Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork - page 2. (Read 154755 times)

You nailed it!

I am amazed how did you managed to pull one reply without sucking quoting MP.

Well, to be fair, the Nazi Party was “National Socialism”. But yeah, I agree that we're beyond the Godwin Limit.

As amusing as it is to see some idiot mistake Adolf Hitler for a socialist.....

I think we had reached the Godwin Limit long, long before this normally-reliable indicator appeared.

This is bluntly wrong.  Read the 'agnostic/dgaf' votes as people who will go with whatever works and wins.  If the code for a fork is deployed, they'll go right on mining - possibly with new software that advertises a new block version, or possibly without updating.  If their client tells them that the majority of blocks out there are a new version and they risk being on the losing side of a fork if they don't upgrade, they'll upgrade, 'cause they don't want to be on the losing side of a fork.  If the software they upgrade to advertises a new block version, they don't give a crap but that could easily push support from 50% (where they got the warning) to 75% (where a >1Mbyte block can actually be formed).

And if they find themselves on the losing side of a fork with majority hashing power already supporting a different chain, they will FIX THE PROBLEM immediately by updating. 

'agnostic/dgaf' means that a choice between these options is not going to be the motivation that causes these people to do anything.  A risk of being on the losing side of a fork would certainly be a motivation they'd respond to.  Having some other reason to upgrade to the next version (or just upgrading because upgrading is "normal") is also something they'd do.  They just don't give a crap whether, by so doing, they choose one block size limit or another.

Initially I saw Bitcoin's strength as being one which induces the owners of the currency an incentive to make it work for 'the masses' since, at variance with the various state sponsored debt based monetary systems which are ubiquitous today, it would be relatively easy for 'the masses' to devalue a non-working system by switching to another.  The barrier would be much lower.

Back in those days I sort of called myself a socialist (especially when I was interested in trolling) on the basis of my belief that the best result for the most people would be had by the most people by working together as a social group for certain projects.  Money, though, would always be a power play in any quasi-democracy.  My plan had always been to switch away from socialism if it got the upper hand because of the obvious dangers of totalitarianism.  Since that time, I've decided that I vastly underestimated the power that socialism had achieved in my society (the U.S.)  Now is well past the time to fight it back!  I missed it, I feel, because it was masked by on overlay of cronyism which I (mistakenly) ascribed to capitalist-ish malfeasance.  We are descending into totalitarianism which is a predictable outcome of socialism (and most other solutions) and have gone farther and faster than I'd recognized.

Bitcoin itself never even came close to achieving a decent result for almost anyone and with USGavincoin it will go directly into the existing corp/gov quasi-socialist vortex where the existing power lies.  The masses do not pass go and does not collect $200.  Bitcoin will be destroy in exactly the same manner that I originally (and continue to) anticipate as healthy...it does not help people and they'll vote with their feet.  The next rendition will not be as easy since we'll be operating under a different form of 'global internet', but these challenges will ultimately only make it stronger.

Sidechains offer one last hope for Bitcoin proper with it providing a reserve role.  The various subordinate chains would offer the flexibility to successfully respond to attacks from the stakeholders in existing state-sponsored fiat solution and to meet the diverse needs of a broad userbase.  Under such a solution there is more opportunities for wealth to be distributed then we have in todays extremely high GINI, but in a more healthy way.  And, of course, the solution might persist for a long enough time period for this to occur.

its more than time to end socialism.





freaking sheeps cant even see whats in front of them.
always bluhblah this and that. thinking they matter.

im here for the trustless technology, the decentralized consensus, which gives no more room for endless debates.
wanna fork bitcoin? go for it, it will only make my stash worth more..

Socialism is a very bad thingⁱ; it is the sort of bad thing that bitcoin is here to destroy. If you desire socialism, what is it you are doing here on a forum about the most capitalist thing to ever fall into man's lap? The ideal money for a socialist is one which is centrally controlled, and with the Federal Reserve you have exactly that. So then what role do you see bitcoin having in a world in which money can be taken from the rich and given to the poor? It is no surprise that you are in favor of changing bitcoin if your goal is socialism; as it stands, unchanged, it makes such a thing impossibleⁱⁱ.

---

i :

ii : Bitcoin and the poor

You say this as if it were a bad thing.

You like the "free market," eh? Are you familiar with the "tragedy of the commons?" Miners get the benefit from making large blocks, and the rest of us bear the costs. I doubt you meant to advocate socialism, but that's what's going on here.

---

I suspect this double post thing is how spammers like RoadStress get their "activity" so high. Since I'm replying to someone else anyway, might as well attach this:

There you go!  Keep it light.  The cranky sourpuss thing doesn't suit you. 

Now send me chocolates!   

No limit, let the miners decide.

It's what they've been doing anyway and removing that silly 1MB limit is the best representative of a free market.

Whatever it is, this 1MB limit needs to go.

I dont know MP but from what ive read he seems like a  knob jockey
Im with gavin on this one
MP and his  mother can go ride black cocks

iCEBREAKER, I'm in love with you!  You know you had me at "sophmoric pedantry" xoxo <3

That's "equal to having" a web browser that you can use to log into your bank's web site. So no, you aren't being "your own bank." You got it very wrong; they don't need to "spend your money" when they can rewrite history so that you never had any. They don't need your private key in order to create fraudulent coin bases that debase the unit of account.

---

If the block size limit were to increase, it would. But the fork ain't happening, so you're right.

---

This is not a problem; miners will quickly find the correct chain because they have a lot of money to lose if they don't. Anybody who is mining and isn't aware of the politics of block chain rules is a fool that deserves to go out of business. The network itself is anti-fragile; it isn't going away just because of a disagreement. You're spinning this to sound like if it weren't for USGavin, bitcoin would wither and die. And who cares if "lots of angry people" lose confidence? Does someone who loses confidence in gravity magically start floating? They can whine all they want and then when they've tired themselves out, they can continue using bitcoin because there is no choice in the matter.

---

What even is the point of bitcoin if it's not decentralized? A centralized bitcoin is certainly "more evil" than no bitcoin at all simply because it's a self-defeating concept. This is what I mean by "trendier hipsterish." Is bitcoin nothing more than a way to pick up chicks to you? A nerdy new conversation starter instead of the world burner it truly is.

---

Having a "centralized structure" is the threat! An "evolving blockchain" is the threat! These were exactly the arguments used to create the Federal Reserve! Is that what you want? A new-age FED?

---

And how do you "know" that? I see a lot of people making this assumption, but nobody has provided any evidence that it is true. Whereas, I have explained very thoroughly how bitcoin will do just fine with a fixed limit on the block size.

---

It isn't broken! It already scales just fine! The bitcoin you are imagining is exactly what you explain here: "new software to accomplish the same task but in a different way." You are imagining a hip new version of the Federal Reserve.

---

Drug addict!? Oh this part of your post is so precious! MP will surely get a kick out of it.

Lol amateur spotted

I actually hope this change goes through so it gets knocked off the pedastel by stupid decisions

Your post is "possibly the most narrow-minded [post] ever".

No refutation of any kind. Just "omg, omg, omg, this is so bad and stupid!!!!!11".

Shows your level, not his.

There wouldn't be businesses if it wasn't individuals pushing it. Don't forget who got it where it is now. This whole thing is starting to become exactly what it was created to go against and it's quite sickening

This is a terrible idea. Bandaids on a gunshot doesn't fix the hole

Shit, just making it faster blocks is even a better idea to spread them out than this. It's not a matter of overall data that is the issue; it will obviously bloat. The problem is trying to process so much all at once. It's a straight up bump to people closest to the most nodes this way, exactly like stock bots

Stop being subjective. Let's do a small exercise. Please count the times Mr Barron replies with long/offtopic quotes from random sources/MP. Next please count the times he repeats already posted quotes. Now please compare it with the others. Thank you!


He cares more about being accepted by MP and everything around him like MPex. He doesn't care for the good of Bitcoin, he only cares about his interest and MP interest apparently. Instead of wasting a lot of time reading the whole thread (which I do recommend for a full history) just check Mr Barron post history. Here is just one quote:

*Speaking with a trembling loud voice*
"When the day of reckoning comes-forth and Satoshi descends from the heavens,
then you'll know and all users will know and see and ask... was I a good bitcoiner?
Am I my bitcoins keeper? And I say upon you all!... Are you your bitcoins keeper??"


Sorry Hdbuck, I had to say this after your post above, and the prior posts about being "your own bank". It just popped into my head.