a huge understatement. Bitcoin will never be able to scale to a global level without technologies such as LN.The trick is not to give people what they do not want, just because you think it's for their own good.
Begging gubermint analogy.
>They have only 1 developer on the payroll working on it IIRC.
Other core devs on their payroll, like Wuille and Maxwell. One's enough tho. Hard to ignore the potential for conflict of interests.
1 developer working on LN. Mentioning Wuille and Maxwell is a straw man argument. Since you've mentioned 'conflict of interest': The Toomin brothers are working hard to make consider.it the main platform (decision wise) for Bitcoin. There's no conflict of interest there obviously. Other core devs on their payroll, like Wuille and Maxwell. One's enough tho. Hard to ignore the potential for conflict of interests.
Blockstream is funding SegWit. Blockstream employs top core apparatchiks, who are championing SegWit. Blockstream employs a SegWit dev. What more do you want?
And don't misunderstand me, not pushing the Toomin bros, just saying that a fox guarding your chickens is a bad idea, not that you should hire a weasel to do the job.
A fundamental problem: you gotta trust somebody. One that Bitcoin hasn't quite solved
January 29, 2016, 04:01:14 PM
This toxic community doesn't *want* it. Take your wooden pony & go home.
Then saying that the community is dumb would be a huge understatement. Bitcoin will never be able to scale to a global level without technologies such as LN.>They have only 1 developer on the payroll working on it IIRC.
Other core devs on their payroll, like Wuille and Maxwell. One's enough tho. Hard to ignore the potential for conflict of interests.
1 developer working on LN. Mentioning Wuille and Maxwell is a straw man argument. Since you've mentioned 'conflict of interest': The Toomin brothers are working hard to make consider.it the main platform (decision wise) for Bitcoin. There's no conflict of interest there obviously. Other core devs on their payroll, like Wuille and Maxwell. One's enough tho. Hard to ignore the potential for conflict of interests.
January 29, 2016, 03:54:29 PM
... This toxic community doesn't even deserve that. ...
This toxic community doesn't *want* it. Take your wooden pony & go home.
>They have only 1 developer on the payroll working on it IIRC.
Other core devs on their payroll, like Wuille and Maxwell. One's enough tho. Hard to ignore the potential for conflict of interests.
January 29, 2016, 03:38:39 PM
So you're telling me SegWit is not a solution to scaling, there are "possibly some smaller block size increases" [hard forks] down the line, and you still want to go through with it? Even though Bitcoin doesn't need to scale?
That statement was my personal opinion and not related to anything official. I have no information in regards to any planned hard forks at this moment. Neither is Segwit nor is Classic (2 MB blocks) a solution to scaling, they are temporary workarounds. Nobody said that Bitcoin doesn't need to scale.Who is paying for it again? Whose entire business model hinges on it?
They have only 1 developer on the payroll working on it IIRC. This toxic community doesn't even deserve that. Their business model has nothing to do with LN. You're confusing it with sidechains. Again, there is no "paradox" here.
-snip-
Your argument is a waste of time (no offense). This is not helpful at all. -snip-
January 29, 2016, 03:21:00 PM
Able to read just fine, thanks. SegWit will less than double the throughput.
Initially yes; it has the potential to go beyond that though. Require a hard fork
So?It's a Blockstream product, not Bitcoin.
LN is not a Blockstream product and it is Bitcoin. Anyone who states otherwise is either ignorant or deluded. You might have mixed up LN with sidechains.You're marketing it as a solution to tps, don't care what the initial thinking behind it was.
Who's marketing it as a 'solution' to tps? Neither Segwit nor a 2 MB block size are a solution of any kind when it comes to transaction capacity. ...
So you're telling me SegWit is not a solution to scaling, there are "possibly some smaller block size increases" [hard forks] down the line, and you still want to go through with it? Even though Bitcoin doesn't need to scale?
>LN is not a Blockstream product
Who is paying for it again? Whose entire business model hinges on it?
January 29, 2016, 03:17:14 PM
There is nothing contradictory. You can exceed all transactions globally (the accumulated credit card, bank transfers, paypal payments, cash transactions etc) but you can still be more inefficient than banks or visa.
I agree on the "we will never be able to process more than a centralized...", because, well.... p2p inefficiency.
No further comments. Again, there is no "paradox" here.
The technology (of bitcoin) can accommodate the accumulated number of every single tx on the planet if you give hardware and network technology the necessary time to grow. Whether that time is 10 or 100 years, nobody has a clue. Perhaps some variables and constants in the software will need "enlargement" to be able to fit everything, if they are currently "downsized" for economy, but it can happen with near 100% certainty.
What is also 100% certain is that this can never be more efficient than a hierarchical system.
What VISA could do in 2015 due to being more efficient, Bitcoin will do in +X years due to the technology compensating for the p2p / decentralized induced inefficiency. Will VISA be able to transact MORE than Bitcoin at that point? YES. Will it matter? No. Why? Because human needs for transactions are finite. You don't jump from 3 purchases a day to 1000 purchases a day. So at some point VISA will be able to process, say, a trillion txs per day but there will be no trillion txs to process. So, for VISA, the technological progression is meaningless because it doesn't allow them to do more. Perhaps they could run their data centers cheaper and that's it. For bitcoin it's another issue altogether because technology unlocks the potential which is burdened by the inefficiency.
January 29, 2016, 03:02:42 PM
Able to read just fine, thanks. SegWit will less than double the throughput.
Initially yes; it has the potential to go beyond that though. Require a hard fork
So?It's a Blockstream product, not Bitcoin.
LN is not a Blockstream product and it is Bitcoin. Anyone who states otherwise is either ignorant or deluded. You might have mixed up LN with sidechains.You're marketing it as a solution to tps, don't care what the initial thinking behind it was.
Who's marketing it as a 'solution' to tps? Neither Segwit nor a 2 MB block size are a solution of any kind when it comes to transaction capacity. There is nothing contradictory. You can exceed all transactions globally (the accumulated credit card, bank transfers, paypal payments, cash transactions etc) but you can still be more inefficient than banks or visa.
I agree on the "we will never be able to process more than a centralized...", because, well.... p2p inefficiency.
No further comments. January 29, 2016, 02:59:12 PM
These two statements make zero sense due to the fact that they are contradicting themselves. I have only claimed that Bitcoin can not catch up to Visa with on chain transactions due to the infficient way of scaling decentralized systems (in comparison to centralized). I have no idea what kind of math you're talking about here nor how it is relevant to this statement.
There is nothing contradictory. You can exceed all transactions globally (the accumulated credit card, bank transfers, paypal payments, cash transactions etc) but you can still be more inefficient than banks or visa.
Maths = the ever increasing technological capabilities.
Perhaps the following example is better: Say Satoshi came along and deployed BTC in 1995, the era of Pentium 100 MHz, 16MB ram, 2 GB hard drives and network speeds that were very slow over the globe. My web/ftp speeds back then were like 1.2kb/sec on my 14.4k modem on non-peak hours.
How many tx/s could that bitcoin network do, with the means of 1995?
Fast forward 2015, how many?
Fast forward 2035, how many?
Fast forward 2055, how many?
So, it's not a matter of if, only a matter of when. Time is what makes the impossible => possible. Even with an inefficient method. Technology compensates for the inefficiency.
January 29, 2016, 02:43:36 PM
...
Since Bitcoin, in your opinion, can't scale well, we should forget about scaling altogether?
Why bother with segwit then? Why not go for *smaller* blocks & foster "decentralization"
Apparently you are unable to read the fine print. Segwit -> IBLT & weak blocks -> LN -> possibly some smaller block size increases and we should be fine for quite some time. LN is a wonder when it comes to 'tps' which becomes actually irrelevant with it (number of channels will matter). The main idea behind Segwit is actually not the increase of the transaction capacity. If you had done enough research you would know that. Since Bitcoin, in your opinion, can't scale well, we should forget about scaling altogether?
Why bother with segwit then? Why not go for *smaller* blocks & foster "decentralization"
>possibly some smaller block size increases
Require a hard fork
>LN is a wonder when it comes to 'tps'
It's a Blockstream product, not Bitcoin.
>The main idea behind Segwit is actually not the increase of the transaction capacity
You're marketing it as a solution to tps, don't care what the initial thinking behind it was. I was told repeatedly by TPTB tx malleability is a non-issue, now it suddenly is?
Jump to: