Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork - page 8. (Read 154785 times)
people here dont have any 'power' over bitcoin. if the fork should have happened it would already have. thing is.. it just wont.
Allow me to translate from fed-speak: "Showing that Gavin is in control of bitcoin is a necessary tick box. It doesn't matter what the change is, so long as he is the one who makes it happen. That way, we (the U.S. Government) can kill bitcoin."
Consensus among poor people may have been a thing when bitcoin wasn't yet real money, but it isn't a thing any longer. Now bitcoin changes you. To resist the force of bitcoin is to resist the force of gravity. You can vote on the constant of acceleration all you want, but you'll still go splat when you hit the ground at terminal velocity.
Consensus among poor people may have been a thing when bitcoin wasn't yet real money, but it isn't a thing any longer. Now bitcoin changes you. To resist the force of bitcoin is to resist the force of gravity. You can vote on the constant of acceleration all you want, but you'll still go splat when you hit the ground at terminal velocity.
What's going on in your elite IRC channel? I feel that we are missing some important stuff since you aren't quoting it anymore!
It's a no brainer for Bitcoin future
if it don't work,well Bitcoin was not meant to be
but if it does without a hitch, Bitcoin can be changed with confidence
a necessary tick box,like it or not
if it don't work,well Bitcoin was not meant to be
but if it does without a hitch, Bitcoin can be changed with confidence
a necessary tick box,like it or not
I'm more concerned with what the tick box says than whether there is one.
Perhaps the grandest virtue of a consensus system is the mechanism of agreement, rather than voting. Excellent proposals find consensus a fairly simple matter, for there is not much debate with incontrovertible quality.
Allow me to translate from fed-speak: "Showing that Gavin is in control of bitcoin is a necessary tick box. It doesn't matter what the change is, so long as he is the one who makes it happen. That way, we (the U.S. Government) can kill bitcoin."
Consensus among poor people may have been a thing when bitcoin wasn't yet real money, but it isn't a thing any longer. Now bitcoin changes you. To resist the force of bitcoin is to resist the force of gravity. You can vote on the constant of acceleration all you want, but you'll still go splat when you hit the ground at terminal velocity.
No problem, unless of course you think computing technology will stand still until then. Are both these flattening off, as of 2010?
The scale varies so much, it's hard to tell what's going on in those graphs.
Quote from: Mark Twain
Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
I suggest 1GB blocks.
Why so shy ?
Gavin is proposing 1,4 GB blocks. He's chief scientist. He knows better than you !
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CuOEM9uwO5w-RwWGCCZpVGVFwhHHHegxJZqTP5KyapI/edit?usp=sharing
In 20 years!
No problem, unless of course you think computing technology will stand still until then. Are both these flattening off, as of 2010?
http://www.futuretimeline.net/subject/computers-internet.htm
http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/
Why even debate about this, still? Just do the fork at some point in the future (maybe even depending on a dynamic measure when to switch) and see if the majority opts for the new chain. It's Bitcoin's democracy in action - in its purest form!
Truth be told, there's not a huge amount of point in debating it because it needs to happen. But the fork probably won't be ready until June at the earliest, so all we can do at the moment is debate, heh. Plus it's fun to watch the anti-forkers back themselves into a corner and then try to slither out of it like the slippery, venomous snakes they are.
We agree that something needs to happen. Whether this is "it" is debatable.
If you have an alternative, then get to work making it a reality. There's no point in saying "what about this, that or the other" if your solution isn't working, viable and ready to go. If you get it working and it's better than what Gavin is proposing, people will go with it. Until that happens, you've basically got nothing.
I suggest 1GB blocks.
Why even debate about this, still? Just do the fork at some point in the future (maybe even depending on a dynamic measure when to switch) and see if the majority opts for the new chain. It's Bitcoin's democracy in action - in its purest form!
Truth be told, there's not a huge amount of point in debating it because it needs to happen. But the fork probably won't be ready until June at the earliest, so all we can do at the moment is debate, heh. Plus it's fun to watch the anti-forkers back themselves into a corner and then try to slither out of it like the slippery, venomous snakes they are.
We agree that something needs to happen. Whether this is "it" is debatable.
Why even debate about this, still? Just do the fork at some point in the future (maybe even depending on a dynamic measure when to switch) and see if the majority opts for the new chain. It's Bitcoin's democracy in action - in its purest form!
Truth be told, there's not a huge amount of point in debating it because it needs to happen. But the fork probably won't be ready until June at the earliest, so all we can do at the moment is debate, heh. Plus it's fun to watch the anti-forkers back themselves into a corner and then try to slither out of it like the slippery, venomous snakes they are.
It's a no brainer for Bitcoin future
if it don't work,well Bitcoin was not meant to be
but if it does without a hitch, Bitcoin can be changed with confidence
a necessary tick box,like it or not
if it don't work,well Bitcoin was not meant to be
but if it does without a hitch, Bitcoin can be changed with confidence
a necessary tick box,like it or not
I'm more concerned with what the tick box says than whether there is one.
Perhaps the grandest virtue of a consensus system is the mechanism of agreement, rather than voting. Excellent proposals find consensus a fairly simple matter, for there is not much debate with incontrovertible quality.
It's a no brainer for Bitcoin future
if it don't work,well Bitcoin was not meant to be
but if it does without a hitch, Bitcoin can be changed with confidence
a necessary tick box,like it or not
if it don't work,well Bitcoin was not meant to be
but if it does without a hitch, Bitcoin can be changed with confidence
a necessary tick box,like it or not
I think one of the main worries in this debate was that there was this threat whereby if the fork happened, those on oldcoin were going to attack those on newcoin and apparently had a plan to screw them. Above, I learned that the new plan for the fork is to implement it in a way where it only happens if it gets adopted, which is pretty neat, IMO. Once I heard this then I'm pretty happy to, as you say, just do it and see what happens.
"It only happens if it happens." -- derp.
I guess you mean that the rules are only adopted if some percent of the miners agree. You do realize miners can switch back to the old chain, right? The smart miner will have both versions ready to deploy in the event that one collapses and the other thrives. They aren't going to persist in mining a coin that isn't profitable to sell.
We can "attack" it before it even happens; there are offers to sell your proposed "newcoin" and nobody here is taking them! If there isn't any demand for the coin, there is no hope of the fork being a success; that is, we will easily crush it on the open market if/when it finally is a thing.
Why even debate about this, still? Just do the fork at some point in the future (maybe even depending on a dynamic measure when to switch) and see if the majority opts for the new chain. It's Bitcoin's democracy in action - in its purest form!
Democracy is a 51% attack.
In a democracy, votes happen whenever there is an absence of quality. The best ideas don't need votes. Votes are needed when the authority intends to violate the rights of some folks so that the masses can be convinced that those who were violated deserve it.
Perhaps no where else in modern society is the threat of Democracy devolving into Ochlocracy given so dangerous an incentive as it is with Bitcoin. If there is any politics in Bitcoin, it would be this lesson: the necessity of mustering the individuals to prevent this Tyranny of the Majority against the rights of all to the freedom of transaction.
To answer "why debate"? For myself it is to improve the quality of the proposition. It remains bad.
Why even debate about this, still? Just do the fork at some point in the future (maybe even depending on a dynamic measure when to switch) and see if the majority opts for the new chain. It's Bitcoin's democracy in action - in its purest form!
I think one of the main worries in this debate was that there was this threat whereby if the fork happened, those on oldcoin were going to attack those on newcoin and apparently had a plan to screw them. Above, I learned that the new plan for the fork is to implement it in a way where it only happens if it gets adopted, which is pretty neat, IMO. Once I heard this then I'm pretty happy to, as you say, just do it and see what happens.
Why even debate about this, still? Just do the fork at some point in the future (maybe even depending on a dynamic measure when to switch) and see if the majority opts for the new chain. It's Bitcoin's democracy in action - in its purest form!
Because it costs nothing to print "version 4" on a block, and your "democracy" isn't what buys the mined coins. Miners will go where the money is, regardless of their political convictions.
Why even debate about this, still? Just do the fork at some point in the future (maybe even depending on a dynamic measure when to switch) and see if the majority opts for the new chain. It's Bitcoin's democracy in action - in its purest form!
Come on smart guy, where is the list of those who want a permanent 1MB block?
Are they the same people who are mostly altcoin/Monero shills?
Are they the same people who are mostly altcoin/Monero shills?
Life seems boring for you when you are not scamming anyone.
But some people arguing here do want a permanent 1 MB block.
Which ones?
I don't remember names, and honestly I won't go dig through >130 pages of mostly garbage.
You made the claim, now back it up with evidence.
Or STFU, and stop making strawman arguments.
OK, I made a bad argument. Please disregard it.
Come on smart guy, where is the list of those who want a permanent 1MB block?
Are they the same people who are mostly altcoin/Monero shills?
Are they the same people who are mostly altcoin/Monero shills?
I don't know, I've never mentioned anything about altcoin supporters in this thread. You must be confusing me with somebody else.
But some people arguing here do want a permanent 1 MB block.
Which ones?
I don't remember names, and honestly I won't go dig through >130 pages of mostly garbage.
You made the claim, now back it up with evidence.
Or STFU, and stop making strawman arguments.
Come on smart guy, where is the list of those who want a permanent 1MB block?
Are they the same people who are mostly altcoin/Monero shills?
for some people their is only black or white....esp the ones who doesnt read the whole thread and think the first line of a post answers all questions
(well....i am gulty of not reading all threads on btct too)
But some people arguing here do want a permanent 1 MB block.
Which ones?
I don't remember names, and honestly I won't go dig through >130 pages of mostly garbage.
You made the claim, now back it up with evidence.
Or STFU, and stop making strawman arguments.
Come on smart guy, where is the list of those who want a permanent 1MB block?
Are they the same people who are mostly altcoin/Monero shills?
But some people arguing here do want a permanent 1 MB block.
Which ones?
I don't remember names, and honestly I won't go dig through >130 pages of mostly garbage.
Jump to: