I'll go back to my "just you wait till december" stance then
When Jan rolls around you can give me a good kicking for being wrong eh!
Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 142. (Read 378996 times)
Sorry i drifted off topic.
I'll go back to my "just you wait till december" stance then
When Jan rolls around you can give me a good kicking for being wrong eh!
I'll go back to my "just you wait till december" stance then
When Jan rolls around you can give me a good kicking for being wrong eh!
Pedanticism and arrogance don't make for good arguments. Of course I know that there has been prior discussion of removing the 1MB limit. Thats not the same as 'the block size debate' though. You know it, but you'd rather avoid acknowledging the specific difference for fear of exposing the reality of the situation that the 1MB limit is temporary and should be removed. That much is true.
Back to form you are. Mudslinging, pithy, obnoxious. These are characteristics of someone who has a weak argument and just wants to try and bully those who disagree into submission.
This argumentative thread makes no difference, the market will decide, so you and beg can get as angry as you like about everyone not agreeing with you but ultimately its only yourselves you are hurting. The fact you think you know everything just demonstrates how close minded you are. This means you can't be reasoned with. The only purpose of replying to you is so that others are aware of what you are doing. Nothing I say will make any difference to you personally.
Back to form you are. Mudslinging, pithy, obnoxious. These are characteristics of someone who has a weak argument and just wants to try and bully those who disagree into submission.
This argumentative thread makes no difference, the market will decide, so you and beg can get as angry as you like about everyone not agreeing with you but ultimately its only yourselves you are hurting. The fact you think you know everything just demonstrates how close minded you are. This means you can't be reasoned with. The only purpose of replying to you is so that others are aware of what you are doing. Nothing I say will make any difference to you personally.
Please get off your high horse and spare us your moral high ground bullshit.
The market decides indeed and it has made a point to crush your pipe dreams of exponential block size growth.
You can attempt to re-write history all you want the fact is BIP101/XT was DOA and only served to shine light on the numerous tumors that were necessary for us to get rid of.
All you've managed is to force core devs to manufacture a bone they could toss to XTards to distract them with while the actual scaling work is being done.
Yes the market hasn't decided it needs bigger blocks. This will continue to be true, until it's not. Nobody needs to rewrite anything.
Both of you continue to speak like everything is decided, and because you are right now, that you will be right always.
As I said this is supreme arrogance, as well as a profound failure to understand something as simple as the fact that things can change. Its like you think that if you argue really hard and stamp your feet and shout loudest that you think you can control it. You can't, I can't. The future of bitcoin is unknown and its emergent behaviour of all participants. If the market needs bigger blocks they will happen, however loudly you protest, and regardless of what the bitcoin core implementation has. If the market does not need bigger blocks then none of this will matter and core stays relevant. If bigger blocks aren't needed there will be a good reason I am sure, and it won't be 'artificial'.
That moral high ground you are so desperate to avoid is where real people make real decisions. This troll infested cesspool of a thread is where you and ice try and pimp out your own personal view of what you think bitcoin should be as if it were a fact.
It's not. You don't know what bitcoin will be, neither do I. You can only keep saying what you want it to be. It's important that anyone reading this understand that your opinions aren't fact. These posts are not for you to respond to, because there is nothing constructive you can say. You may as well not even bother reading them. In fact it'd be better all round if you just put me on ignore.
Maybe you're in the wrong thread?
This one says: XT (and BIP101) #REKT
If you wanna create another one that discuss Bitcoin's future feel free but don't omit to mention XT, BIP101, exponential growth blocks, Gavin or Hearn, will not be a part of it.
Pedanticism and arrogance don't make for good arguments. Of course I know that there has been prior discussion of removing the 1MB limit. Thats not the same as 'the block size debate' though. You know it, but you'd rather avoid acknowledging the specific difference for fear of exposing the reality of the situation that the 1MB limit is temporary and should be removed. That much is true.
Back to form you are. Mudslinging, pithy, obnoxious. These are characteristics of someone who has a weak argument and just wants to try and bully those who disagree into submission.
This argumentative thread makes no difference, the market will decide, so you and beg can get as angry as you like about everyone not agreeing with you but ultimately its only yourselves you are hurting. The fact you think you know everything just demonstrates how close minded you are. This means you can't be reasoned with. The only purpose of replying to you is so that others are aware of what you are doing. Nothing I say will make any difference to you personally.
Back to form you are. Mudslinging, pithy, obnoxious. These are characteristics of someone who has a weak argument and just wants to try and bully those who disagree into submission.
This argumentative thread makes no difference, the market will decide, so you and beg can get as angry as you like about everyone not agreeing with you but ultimately its only yourselves you are hurting. The fact you think you know everything just demonstrates how close minded you are. This means you can't be reasoned with. The only purpose of replying to you is so that others are aware of what you are doing. Nothing I say will make any difference to you personally.
Please get off your high horse and spare us your moral high ground bullshit.
The market decides indeed and it has made a point to crush your pipe dreams of exponential block size growth.
You can attempt to re-write history all you want the fact is BIP101/XT was DOA and only served to shine light on the numerous tumors that were necessary for us to get rid of.
All you've managed is to force core devs to manufacture a bone they could toss to XTards to distract them with while the actual scaling work is being done.
Yes the market hasn't decided it needs bigger blocks. This will continue to be true, until it's not. Nobody needs to rewrite anything.
Both of you continue to speak like everything is decided, and because you are right now, that you will be right always.
As I said this is supreme arrogance, as well as a profound failure to understand something as simple as the fact that things can change. Its like you think that if you argue really hard and stamp your feet and shout loudest that you think you can control it. You can't, I can't. The future of bitcoin is unknown and its emergent behaviour of all participants. If the market needs bigger blocks they will happen, however loudly you protest, and regardless of what the bitcoin core implementation has. If the market does not need bigger blocks then none of this will matter and core stays relevant. If bigger blocks aren't needed there will be a good reason I am sure, and it won't be 'artificial'.
That moral high ground you are so desperate to avoid is where real people make real decisions. This troll infested cesspool of a thread is where you and ice try and pimp out your own personal view of what you think bitcoin should be as if it were a fact.
It's not. You don't know what bitcoin will be, neither do I. You can only keep saying what you want it to be. It's important that anyone reading this understand that your opinions aren't fact. These posts are not for you to respond to, because there is nothing constructive you can say. You may as well not even bother reading them. In fact it'd be better all round if you just put me on ignore.
Overfitting 101
https://archive.is/FJoTB#selection-1899.0-1905.23
"Why did you square the number of transactions?
PR: It produces a good fit"
https://archive.is/FJoTB#selection-1899.0-1905.23
"Why did you square the number of transactions?
PR: It produces a good fit"
Overfitting 101
https://archive.is/FJoTB#selection-1899.0-1905.23
"Why did you square the number of transactions?
PR: It produces a good fit"
https://archive.is/FJoTB#selection-1899.0-1905.23
"Why did you square the number of transactions?
PR: It produces a good fit"
XT stifled the discussion, please spare us your revisionist history.
The whole act has been a huge drain on the attention and focus of the developing community.
The whole act has been a huge drain on the attention and focus of the developing community.
You say drain, I say motivate. *poof* A BIP100 appears!
History is always revised according the viewpoint of the person recounting it. In those tricky cases where its recorded in black and white, it can be dismissed as an appeal to authority.
Hmm, who should I believe about the impact of XT on BTC development?
Clueless nobody sgbett (who believed "Pseudo nodes aren't mining blocks") or uber-crypto-boss Adam Back (BitGold, Blockstream)?
As for BIP100, please note it's not even fully specified, much less coded. Given that context, BIP100 means nothing more than a vote against 101.
BIP100 was obviously just the nearest handy large rock for the pools to pick up and beat XT to death with.
BIP100 can be gamed and it sets a bad precedent, thus the socioeconomic majority won't give miners that much power.
I know you and Garzik are all hot and bothered over it, but sorry, it ain't gonna happen.
Quote
#REKKKKT
I agree BIP100 is a terrible proposal. I agree it can be gamed, and so it will be gamed. I agree it was only produced to try and neutralise the 'threat' of XT.
I also believe that nobody will take it seriously and it will go no further.
So why even bring it up?
Pedanticism and arrogance don't make for good arguments. Of course I know that there has been prior discussion of removing the 1MB limit. Thats not the same as 'the block size debate' though. You know it, but you'd rather avoid acknowledging the specific difference for fear of exposing the reality of the situation that the 1MB limit is temporary and should be removed. That much is true.
Back to form you are. Mudslinging, pithy, obnoxious. These are characteristics of someone who has a weak argument and just wants to try and bully those who disagree into submission.
This argumentative thread makes no difference, the market will decide, so you and beg can get as angry as you like about everyone not agreeing with you but ultimately its only yourselves you are hurting. The fact you think you know everything just demonstrates how close minded you are. This means you can't be reasoned with. The only purpose of replying to you is so that others are aware of what you are doing. Nothing I say will make any difference to you personally.
Back to form you are. Mudslinging, pithy, obnoxious. These are characteristics of someone who has a weak argument and just wants to try and bully those who disagree into submission.
This argumentative thread makes no difference, the market will decide, so you and beg can get as angry as you like about everyone not agreeing with you but ultimately its only yourselves you are hurting. The fact you think you know everything just demonstrates how close minded you are. This means you can't be reasoned with. The only purpose of replying to you is so that others are aware of what you are doing. Nothing I say will make any difference to you personally.
Please get off your high horse and spare us your moral high ground bullshit.
The market decides indeed and it has made a point to crush your pipe dreams of exponential block size growth.
You can attempt to re-write history all you want the fact is BIP101/XT was DOA and only served to shine light on the numerous tumors that were necessary for us to get rid of.
All you've managed is to force core devs to manufacture a bone they could toss to XTards to distract them with while the actual scaling work is being done.
XT stifled the discussion, please spare us your revisionist history.
The whole act has been a huge drain on the attention and focus of the developing community.
The whole act has been a huge drain on the attention and focus of the developing community.
You say drain, I say motivate. *poof* A BIP100 appears!
History is always revised according the viewpoint of the person recounting it. In those tricky cases where its recorded in black and white, it can be dismissed as an appeal to authority.
Hmm, who should I believe about the impact of XT on BTC development?
Clueless nobody sgbett (who believed "Pseudo nodes aren't mining blocks") or uber-crypto-boss Adam Back (BitGold, Blockstream)?
As for BIP100, please note it's not even fully specified, much less coded. Given that context, BIP100 means nothing more than a vote against 101.
BIP100 was obviously just the nearest handy large rock for the pools to pick up and beat XT to death with.
BIP100 can be gamed and it sets a bad precedent, thus the socioeconomic majority won't give miners that much power.
I know you and Garzik are all hot and bothered over it, but sorry, it ain't gonna happen.
Quote
#REKKKKT
I agree BIP100 is a terrible proposal. I agree it can be gamed, and so it will be gamed. I agree it was only produced to try and neutralise the 'threat' of XT.
I also believe that nobody will take it seriously and it will go no further.
XT opened a debate
There you go again, thinking you know WTF you're talking about when you actually do not.
The block size debate has been ongoing, in the proper Lserv/IRC/BIP channels, for many years.
Just because your Redditurd Army recently discovered the topic and quickly developed Strong Opinions does not indicate XT "opened a debate."
The debate has been open since 2009. The subjective appearance of novelty by which you are afflicted is a cognitive artifact resulting from your status as a N00B who should listen more and talk less, or GTFO.
you are the person that thinks its dead
I wish you all the best in your grieving transitions from the denial stage, on through bargaining, and to a final acceptance.
Pedanticism and arrogance don't make for good arguments. Of course I know that there has been prior discussion of removing the 1MB limit. Thats not the same as 'the block size debate' though. You know it, but you'd rather avoid acknowledging the specific difference for fear of exposing the reality of the situation that the 1MB limit is temporary and should be removed. That much is true.
Back to form you are. Mudslinging, pithy, obnoxious. These are characteristics of someone who has a weak argument and just wants to try and bully those who disagree into submission.
This argumentative thread makes no difference, the market will decide, so you and beg can get as angry as you like about everyone not agreeing with you but ultimately its only yourselves you are hurting. The fact you think you know everything just demonstrates how close minded you are. This means you can't be reasoned with. The only purpose of replying to you is so that others are aware of what you are doing. Nothing I say will make any difference to you personally.
XT stifled the discussion, please spare us your revisionist history.
The whole act has been a huge drain on the attention and focus of the developing community.
The whole act has been a huge drain on the attention and focus of the developing community.
You say drain, I say motivate. *poof* A BIP100 appears!
History is always revised according the viewpoint of the person recounting it. In those tricky cases where its recorded in black and white, it can be dismissed as an appeal to authority.
Hmm, who should I believe about the impact of XT on BTC development?
Clueless nobody sgbett (who believed "Pseudo nodes aren't mining blocks") or uber-crypto-boss Adam Back (BitGold, Blockstream)?
As for BIP100, please note it's not even fully specified, much less coded. Given that context, BIP100 means nothing more than a vote against 101.
BIP100 was obviously just the nearest handy large rock for the pools to pick up and beat XT to death with.
BIP100 can be gamed and it sets a bad precedent, thus the socioeconomic majority won't give miners that much power.
I know you and Garzik are all hot and bothered over it, but sorry, it ain't gonna happen.
Quote
#REKKKKT
I'd imagine that if mining remained decentralized and the powers-that-be realized "it just ain't gonna" happen that they would be incentisized to keep full-nodes up and transfered their wealth into bitcoin at that point because they know their wealth would be preserved. If these incentivesized full nodes are running (as I translated Satoshi's message IMO) that's fine because we have powerful players supporting the nodes we know the network won't be "not" relaying/securing blocks for a long time.
Everything hinges around mining decentralization. If this is possible then having full-nodes won't be a problem.
And how many nodes does that represents exactly being fully decentralized? If 1000 nodes is enough, then can we consider 1M nodes to be unnecessary? No?
Miner decentralization matters more than full-node decentralization. It takes half of the miners to become regulated to cause havok, while half of the full-nodes can be removed with no affect to the network.
Agreed but how does the block size limit influence miners centralization if most miners rely on mining pools.
Look, we're a bit tired of reading what "you think". Especially considering it's mostly wrong and completely disconnected from reality. Please go away. Thank you
I'd imagine that if mining remained decentralized and the powers-that-be realized "it just ain't gonna" happen that they would be incentisized to keep full-nodes up and transfered their wealth into bitcoin at that point because they know their wealth would be preserved. If these incentivesized full nodes are running (as I translated Satoshi's message IMO) that's fine because we have powerful players supporting the nodes we know the network won't be "not" relaying/securing blocks for a long time.
Everything hinges around mining decentralization. If this is possible then having full-nodes won't be a problem.
And how many nodes does that represents exactly being fully decentralized? If 1000 nodes is enough, then can we consider 1M nodes to be unnecessary? No?
Miner decentralization matters more than full-node decentralization. It takes half of the miners to become regulated to cause havok, while half of the full-nodes can be removed with no affect to the network.
Agreed but how does the block size limit influence miners centralization if most miners rely on mining pools.
I barely have the heart to tell Zarasstua I intentionally used Cunningham's Law to get him to provide the actual lulzy figure, so we could proceed to make fun of it!
Compare the discussions of the 200+ there ...
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-56#post-2078
... with the childish behavior of the small blockers here in this thread. You can't have the same level in a discussion if a thread is full of 'censorship cheerleaders', 'consensus communists', 'childish picture and meme posters', 'competition haters', 'faked nodes and DDoS enthusiasts', vulgar poets and alikes. That this minority will get big blocks next year and beeing forked off the game if they'll be stupid enough to clamp on funny small block implementations, should be crystal clear. Shouln'd it?
That's the difference between lifeless simulated "spherical cow" reality and the real world!
We are (Space)Block-1(MB) and We Brake For Nobody!
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-OzUjO8TtkeI/U2rJt4OPj7I/AAAAAAAAABU/BiMUicwi1kw/s630-fcrop64=1,00750000ff89ffff/SPACEBALL1.jpg
While little people went shopping elsewhere, The Core remains strong and the rest is just Solar Wind.
http://ste.india.com/sites/default/files/2015/02/19/326886-solar-and-flare4547.jpg
I barely have the heart to tell Zarasstua I intentionally used Cunningham's Law to get him to provide the actual lulzy figure, so we could proceed to make fun of it!
Compare the discussions of the 200+ there ...
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-56#post-2078
... with the childish behavior of the small blockers here in this thread. You can't have the same level in a discussion if a thread is full of 'censorship cheerleaders', 'consensus communists', 'childish picture and meme posters', 'competition haters', 'faked nodes and DDoS enthusiasts', vulgar poets and alikes. That this minority will get big blocks next year and beeing forked off the game if they'll be stupid enough to clamp on funny small block implementations, should be crystal clear. Shouln'd it?
Hopefully 1.1 MB, if that, is "big" enough for you
Those against BIP101 20-year fixed plan pulled out of Gavin's arse and Hearn's XT trojaned code
.... we have a basic tragedy of the commons scenario.
.... we have a basic tragedy of the commons scenario.
C'mon! Your 'language' is the tragedy of the commons. A common can't have consensus with people using such language.
They are determined to fork.
The tragedy of the commons is selfish interest clashing with the common interest (talking about tx inclusion).
As for Hearndresen forking forcibly in mining minority with checkpoints, I can't wait. Bring it on.
BTW: back down to 3/1000.
Hearndresen triggered an inflation in discussions about how to raise the limit. Which is good, because it will lead to raise that limit. Can't wait to see small blockers claiming victory when their idols are forced to implement big blocks.
Those against BIP101 20-year fixed plan pulled out of Gavin's arse and Hearn's XT trojaned code
.... we have a basic tragedy of the commons scenario.
.... we have a basic tragedy of the commons scenario.
C'mon! Your 'language' is the tragedy of the commons. A common can't have consensus with people using such language.
They are determined to fork.
The tragedy of the commons is selfish interest clashing with the common interest (talking about tx inclusion).
As for Hearndresen forking forcibly in mining minority with checkpoints, I can't wait. Bring it on.
BTW: back down to 3/1000.
Those against BIP101 20-year fixed plan pulled out of Gavin's arse and Hearn's XT trojaned code
.... we have a basic tragedy of the commons scenario.
.... we have a basic tragedy of the commons scenario.
C'mon! Your 'language' is the tragedy of the commons. A common can't have consensus with people using such language.
They are determined to fork.
Those against BIP101 20-year fixed plan pulled out of Gavin's arse and Hearn's XT trojaned code that didn't make the cut in Core but he will try to push it anyway with the excuse of bigger blocks, they are not a uniform group and they only need XT to fail to claim victory.
It's really not that hard to grasp.
As for a 92% correlation strength with Bitcoin price, that's extremely unremarkable when most of it happened at near 0, and it has been completely uncorrelated elsewhere. Google searches for Layla Monroe have a higher correlation than that, simply by virtue of breaking up at roughly the same time.
This previous post lets you see how little real correlation there is:
The block limit is a temporary measure until some other mechanism to keep block spam and block size under control is put in place. While fees are ridiculously cheap and transactions are being included strongly under cost, we have a basic tragedy of the commons scenario. Some mechanism needs to make the bulk of the included transactions justify themselves before we remove it.
It's really not that hard to grasp.
As for a 92% correlation strength with Bitcoin price, that's extremely unremarkable when most of it happened at near 0, and it has been completely uncorrelated elsewhere. Google searches for Layla Monroe have a higher correlation than that, simply by virtue of breaking up at roughly the same time.
This previous post lets you see how little real correlation there is:
The 92% correlation is remarkable! Thanks Peter for noticing that!
https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/historical/1w-p-blksize_per_tot-01071
https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/historical/1w-p-blksize_per_tot-01071
The block limit is a temporary measure until some other mechanism to keep block spam and block size under control is put in place. While fees are ridiculously cheap and transactions are being included strongly under cost, we have a basic tragedy of the commons scenario. Some mechanism needs to make the bulk of the included transactions justify themselves before we remove it.
How dare you!? I am most certainly in the "just you wait until december" camp, my xt-nodes blazing as a futile show of dissent!
Alright, fair enough. You are in a (supremely nutty) third camp, which believes both 'XT died for our 1MB sins' and 'XT will return for the Gavinista rapture.'
Alas, if only you could understand the superlinear relationship between tx size and verification time, we could put this civil war behind us.
Unless you are determined to destroy Bitcoin's decentralization-cum-survivability, and thus subvert the engineering requirement that it be above the law...
XT opened a debate, you are the person that thinks its dead
Sure its a bit beat up right now, but just you wait till xmas, remember we hit $560k in november so we are bound to need a little more room!
XT stifled the discussion, please spare us your revisionist history.
The whole act has been a huge drain on the attention and focus of the developing community.
You say drain, I say motivate. *poof* A BIP100 appears!
History is always revised according the viewpoint of the person recounting it. In those tricky cases where its recorded in black and white, it can be dismissed as an appeal to authority.
Thank you, BIP100 is a great example of totally wasted efforts and focus. It never had any chance of being adopted and is nothing more than a distraction.
*poof* as if by magic another BIP appears!
http://coinjournal.net/a-new-block-size-increase-bip-is-planned-for-the-rough-consensus-from-montreal/#
all this "wasted effort" *rolls eyes* I wonder if both sides will claim 'victory'.
Yes. The idols of the small blockers will be forced to present a big block implementation and then the same small blockers will claim victory because they'll have their 'own' big block implementation, presented by their idols. That's how religion works.
Laughed so hard I almost puked coffee. Eyes excreting liquid mirth.
And U2? Experts for the most stupid analogies?
"Bigger blocks = higher prices (92% correlation)" is true a statement.
It doesn't mean that higher prices cause bigger blocks or that bigger blocks cause higher prices. It just means that the two quantities have been highly correlated with each other. A percentage increase in the average size of the block has equated with an increase in the price of a bitcoin with a strength of 92%.
(BTW: I actually do think that a higher block size limit would cause higher prices, but that is my opinion.)
Jump to: