Topic: Bitcoin is being invaded by Leftists - page 9. (Read 7972 times)

Thanks RealBitcoin for your opinion. I must confess that I have had the same thoughts when I came to Bitcoin some weeks ago. I thought it would be a libertarian idea but actually it became left what is a bad development in my opionion.

No, that is keynesian nonsense again.

I cannot believe academics are so dumb to eat this keynesian nonsense.


The people that hold/hoard/store wealth are the most important people for the economy. Inactive wealth is not irrelevant, it is what gives value to the wealth that is spent.

If everyone is spending then the value of currency drops, if everyone is hoarding then the value of the currency rises. So it is preferable if nobody is spending, although then the economy doesnt grow.

Therefore many economists suggests that a 50% savings 50% spending ratio is optimal, so that there is enough capital for investment, and there is enough demand for the products to be purchased.


Currently more people are hoarding than spending ,so that ratio should go to down to 50%, but still the hoarders are very important. Both spending as hoarding is crucial.

Yes, competition is good, but we have to be careful.

Bitcoin is not a lab experiment with rats, it has 10 billion market cap and a whole new economy depending on it. We cannot affort to skrew it up.

So yes Core deserves some protectionism, by the big bitcoin whales themselves, so its totally legitimate.

If 90% of bitcoin owners favor Core, then that is totally legitimate, because the big money is what counts here. Bitcoin is private property, and if the majority of the money decides 1 path, that is our wish.

I tend to look at Bitcoin as a corporation , because it is essentially that, an unincorporated global corporation, where multiple wealth owners decide our common route that is best for our wealth.

So bitcoin is not a sunday chess club where you can have any form of governance you wish. We are talking about 10 billion dollars here that are jointly owned by all bitcoin owners, and the final word should always be with the majority of the money.

Nodes dont matter, miners dont matter, it's what the 50% +1 percent of the market cap wants matters!

My opinion is several pages back. There's no way I'm going to give a yes or no answer to whole paragraph of statements from someone who is a proven liar/manipulator.

This is stirring smoke, miners tend to unite in pools, they get block rewards and fees are expected to slowly get a little bigger. And they could reject transaction, but no one does it without a really serious reason (or just noone does it), because they lose money. Ability of miners to reject transactionns has nothing to do with their incentive to enable transactions to earn money. You are totally moving the target.

Look I'm dropping out, let the readers decide who is right.

What subject are you even reading?  It's quite simple.  I'll even leave you out of it entirely if that helps:

If anyone would choose willingly to restrict or deny the freedom of people to modify and release code in a competing protocol, it's because they don't trust the free and open market to regulate itself.  How can I make that simple concept any clearer?  

I trust the free and open market.  Alternative clients are free to exist and compete.  That is my stance.  What's yours?  I can't strawman, misquote or mis-attribute if you simply tell us what your opinion on this matter actually is.

You know what's funny? You must spend god knows how long crafting your trolling bullshit masterpieces. Do you know how long it takes me to think up my reply to your garbage? I think you do.

What sort of a life do you lead, DooMAD, where this sort of thing pays your bills and gives you kicks? You're a bit of a reprehensible human, aren't you?

Stop trying to change the subject.

So far we've had multiple attempts to strawman me, misquote or mis-attribute, and now you're trying to get me to agree to long meandering paragraphs written by your own fair hand?

You're hilarious. Is this how you always get what you want in life, lying and deceiving? How do you satisfy the need to behave this way in the flesh? You must be a little short on friends, who in their right mind would want to talk to someone who just lies relentlessly in the hope of getting their own way.

Selective quoting aside, I did just say that the only option for people wishing to modify the code, is to release their own clients.  How is this not clear?  It's precisely because the Core developers are in control of their own repository and decide which code will and won't be included, that means people who wish to publish their own code, because they have different ideas which Core developers may not agree with, have literally no other choice than to release a competing protocol.  If they can't work together because they disagree, they have to compete.  Do you agree they are free to do that?  Yes or no.

Original question:


Unfortunately for you, here's the evidence of your shit talking.

I ask a question about in-chain protocol competition.

You go on to answer (in bold also) a completely different question, because you couldn't come up with a lie that could be related to the question I asked. So quit pretending you've got me on the defensive, you're the one manipulating and lying

no
the block reward is the miners payment. and miners can accept or reject any transaction they like.
heck i can make a Tx that has a 2000btc fee. but it can be rejected for many reasons and has no way of swaying a miner to make protocol changes even if they accepted it.

peoples funds and network protocol are separate things.

also the fee does not mean anything. many pools have already made blocks this year with just 1tx (the block reward), many pools have already made blocks this year ignoring certain transactions that are bloated even with a higher fee..

I'm not the one conflating things.  Core developers are in control of the code in their own github.  Nothing more.  They are not in control of the original code released by Satoshi under the MIT Licence.  Nor are they in control of the concept of Bitcoin in perpetuity.  Core developers will always be in control of their own github.  A fork to a competing protocol doesn't hand control of Core's github to outside developers. Whether a fork happens or not is determined by miners and node operators, so a hostile takeover by developers is not possible.  All developers can do is release code.

Further to that, the latest version of Core's software is still released under the same MIT licence, which means the Core developers themselves are happy for people to modify their code.  Clearly, though, it doesn't mean they are happy for anyone to submit any modified code to Core's own github and consider it part of Core's client without their consent.  Core maintain ownership of that repository and decide who can and cannot contribute code, which is perfectly acceptable.  So the only option for people wishing to modify the code, is to release their own clients.



I got the impression we had reached an agreement.  I'll give you the opportunity to clarify your position, just to be sure.  I asked if you would willingly take away the right of other developers to release their own code if you could.  You replied "people are, of course, entirely free to do all sorts of foolish things", which leads me to assume that, while you might personally deem it foolish, you wouldn't restrict their freedom to do it.  Ergo, alternative clients are free to exist and compete.  Yes or no?

Your explanation is wrong. Economic majority is represented by those, who are transferring btcs, e. g. doing business. Not just hodling - that doesn't create economy (not that it's wrong to hodl per se). Miners are rewarded by those who make transactions.

The problem in your seek of consensus are chinese miners. They will have to either grow their bandwith or go home. Trouble is, this will not happen through night.

All the things that exist in the bitcoin is something that gives good impact for us who know their knowledge. But if we don't do something a good thing then it will all give you a bad impact for us, because we can offer you something bitcoin a bad thing if done so in a way that carelessly

one software doesnt need to prevail and decisions should not be based on the economic majority.
lets explain:
economic majority.
day one coinbase has NO coins. day two 500,000 people deposit 1btc each into coinbase.
day 3. the people have no vote. coinbase has a vote to a total of 500,000 out of ~16m right now (3.1%)

is it fair that a corporation has 3.1% and each customer does not even have 0.00000625% each, but instead no vote at all. due to coinbase having the funds under coinbase keys?? so coinbase does the deciding

having more money is meaningless. the amount of funds someone has, has no relevance to the diversity, distribution and security of the blockchain.
eg satishi himself has over 800k bitcoins. yet he runs no nodes, no miners and has no impact on bitcoins security right now. he has not been involved since before 2011. emphasis: he has no impact on protecting bitcoin as it stands now.

P.S: dont get me wrong if it was based on economics i would have more votes then many people. but that does not mean its a fair excuse to change security, diversity, distribution. because funds does not secure bitcoin.. nodes and mining does.

consensus compromise
todays proposed consensus.
    core wants 1m base 4mb weight 32 critical limit
      BU wants variable base 16 critical limit
      XT wants 2mb base 32 critical limit
classic wants 2mb base. 32 critical limit

while no majority is established they can all run at the same time because the current 1mb rule fits all proposals because under 1mb data is accepted by them all.
none of these proposals are a controversial fork, all proposals are consensual.

they all want something to change. so its not about killing off all proposals and then have one king. its about compromise by coming to a consensus.
EG BEFORE december 2015 it was
   core wanted 1mb base 32 critical limit
     BU wanted variable base 16 critical limit
     XT wanted 8mb base 32 critical limit
classic wanted 8mb base. 32 critical limit

EG AFTER december 2015 it was
   core wanted 2m base 32 critical limit
     BU wanted variable base 16 critical limit
     XT wanted 2mb base 32 critical limit
classic wanted 2mb base. 32 critical limit

and the compromise was 2mb base. where IF everyone actually coded this compromise everyone would be on the same level, and there would be majority acceptance of 2mb with no disruption once the majority of nodes upgraded to their favourite brand of that consensus

we thought core would after agreeing to this, would finally write an implementation so that the 2mb can go into affect.
but then they decided to throw a spanner in the works.

instead of segwit 2mb base 4mb weight to stick to consensus while also offering segwit. they back tracked to 1mb again
with
   core wanting 1m base 4mb weight 32 critical limit

which core now wants to become a dictatorship by killing off the other implementations so they dont have to compromise and dont have to uphold their initial agreement.

which is lame because they pretend in a year or so to "maybe" implement: 2m base 4mb weight 32 critical limit, but they want to kill off the competition that is holding up their: 1m base 4mb weight 32 critical limit

the even funnier part is.
users, nodes, merchants, miners never had a single say via economics or node count that 1m base 4mb weight is the desire in 2015.
instead they went on a R3KT campaign to make sheep jump into the wolves mouths by prtending the wolves were in the other direction. (ye core devs are funded by R3 too)

in short all core need to do is make 2m base 4mb weight 32 critical limit and then ALL implementations have what they want and core also gets segwit. with no dictatorship.

due to consensual compromise

Haughtiness is not a requirement, all you needed to do was read the question.


Makes no sense, you are failing to answer the question, as I expected. If you don't like what's happening with the Japanese Yen, sell. Don't attempt a hostile takeover of the Bank of Japan.


You're deliberately conflating control of the network with control of the code base, to derail discussion of this aspect of reality you dislike. Why should I debate with someone who can't keep their arguments honest?


Right. I extend my previous accusation: you're shilling for hostile takeovers, using specious or dishonest arguments. Is this how you always get what you want in life?

Let's debate, among WHO should a consensus be reached.

If I understand you correctly, you say among EVERYONE, where each individual has an equal voting right. With that, I disagree. Consensus should be reached among economic majority. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Economic_majority

Should individuals, having a bigger economic impact, have a bigger say? By all means, yes. --> this is not a democracy. It's anarcho-capitalism. (which Satoshi, being a crypto-anarchist, was close to in thinking).

Does that mean, only one version of bitcoin software? No. Always more versions, but the fact remains, that for the system to work, one software needs to prevail, and heavily.


This is how I think the system was set up: The miners choose the firmware, that best represents the interests of the economic majority. If miners would choose the firmware that represents the choice of equal weighted bitcoin user voices, that would be a democracy. And that would be BAD.

Should the body of bitcoin core decision makers be unified and only one software allowed? Hell NO. Centralization represents everythig, the bicoin is against!

Then I apologise for my lack of psychic powers, because I can't guarantee a correct answer.  The obvious response would be that the people releasing competing protocols are dissatisfied with the product as it currently stands and feel they have the superior code.  You tend to proclaim, however, that the intent is hostile and it's simply a power grab.  Personally, I don't buy that, because again, you can't seize control when there's no one in control to seize it from.  The miners and node operators are ultimately responsible for securing the network.


Huzzah!  So we're in agreement that alternative clients have the right to exist and are free to compete on the current chain, even if you don't personally agree with what they represent.  I withdraw my previous accusation, then, you're not a protectionist apologist like the OP.

Blame the mining giants, like most do these days. According to the West, every bad thing in Bitcoin is linked to the Chinese.

"The socialist market economy is the economic model employed by the People's Republic of China. It is based on the dominance of the state-owned sector and an open-market economy, and has its origins in the Chinese economic reforms introduced under Deng Xiaoping."

I only see : Capitalism

"Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets."

You seem to be being provocative for it's own sake, which is a working definition of internet trolling.


It is your place to answer, you're the person I asked. And your poetic tinged bohemianist smoke-screen isn't altering the fact that you are avoiding the question because you don't like the answer.

And people are, of course, entirely free to do all sorts of foolish things. Free choices are not necessarily good choices.