Topic: Bitcoin obstructionists (Read 1414 times)

thanks for the reply.

I  believe the miners don't trust Core to do a healthy increase later if Segwit is done first, that is
why they are blocking it...

We could go back and forth for 10 pages about the merits of segwit or raising blocksize and
if us two people had to come to some kind of compromise, we'd likely end up with segwit plus
a block increase together... but Core won't compromise at all.  Heck, even Sergio's recent proposal of segwit now plus 2mb
at a fixed later date sounds very close, but Core didn't go for that either.  They only want segwit
now and maybe bigger blocks at some vague future point.

I can’t really answer for Greg, he’s probably not answering you because he is tired of the debate bullshit that has been going on. I can give you my take on your questions though. If you continue to be reasonable, I may have to take you off my shill list 

franky1 has a loooong way to go though 
   
1. Why do you only talk about centralization threats via node cost increases and never (at least that I've seen) discuss the possible centralization that comes from forcing users off the main chain via high fees.  This moving of users from 'Layer 1' to 'Layer 2' is the obvious outcome of transforming the peer to peer electronic cash system envisioned by Satoshi into a 'Bitcoin-as-a-Settlement-Network'. 

From my understanding, you need both bigger blocks and 2nd layer solutions to deal with future transactions when adoption grows exponentially. The Core road map even says so. Bigger blocks on their own won’t be enough. Even Jihan Wu is behind Lightning Network.

2. Will you even confirm or deny that you want Bitcoin to be a settlement network?  You should at least be able to answer this simple question.

This may be the natural progression for Bitcoin in the future when side-chains take over. It does not mean that this will be bad thing. As long as there are multiple services available and people can choose with whom to deal and are not forced into one centralized service like lightning network, I don’t have a problem with it.

3. Why do you still refuse to give the community the blocksize increase we've been asking for, for years?  Please, no political answers of "but Segwit IS an increase".  The miners are rejecting this.  50%+ of hashpower today is signaling for big blocks.   Why can't you accept the 2mb+segwit proposal?  Are we still stuck on the "HF are bad" narrative?

Again, the Core road map calls for SegWit first and blocksize increase later, just like they are doing with Litecoin. I would support a threshold for increase the blocksize like they have agreed to on Litecoin. How about you?

4. You accuse everyone of being manipulated pawns when we don't embrace the core roadmap, but what is so bad about 2mb or a well coordinated HF?  Can you admit that a large section of community (including prominent developers) feels the arguments against these things are unconvincing?. You called for a 'fee market', you got it.  Are you happy with the high fees and network congestion?   Are you aware of the significant decline in Bitcoin marketcap dominance, or that companies like Dell and Fiverr no longer accept Bitcoin?  In other words, do you still think your economic policies are good?   These are serious questions.

I am against any hardfork without high majority of support like 95%+. The last thing I want to see is a fork with multiple chains and the price of Bitcoin crashing due to confusion and fear. This is why I don’t support UASF, seems too risky to me. However, if UASF is the only way forward because a small group of miners are blocking progress for no reason other than their own personal agenda (like ASICBOOST), I would have no choice but to support it. IF multiple chains are the only way forward, then so be it.

Progress must be made, stagnation is bad. Can you agree with this?

SegWit would alleviate high fees and network congestion, at least for a while, which is why I would support a threshold to increase the blocksize after SegWit like on Litecoin. Does this not sound reasonable?

All this discussion may be pointless now anyway, if SegWit is successful on Litecoin, there will be no reason to block it from Bitcoin. If SegWit is found to be flawed once active on Litecoin then the debate will rage on and I'll look for another solution to get behind, my confidence in Core would have been greatly diminished.

Its possible you're not an intentional shill... just short sighted and a bad listener  

I think you are behaving like an adult in this moderated thread (I don't mean that in a patronizing way)
but in the past you've often simply just acted like a robot "big blocks are bad, core is good bleep bleep".

If your main argument is that "Core has the most experience", well at least that argument has some merit.

You still seem to blindly follow their roadmap though and attack others who question it without being
able to refute their arguments or even discuss the issues.

Here's some food for though.  I asked Greg Maxwell 3 important questions yesterday,
here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18690546

I do not think he will answer them, and I do not think he CAN answer them without
being unconvincing, (which is why he won't answer them).  

My challenge to you is to answer the questions and discuss the actual issues.  Can you?

"which is following the best and most experienced, diverse development team and their road map"
"team"
"their"

my morals and ethos is that teams come and go.
when you start to see bitcoin as us and ours meaning EVERYONES. instead of "theirs" you will see things better

so i only support code and things that count towards the direction of bitcoin over the next 120 years. not some team and their temporary road pothole filling patch thats half baked that wont last long

franky1, core = blockstream = bankers is straight script from r/btc

My motives are what is best for my investment in Bitcoin, which is following the best and most experienced, diverse development team and their road map.

If another development team comes around with great ideas that are at least as good as core's or better even, I'd get behind them 100%.

Right now we have core and their road map. Litecoin will prove its the best and we can finally move past all of this.

i would prefer to keep the thread clean, i will start pruning comments espeically if they are quoted

did i get your post deleted? is blockstream a buzzword or a corporation name.
P.S i am not even registered on reddit.

to me reddit is like fox news, racial slurs and threats of attack unless a certain line is toed

its funny how r/bitcoin has been noticed how its ok to talk about litecoin alt and elements:segwit alt or anything that is backed by the blockstream/DCG portfolio

but if anyone mentions anything negative about the elements:segwit alt, or litecoins adoption of the same said alt or DCG portfolio.
or positive about implementations that are part of bitcoin but not blockstream supported they get deleted. much like your thread

cant you atleast admit your own motives one more time

Who is censoring now and regurgitating buzzwords from Reddit.

Edit: I guess ALL the miners are in blockstream's pocket now? I wonder what you and your brethren will move onto when SegWit becomes active on Bitcoin and this drama is over? I can't wait!

You've just proven my point -- you have no technical or logical argument as to why you support core's scaling roadmap or why big blocks are bad.   Because you either know that such positions are indefensible (or at least highly contestable) or you're simply a troll.

That's your opinion just like its mine that you are a big block/anti-core/anti-blockstream shill much like franky1.

Like cockroaches, shills don't like having a light shined on them. If shills get trolled in the process, that's life.

Don't forget to add my very informative thread on trolls and shills or is that no substance as well?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/to-let-shilling-go-unchecked-is-dangerous-hes-some-proof-as-to-why-1880606

I said my peace here, I'll leave it at that, thanks.


Self moderate threads let you filter out things such as name calling and fighting off topic, I don't have a problem with that. If Jonald wants to delete my post that's his prerogative.

Funny, right?


I don't.    I expect others to believe me over my 'opponents' because I'm known for using logical arguments based in reality.


I want to promote discussion in general but this thread isn't the place for it.  The actual issues have been discussed in many other threads and unfortunately there are some incapable of a mature conversation.

What's up with witch hunt threads lately? OP is included in an equivalent self moderated thread by someone from the other side. If you disagree with things people say, don't expect others to follow you just because you have labeled said people.

At the very least, don't self-mod your thread if you want to promote discussion...

i would class the type of person who hurts the discussion of bitcoin as the type of poster who you don't need to read any more because you already know what they're gonna say. there are quite a few of them.

Problem is, each polarised side views the other as obstructionists and shills. What they are failing to understand, is that each implementation has some ideas that are of merit.
Bitcoin needs a major protocol upgrade or it will become obsolete. It's the protocol that needs to be defined and consensus agreed on the approach forward. Since this is a major protocol change it should be done in the best way possible. Some actors need to bury their ego and open their minds.
Implementation details are up to individual software teams.

Thanks for adding yourself.

Here we have it R.I.P Jonald fyookball, one of the biggest trolls/shills here and on /btc.

If you are talking about "scaling and transaction rate" I have in my current signature, it is a link to a Satoshi quote, where he references a quote to himself. The four principles I have stated underneath is what I believe needs to happen for his vision to work. Not sure anyone else is using it though, so you might be referring to something else.


You make a very good point. We cannot make a confirmed transaction without a miners 'permission'. For bitcoin to work miners must eventually confirm all transactions. Their incentive is that bitcoin is more valuable if it is reliable. Some miners are picking and choosing their fee paying transactions, and are happy to produce a non full block when there are plenty of fee paying transactions left. Others will pick them up.
Satoshi refers to double spend detection and zero confirmation economic risk here and here. Classic's FlexTrans implements a double spend detection method. Forgetful mempools are a menace to zero confirmation economic risk, as are part time nodes which currently create potential double spend holes through the network since mempools are not currently synced from their peers on start up.


BU have a BUIP for SW has a hard fork. The biggest problem with SW as a soft fork (in my opinion) is that it relies on kludges to make it work as a soft fork. As a hard fork, they could probably have changed the transaction format so that it works on native keys. This, taking ideas from classic's FlexTrans for double spend protection, and compact message formatting, along with dynamic block sizes would create a solid bitcoin foundation layer to build upon.

This is not good, people will abuse such list and put there names of users they don't like. And how can you be objective and on what ground could anyone take the right to label someone based on, let's be honest, subjective feeling. This will not end good. After all this is forum, a place where people can freely share their opinions and attitudes. Look,what ancient greek word means.

What is that "scaling and transaction list" signature I often see some members wearing? you know what I think? I think bitcoin has this problem in it's roots where it gives the miners the freedom to either include transactions in blocks or simply ignore them and mine empty blocks, I mean in a decentralized network where people need their transactions to be processed then those with the means and the power to do so can selectively deny people. though full nodes can easily validate transactions as they have the full blockchain and miners could keep mining but again the issue with double spends comes to play and discussing that is out of scope of this topic.

But tell me something, why don't BU dev(s) take SW then remove whatever they don't like and then publish it for miners to choose? I might have some clue why they're not doing that, because they want their version to be used no question asked, if BU was Satoshi's vision then why did BU nodes crashed? take any version before BU introduced to the network and perform the same attacks to see if they as well crash or not? if not then why did they tamper with Satoshi's vision themselves?