^You gentlemen should probably get a room, I'm blushing...
I have apologised for getting your friend (@franky1) in trouble so I expect he'll be fine tomorrow.
Topic: "Bitcoin Classic" is a classic attempt at a hostile takeover - page 2. (Read 8104 times)
I have apologised for getting your friend (@franky1) in trouble so I expect he'll be fine tomorrow.
^You gentlemen should probably get a room, I'm blushing...
I agree. I've always thought he was full of crap. They didn't move it as far as I can tell, they deleted it.
I think it was moved to a Reputation sub-forum (which wasn't really what I had wanted but fine if it needs to be like that then that is how it is).
Perhaps those that are paying posters think that they can just wear us down - but I will not be worn down in that way. If you post nonsense then I am going to call it nonsense!
I agree! Carry on.
I agree. I've always thought he was full of crap. They didn't move it as far as I can tell, they deleted it.
I think it was moved to a Reputation sub-forum (which wasn't really what I had wanted but fine if it needs to be like that then that is how it is).
Perhaps those that are paying posters think that they can just wear us down - but I will not be worn down in that way. If you post nonsense then I am going to call it nonsense!
One more quick drift. Did you see that your thread about him being a liar got swept away pretty quickly? LOL
Oh - got moved did it?
I wasn't paying much attention - but I think it is time that some of us "stood up" to the bullshit.
I agree. I've always thought he was full of crap. They didn't move it as far as I can tell, they deleted it.
One more quick drift. Did you see that your thread about him being a liar got swept away pretty quickly? LOL
Oh - got moved did it?
I wasn't paying much attention - but I think it is time that some of us "stood up" to the bullshit.
If you'd like to keep discussing the blocksize debate, feel free. 
Yes - good point - we have drifted off topic due to that crap.
Again I would say that what is being developed seems a reasonable solution to me as I don't think that we have a crisis.
One more quick drift. Did you see that your thread about him being a liar got swept away pretty quickly? LOL
You should just ignore him like everyone else but the noobs.
If you'd like to keep discussing the blocksize debate, feel free.
Yes - good point - we have drifted off topic due to that crap.
Again I would say that what is being developed seems a reasonable solution to me as I don't think that we have a crisis.
An "attempt at a hostile takeover" (topic of this thread) sounds like a crisis to me (especially now that it's likely to succeed), but what do I know...
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Their position is basically that multiple implementations are
ok but hard forks are not.
However, sometimes the consensus rules DO
need to change, for example, to lift the 1MB block size
limit.
Consensus on changing a consensus rule
would be best, but not always possible,
in which case a 'contentious hard fork' becomes
the only option to invoke change.
Those that would rather stick with the
status quo and the leadership of
Blockstream rather than go through
a hard fork are taking that position
because they judge the current paradigm
to be positive enough to warrant keeping it,
or at least not negative enough to risk
forking.
ok but hard forks are not.
However, sometimes the consensus rules DO
need to change, for example, to lift the 1MB block size
limit.
Consensus on changing a consensus rule
would be best, but not always possible,
in which case a 'contentious hard fork' becomes
the only option to invoke change.
Those that would rather stick with the
status quo and the leadership of
Blockstream rather than go through
a hard fork are taking that position
because they judge the current paradigm
to be positive enough to warrant keeping it,
or at least not negative enough to risk
forking.
Goodness gracious... the amount of misunderstandings and misleading statements keep coming ...
I believe and most of Bitcoin core (read their comments in the dev logs ) that we need a future hard fork. Most would prefer to have a soft fork take care of a short term kick the can issue for capacity and a single hard fork with a solution that will have a likely chance of solving future capacity needs like flex cap or another variant. They are simply averse to doing unnecessary hard forks when soft forks are safer and quicker to securely deploy.
Yes thank you for correcting me.
What I meant was that many are against 'contentious' hard forks.
(But many are not)
I don't think that we have a crisis.
Agreed (that you think that). And I think we do have a crisis.
You're not going to change my opinion and I'm not going to change yours.
So this is where we shake hands as gentlemen and agree to disagree.
If you'd like to keep discussing the blocksize debate, feel free.
Yes - good point - we have drifted off topic due to that crap.
Again I would say that what is being developed seems a reasonable solution to me as I don't think that we have a crisis.
Their position is basically that multiple implementations are
ok but hard forks are not.
However, sometimes the consensus rules DO
need to change, for example, to lift the 1MB block size
limit.
Consensus on changing a consensus rule
would be best, but not always possible,
in which case a 'contentious hard fork' becomes
the only option to invoke change.
Those that would rather stick with the
status quo and the leadership of
Blockstream rather than go through
a hard fork are taking that position
because they judge the current paradigm
to be positive enough to warrant keeping it,
or at least not negative enough to risk
forking.
ok but hard forks are not.
However, sometimes the consensus rules DO
need to change, for example, to lift the 1MB block size
limit.
Consensus on changing a consensus rule
would be best, but not always possible,
in which case a 'contentious hard fork' becomes
the only option to invoke change.
Those that would rather stick with the
status quo and the leadership of
Blockstream rather than go through
a hard fork are taking that position
because they judge the current paradigm
to be positive enough to warrant keeping it,
or at least not negative enough to risk
forking.
Goodness gracious... the amount of misunderstandings and misleading statements keep coming ...
I believe and most of Bitcoin core (read their comments in the dev logs ) that we need a future hard fork. Most would prefer to have a soft fork take care of a short term kick the can issue for capacity and a single hard fork with a solution that will have a likely chance of solving future capacity needs like flex cap or another variant. They are simply averse to doing unnecessary hard forks when soft forks are safer and quicker to securely deploy. Bitcoin classic on the other hand is ok with doing multiple hard forks....and for some odd reason feel they are safer and shouldn't be avoided.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
I was merely trying to objectively describe
the nature of the debate.
the nature of the debate.
He has claimed he has source code which now he seemingly doesn't actually have.
If he were in any way an honest person then he would admit to the fact that he lied but of course he won't (but I guarantee we'll never see his Bitcoin equivalent source code because it doesn't exist).
That's between you and Frankie. It's tangential and therefore I won't comment on it here.
If you'd like to keep discussing the blocksize debate, feel free.
I was merely trying to objectively describe
the nature of the debate.
the nature of the debate.
He has claimed he has source code which now he seemingly doesn't actually have.
If he were in any way an honest person then he would admit to the fact that he lied but of course he won't (but I guarantee we'll never see his Bitcoin equivalent source code because it doesn't exist).
It isn't easy to defeat the "shills" that are being paid to post here but I think I have fucked up this particular shill with his own bullshit.
You want to do the same thing?
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Those that would rather stick with the
status quo and the leadership of
Blockstream rather than go through
a hard fork are taking that position
because they judge the current paradigm
to be positive enough to warrant keeping it,
or at least not negative enough to risk
forking.
status quo and the leadership of
Blockstream rather than go through
a hard fork are taking that position
because they judge the current paradigm
to be positive enough to warrant keeping it,
or at least not negative enough to risk
forking.
I am quoting idiotic stuff from an idiot.
He claims to somehow know what I think?
(if you are really that smart I'll pay you 1M US)
So let's play a game smart arse - care to guess what my next post will be (if you can you can get 1M USD)?
I was merely trying to objectively describe
the nature of the debate.
There's no need to be rude.
Why don't you tell us your
summary of why each side
is taking the position they do?
Those that would rather stick with the
status quo and the leadership of
Blockstream rather than go through
a hard fork are taking that position
because they judge the current paradigm
to be positive enough to warrant keeping it,
or at least not negative enough to risk
forking.
status quo and the leadership of
Blockstream rather than go through
a hard fork are taking that position
because they judge the current paradigm
to be positive enough to warrant keeping it,
or at least not negative enough to risk
forking.
I am quoting idiotic stuff from an idiot.
He claims to somehow know what I think?
(if you are really that smart I'll pay you 1M US)
So let's play a game smart arse - care to guess what my next post will be (if you can you can get 1M USD)?
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
ok with respect and courtesy. without you meandering off topic to beg for people for code or talk about remittance..
why do you call bitcoin classic and other implementations that can happily work along side bitcoin-core and still function as full nodes... a "take over"
why insinuate that the only way bitcoin will continue is if only blockstream employee's and volunteers are in charge of 100% of all code related to bitcoin.
why dismiss anyone who does not want to sheep follow just one church.
why dismiss anyone who actually wants choice and freedom of choice.
EDIT:
i only have one user account.. thank you very much..
how about try to answer the question rather then discredit people..
ANSWER THE QUESTION JUST ONCE
why do you call bitcoin classic and other implementations that can happily work along side bitcoin-core and still function as full nodes... a "take over"
why insinuate that the only way bitcoin will continue is if only blockstream employee's and volunteers are in charge of 100% of all code related to bitcoin.
why dismiss anyone who does not want to sheep follow just one church.
why dismiss anyone who actually wants choice and freedom of choice.
EDIT:
i only have one user account.. thank you very much..
how about try to answer the question rather then discredit people..
ANSWER THE QUESTION JUST ONCE
They (CIYAM and small blockers) already answered that.
Their position is basically that multiple implementations are
ok but hard forks are not.
However, sometimes the consensus rules DO
need to change, for example, to lift the 1MB block size
limit.
Consensus on changing a consensus rule
would be best, but not always possible,
in which case a 'contentious hard fork' becomes
the only option to invoke change.
Those that would rather stick with the
status quo and the leadership of
Blockstream rather than go through
a hard fork are taking that position
because they judge the current paradigm
to be positive enough to warrant keeping it,
or at least not negative enough to risk
forking.
Obviously, many of those that don't would rather
see change, even if it does means forking.
I know where I stand.
The adjectives ("hostile" etc) mean little to me.
The situation is what it is and in time Bitcoin
will move forward one way or another.
Different implementations co-existing only applies to nodes, but in the end miners hash determines the protocol? Is this right?
No , The full nodes determine the protocol, not the miners. This means that a fork can happen whenever, with or without the hashing power.
The vote is the longest valid PoW chain. Only nodes determine what is valid or not.
ok with respect and courtesy. without you meandering off topic to beg for people for code or talk about remittance..
why do you call bitcoin classic and other implementations that can happily work along side bitcoin-core and still function as full nodes... a "take over"
why insinuate that the only way bitcoin will continue is if only blockstream employee's and volunteers are in charge of 100% of all code related to bitcoin.
why dismiss anyone who does not want to sheep follow just one church.
why dismiss anyone who actually wants choice and freedom of choice.
why do you call bitcoin classic and other implementations that can happily work along side bitcoin-core and still function as full nodes... a "take over"
why insinuate that the only way bitcoin will continue is if only blockstream employee's and volunteers are in charge of 100% of all code related to bitcoin.
why dismiss anyone who does not want to sheep follow just one church.
why dismiss anyone who actually wants choice and freedom of choice.
What you are missing is the distinction between implementations that are attempting to change the consensus rules and ones that are not. The other thing you are missing is that no one is suggesting that core or blockstream have to be the developers and control the consensus rules. Any implementations that attempt to hard fork the chain by changing the consensus rules is a takeover. The reason it is a takeover because the network cannot have multiple implementations with different consensus rules. Doing so is creating an alt, whether you consider bitcoin core or classic the alt after the takeover doesn't matter... an alt is created.
But we can grow much faster if its able to be used freely by businesses.
And the bigger the businesses that use it, the more quickly it will grow.
And the bigger the businesses that use it, the more quickly it will grow.
This is dangerous rhetoric which undermines the whole project. Need we remind people we are not investors in paypal 2.0 but a p2p currency that was designed to be self regulating and p2p outside the reach of corrupt banks, regulators and central planners. We can fix technical mistakes along the way and even increase the blocksize if needed, but one thing that cannot so easily be undone if whitewashing and corrupting Bitcoins primary principles in order to hastily become mainstream for some big payoff. If you believe we need to move quicker , than lets indeed work together and solve these problems in solidarity... but taking lazy shortcuts, especially ones that go against bitcoin's raison d'être and undermine everything.
This is pretty much exactly the point that I have been trying to make (thanks for elucidating it better than I did).
To me it is clear that this "pressure" to "fix block size now" is being applied simply in order to take control over the project and is not going to be of any benefit to anyone other than some large corporations who are wanting to profit by taking control of Bitcoin.
If the precedent of "fixing" the blocksize for no good (ie urgent) reason is set, it will continue to be "fixed" until Bitcoin is broken and bereft of its interesting antifragile properties.
But that's not going to happen. Like Hearn and his XT minions, the Toominista vampires are going to break their teeth trying to take a bite out of Satoshi's neck.
Should their first strike penetrate the Core Defense Network, a large red button labeled 'Proof of Work' may be pressed.
Core's second strike, in the form of a switch from SHA2 to Keccak or CryptoNight, will leave Bitfury's $300 million mines worthless for anything but mining ToominCoins, as the real Bitcoins will go back to being distributed among the world's CPUs/GPUs.
That won't make the very serious men in very dark glasses who funded those mines happy, to put it mildly.
At this point you're simply trolling.
That would be rather hard as this is my thread (I am trolling myself?).
Not at all. When you're no longer even tangentially addressing the thread topic, and inciting little credibility kerfuffles, it's called trolling.
You have called Franky's credibility into question.
Yes - because he lied and said he has created a Bitcoin equivalent in another computer language but cannot show it.
Regarding an issue which was irrelevant to the topic, if actually a lie. You have lied too, boy howdy!
Now be kind enough to answer a simple yes/no question I've ask multiple times:
I read the article and it is of no relevance at all.
The article outlines the costs involved in operating a Bitcoin remittance business. By a man who operated a Bitcoin remittance business.
In other words, it explicitly answers your "Seriously? If you want to actually talk about remittance then maybe start with some actual figures rather than just attacking me." question.
Quote
My guess is that you must be a socky of @franky1 - well try hard with your sockies @franky1 but it still won't help you if you can't show us the source code that you claimed to have created.
My guess is you're using that fancy new aluminium foil, which isn't real tinfoil at all. Utterly useless.
No matter what the gubermint Saurian Jews tell you.
I will not answer your question until you come clean about your claim to have written Bitcoin software in another language (which so far you have not proven).
Why don't you just admit that you made that up (too late to delete your posts as I already quoted them)?
(and this is the problem with all of the people that are supporting Gavin's vision - they are just dishonest - so the title and the point of this topic I think is very much relevant to what is going on)
Why don't you just admit that you made that up (too late to delete your posts as I already quoted them)?
(and this is the problem with all of the people that are supporting Gavin's vision - they are just dishonest - so the title and the point of this topic I think is very much relevant to what is going on)
Jump to: