Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 60. (Read 46564 times)

 

Do you realize how obnoxious you sound every time you say these things

Notorious charlatan Peter___R apparently had a meeting with the REDDIT.COM censor SHIPS https://www.reddit.com/user/Peter__R
 

There is no evidence of shilling on either side of the debate, so what is the point in per suing this line of argument? Accusing other people of being shills without evidence is just ad hominem and not conductive towards productive discussion. It does the opposite of strengthening your cause since you are just revealing that your rationality is weak by supporting such "conspiracy theories". Your time is better spent countering my arguments as opposed to accusing me of being a shill, which I am not for the record. Even if I where a shill it is unproductive and even damaging to the discourse here to accuse me of this without evidence.

I could just as easily accuse certain small block proponents of being shills for either blockstream or governments. I will not do that however since accusing people of such things without evidence is wrong and it is more productive to stick to rational discussion, logic, reason and what can be known instead of futilely focusing on the unknowable.

I can explain what my alias means. It is latin, I am also a history buff as well as having a political philosophy background. Veritas means truth and it was also the name of the main character in the movie "V for Vendetta", the mask that he wears has now become a symbol for the cypherpunk movement and anonymous movement as well. Sapere is a bit harder to pin down in terms of meaning, but it can be described as knowledge, or a thirst for knowledge. I took it from an older phrase which is "Sapere Aude". Which means "dare to be wise", which has significant meaning in terms of enlightenment and philosophical thinking. So you could translate my alias to mean something along the lines of "A thirst for true knowledge".

We now have four alternative implementations that support increasing the blocksize. There is XT, BU, Btcd and most recently BitPay released another alternative implementation with an adaptive blocksize. Bitcoin is not reliant on Core, Core is not Bitcoin. The sooner people realize this the better, we should not wait for Core or keep asking them to change these things when they have made their intentions clear. There are fundamental and irreconcilable differences of philosophy, ideology and vision. This is a test of the very governance mechanism within Bitcoin itself. The greatest threat of centralization is presently coming from the centralization of development and the power that this entails.

I think that Bitcoin achieves "trust" without centralized authority. If Bitcoin where to be dependent upon a centralized authority like Core then Bitcoin would lose this important quality, it would essentially become a technocracy. Both fortunately and unfortunately I suppose, Bitcoin relies on the economic self-interest of the masses to govern consensus. There is a silver lining here which is that in Bitcoin, we can only lose our freedoms by allowing others to decide for us. Bitcoin empowers volunteerism so this can cut both ways. I do still believe that in an environment where we have the free exchange of ideas and information the truth will reign supreme. So I am still bullish on Bitcoin, having confidence in the market that it will do the right thing and allow the original vision of Satoshi to triumph.

It is a one-time event, then maintain.  Ultimately there will be enough people to maintain the network as mass adoption occurs.  The untapped number of people out there, and companies, and ISPs, and smaller data centers that will be willing to operate as Nodes once mass adoption occurs will be quite significant.  It will grow quite exponentially at some point.  And yes, it may weed out some whining llamas - but they are filthy spittle drewling creatures no one wants to be around anyways.  Also have small brains.  

Not really an issue, and it really doesn't matter, since even if we had GB/Sec download speed, and 500TB laptop hardrives it wouldn't change the fact that Blockstream Players have a Conflict of Interest agenda, and are abusing their power over Core/Dev decisions.  They would manufacture another set of excuses, until at the end they resort to simply coming out in the end and stop pretending, and just admit they have an agenda, and have hte authority, and intend to use it to whatever ends they want.

Not really a complicated little bit to understand.  But everyone is welcome to continue to pretend it is about technical limitations.  Nice game that wastes time I guess.

ONLY solution is that an individual with Comitt authority pulls an "XT-Like" power play.  Only, this time they don't do it STUPID.  

2 Block increase with controlled built in increases.  Satoshi laid the sword on the shoulder of Gavin.  The Annointed Knight of the Bitcoin followed the whisperings of a Betrayer and now is paralyzed by the shame of his actions.

Ah, Glorious Knight!  Wherefore art thy former Glory and Courage!?!?  Or have they forever betrayed and abandoned thy people and thy King!?!?  Arise and shake off thy dishonor good sir, and do thy duty!

Try downloading the gigabloatchain once they raise the block size... 60GB is already a pain today.

agreed with all your statements but wanted to highlight the above.

what some 'virtual server' users dont realise is that a few of them choose bitcoin accepting service to do this. which results in many nodes belonging to the same datacenter because there is limited amount of datacenters that accept bitcoin. which is the polar opposite of increasing distribution compared to running it independently on their own PC.

a few years ago there was one website hosting service accepting bitcoin and when hacked the datacenter bblamed outsiders for social engineering hack attempts. but rumours were it was an inside job..

and now it kind of makes me laugh when i read that both the blockstream and xt camps said that a few members have distributed upto 100 nodes each world wide.
at first you think there are hundreds of hundreds of individual computers connected to differing ip addresses in hundreds of hundreds of different physical locations..

but then the punchline being that they rented out datacenter space in only a dozen or less datacenters, meaning that there are many nodes per datacenter, missing the whole point of distributing the blockchain

but as i said in last post. the blocksize debate should only be argued by those who actually do or want to run a full node on their own local computer.

anyone responding to say that webservices need nodes on virtual services, are not practicing good bitcoin security in regards hotwallet hacks of customer funds.
what they should be doing is to not use 'hotwallets' at all.. but when a customer makes a withdrawal or transfer request. the request command doesnt go to a hotwallet (virtual server bitcoin node) but gets put into a database on the virtual server.
and completely remotely, away from the server and on the service owners PRIVATE/local computer, the private computer monitors the virtual server database for withdrawal requests, and processes them OFF server.. via the private/local computer.

never ever ever is it acceptable or secure to have a node on the same server as the websites GUI(main domain). so will people please stop putting nodes on virtual servers, not only for hotwallet hack prevention, but also to not have the distribution of nodes limited to a few datacenters

Add me to the list.

We can start with 2mb blocks, but we need bigger blocks at some point.

Swarm nodes are possible which prevents centralization:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/revised-swarm-node-proposal-1314482

#rekt, shills ignored. 

i like to think outside of the box. and it seems that many people argue, if your not a XT supporter you must be a blockstream supporter.

which brings people to start a 'race war' about which community people belong to.

but think outside of the box and ask yourself,
in 2011 when mining was done on GPU, why wasnt there "security risks" and people crying when the average block went from 100kb to 200kb, when the average persons hard drive was 250gb

why in 2013 when mining was done by 60ghash miners and the blocks were 500kb average and peoples hard drives were 500gb average, that there was no big arguments?

why in 2016 where a 2TB hard drive is cheap enough for regular people to buy, suddenly there is a problem for even an increase of the blocklimit to 2mb.

afterall if a GPU that is 1,000,000 slower than just one current asic, but was able to handle 10% of a 2mb block potential(200kb average bloat).. then just going by the numbers. an asic can handle alot more let alone a farm of asics. and the amount of ram the pool can put on their motherboards is higher than previous years too, meaning it debunks the the block hashing problem.(crying about orphans)

as for non mining user distribution of the solved blocks(full node users).. a 2tb hard drive can fix that argument too.. as a 2mb block would allow for 104gb yearly bloat, for ~20 years
even gavins proposed 8mb allows users to have 412gb yearly bloat for 5 years..

i personally think 8mb is a bit much straight off the cuff. id prefer 2mb and then increase if bottlenecks happen in the future.
by which time internet speed and storage capacity would be far more then average now. and affordable by average people.

if the debate is about bandwidth.. well i run a fullnode, i watch streaming videos (netflix, etc) play online gaming.. and i dont have any internet hiccups, and i dont expect to have any if the blocks went upto 2mb either. and im on a internet speed of under 20mb/s (nothing special)

once you realise that netflix streams at 1gb/hour SD and 3gb/hour HD.. which equates to 166mb every 10 minutes SD or 500mb every 10 minutes HD. you will then see that moaning about 1mb, 2mb, 8mb for something that gives you financial security.. is smallfry compared to bandwidth bloat of video which gives you just boredom relief temporarily.

in short if your computer and internet can handle netflix.. then blocksizes are not a problem

in short:
i just dont see a rational and logical reason why upping the block limit is going to be so disastrous

i would also like to know. out of all the people arguing which camp people belong to, and also what is the best way forward for bitcoin as a whole...who of them actually runs a bitcoin full node. as i think it should only be a discussion for those people who will actually be running a full node. or actually want to run a full node

Heh, well played sir.   

some valid points!?

I'll take that

I accept it was rambling, I didn't have the time to write a shorter post.

There were valid points buried somewhere in all that self-indulgent rambling?

It was too long; I didn't read it.  Apparently nobody informed sgbett brevity is the soul of wit.   

Meanwhile, the Reddit Admins are cracking down on the Gavinista's brigading and doxxing.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3zx4qq/rbtc_ad_on_rbitcoin_is_gone/
https://archive.is/Crpfb

Now the XTurds are whining about Reddit Sensor Ships!  So glorious; very gentlemen.   

Unless of course it's artificially induced! Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

Yes, agreed, and this is where you are missing the 2nd idea I alluded to: how much research have you done into centralized "authority"-based systems of control? Your "personal philosophy" depends entirely on the sources of information you have exposed yourself to, you see. Do you agree with the idea that we humans on this planet are born into a kind of prison world, wherein our minds are molded to become subservient?

How do you imagine that "philosophical view points" are relevant here? It's a technical, engineering issue. If we want the best for Bitcoin, then the focus is on resilience, not on adoption rate or some other arbitrary measure. As iCEBREAKER observed, "Their Big Lie is that Bitcoin was created to replace commercial banking, not central banking (as if the Genesis Text was about $2 ATM fees instead of TBTF bailouts)."

Are you suggesting then that the central banksters are not actively engaged in mobilizing their resources in the grandest ways they can conceive of in order to protect and preserve their millennia-old consolidation of centralized control over money? Are you of the impression, or de facto belief, that debt-based money is a reasonable and benevolent way for humans to engage in commerce?

You won't see me suggesting that you are a shill. Everything you have written so far fits exactly into the idea you are describing of someone thinking differently for innocuous reasons.

Yeah, assuming good faith... when the idea really is that blockchain technology by its very nature undoes the primary control vector of the control system by enabling an unstoppable transition to decentralized money. Unstoppable it is (short of some really drastic measures that would also destroy the existing financial system), whether it be Bitcoin or another, but you really think it's reasonable to assume good faith in all players? At what point, if at all, do you suppose an organized effort to protect the dying old comes into play?

A further distinction is the idea of accidental (market-driven) centralization vs. deliberate (maliciously-driven) centralization.

Much higher than carefully scaling from 1MB to a safer number. But more interestingly, it's clearly not needed urgently, in the way Gavin & Hearn rushed to introduce XT. If you assume that all the players involved are acting in good faith, then, unless your technical understanding is on the level of the core developers, you will be basing your understanding on the false premise that there is no incentive for cryptocurrency to be undergoing the most sophisticated type of attack that could be conceived of, i.e. by co-opting and using the strongest statist minds involved in development (which just so happen to be Gavin & Hearn, and perhaps a few others like Garzik).

The dev proponents on one side being only a few, you might wish to note. Their clueless followers, whether organic or artificial, may have skewed your impression a bit -- that being the purpose of such an operation.

They are though; they are very different, even if perhaps subtly so. And this can be determined even without a dev-level understanding of the code.

I would suggest that it's already being superseded, in a process of creative destruction, and this is why the people with the greatest interest in keeping the "current" (dying) global financial system afloat -- the same people who have the ability to create wars -- are playing their best cards, which is what we are witnessing here with these posters pretending to be retards.

Absolutely, but without foolish naivete. The "bad guys" do the research, you see.

Indeed, but that idea is a subset of the larger idea of decentralization. Bitcoin can fail tomorrow and it wouldn't change anything! It would at most delay the inevitable.

Does the idea of shills make more sense now?

Is Maxwell assuming that the attacks are coming from clueless followers/fanboys rather than a sophisticated attacker group? That's the only reason I could imagine for him to leave the Bitcoin project: if he believes that what he has been doing is pointless. Otherwise, he's probably just taking a break... a very useful thing to do when things get heated.

Thx sgbett, valid points.

If it was clear what was right there wouldn't be a debate. If you were half as smart as you try to make yourself look in your post you would understand that it isn't as cut and dried as you try to make out in your first post.

So when you say 'inexplicably blindly support clearly-unsafe big blocks' the only thing that is clearly demonstrated is that it is in fact you who are blind.

There are solid arguments as to why the blocksize limit should remain as it is, there are solid arguments as to why there should be no limit at all. There are pros and cons to each, and the significance of the pros and cons is highly correlated to personal philosophy.

I am as guilty as anyone of posting strong opinions on this debate which are fundamentally grounded in where I stand philosophically on the matter. The relative merits of either extreme can easily be argued for and against if you take a certain philosophical view point.

If however you cannot accept that other people think differently to you, then you will start to invent circumstances to try and rationalise their behaviour some other way. Such as that they are out to destroy bitcoin, or that they are being paid, or some other such nonsense.

The thing is that works both ways. Any big blocker that cannot understand why the small blockers believe what they believe (e.g. they have different underlying philosophical belief) might naturally assume foul play. However it is more likely that actually it just a difference of opinion.

Then finally you get the people who are so convinced that even when presented with the truth, are still so pig headed and arrogant to believe that nothing exists outside their own world view that they will go so far as to try and deny that any other view exists, by dismissing this truth as 'philosophical mumbo jumbo'.

That I am posting this because there is some overwhelming body of technical evidence that proves that there is only one true way, and that because this conflicts with my point of view that I am just appealing to emotion.

Well there might be some truth in that. I am appealing to emotion, humans are emotional beings, in the absence of an overwhelming body of technical evidence one way or the other then all we have are the beliefs that underpin the arguments, because the arguments themselves are inconclusive.

In an uncertain universe all you have are probabilities. I think the common ground we all (assuming good faith) share is that we want bitcoin not to fail catastrophically. (What constitutes success can be so widely disagreed on that we don't even all share this). Even then catastrophic could be interpreted differently. (Lets say something that causes it to become worthless e.g. < $0.01 per bitcoin)

I think centralisation is possibly the biggest threat in this regard. Second only to it being broken. The thing is 'centralisation' can't easily be defined. Again its what is acceptable. Where is the limit? On person could say technically "2 nodes" is not centralised. "Ah, but collusion" someone else might say, so what then 10 nodes, 100, 1000? perhaps 6000 is already too centralised for some. "A node in every home!" people might say.

What degree of centralisation causes bitcoin to fail catastrophically? How does increasing blocksize correlate to node count? How does technological progress impact on the barrier to entry of running a node?

You don't know, I don't know, its all forecasting and estimation.

Whats the probability that raising the blocksize limit to 8MB cases bitcoin to fail catastrophically.
Whats the probability that keeping the 1MB blocksize limit causes bitcoin to fail catastrophically.

I think in both cases its 'low' in both scenarios there is an increase in factors pushing bitcoin towards catastrophic failure (blocks too big, nodes to expensive, increased centralisation vs blocks too small, confirmation times too long, fees to high, drives users away)

In neither case is it fatal though, and in both cases the proponents for each have decided that benefit outweighs risk.

Segwit vs 8MB blocks is even harder to pull apart. Everyone loves segwit on both sides, but segwit is a more complex solution, complex solutions have higher risks. Could segwit break bitcoin, unlikely, but its a risk. A risk that seemingly most are willing to overlook for potential 3-4 x increase in throughput. Plus some other cool stuff. The blocksize limit does not change, but suddenly bigger blocks are OK!

8MB blocks is a simple change, less risk involved in terms of code change. Throughput increase in the same order of magnitude. Requires hard fork.

The risk profiles of these tow respective options don't seem that different, but one is a hero and the other is the ugly duckling. Tell me humans are entirely logical and don't argue based on emotion!!!

Prologue

I run a few nodes. I can't say I am over the moon with how much it costs right now to keep them running, but if I was in it for the money then I'd seek out one of these companies hiring astroturfers so I at least got paid for arguing

I'm even less impressed that the cost of running these nodes is likely to increase with bigger blocks. The light at the end of this tunnel though, is that whilst ever the cost of of running a node keeps rising, it means bitcoin adoption is increasing. That's something I'm really excited about.

I don't know if anyone has ever posted this yet, but I see the bitcoin network evolving into something akin to the internet itself. You have your massive peering companies, your telcos, your ISPs etc.

Maybe thats how bitcoin goes. Several massive pools doing all the mining, your payment processors next step down with node farms (perhaps this is what banks/credit cards end up becoming) potentially making money providing bitcoin services (bank accounts, but bitcoin) down to your local commerce that may run their own node to handle local transactions. Perhaps lightning sits in here somewhere, or other vendor specific coins that you can exchange into/from.

Just as all the people that make up the internet speak TCP/IP. All the people that make up the blockchain network speak bitcoin.

You see there is that philosophy thing again. I am convinced it can run all the way through the system, and I think its the only real way that the current global financial system can be superseded.

In the same way one does not consider the internet centralised, so would you not consider bitcoin centralised. The transparency of the blockchain is what is magic. There are no curtains for the wizard to hide behind. The emperor is naked. At some point you have to have some faith in humanity and what better better way to foster that than through openness and accountability. Its all the rage thesedays!

For bitcoin to reach its true potential, you are going to have to let it go. I've realised I can't have my cake and eat it. Maybe its this blue pill the doc gave me, they are usually red? Srsly though. Destroying all fiat currency and switching the whole world to a deflationary digital cryptocurrency. Wouldn't be a bad result for v1.0