There's a new piece of LULz titled "bigger blocks = higher prices", I shit you not. Guess who made it.
I do believe this is a new low for him.
Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 146. (Read 379003 times)
I do believe this is a new low for him.
That is hilarious!
I always knew that Nicolas Cage was a piece of shit. lol
Bigger Blocks = Higher Prices: Visualizing the 92% historical correlation
There's a new piece of LULz titled "bigger blocks = higher prices", I shit you not. Guess who made it.
There's too much conspiratorial accusations on both sides here. I'm not inclined to think Peter R wants to "kill Bitcoin." But I'm also not inclined to think BlockStream is trying to "block the stream of transactions," so it's hard for me to get too upset about people accusing Peter R of trying to "kill Bitcoin."
But Peter R, I can't imagine why you thought this animated gif was a good idea. I know it's supposed to depict a "possible future" that you want to help bring about, but someone not following the issue could easily think that XT has grown to be competitive with Core, which isn't true at all. And the fact that you keep reposting it in various venues is -- well, it makes me wonder what you think you're accomplishing. And calling it a "Nash Equilibrium"? Why? Is there some mathematics supporting the gif?
Someone against XT could make a similar gif depicting a "Tyson Equilibrium" that would show XT growing to about 10% with Core being close to 90% and then the Core part of the pie chart could grow fists and beat the XT part silly until it bleeds and cries and gets overtaken. This wouldn't prove anything, but it would be funny and arguably a more accurate representation of the current situation.
But I have to say, as someone who's relieved that XT hasn't gained traction, those of us against XT could be a bit more gracious. Maybe Peter R's gif is just an indication that he's in the denial stage. People dancing on XT's grave probably isn't helping.
But Peter R, I can't imagine why you thought this animated gif was a good idea. I know it's supposed to depict a "possible future" that you want to help bring about, but someone not following the issue could easily think that XT has grown to be competitive with Core, which isn't true at all. And the fact that you keep reposting it in various venues is -- well, it makes me wonder what you think you're accomplishing. And calling it a "Nash Equilibrium"? Why? Is there some mathematics supporting the gif?
Someone against XT could make a similar gif depicting a "Tyson Equilibrium" that would show XT growing to about 10% with Core being close to 90% and then the Core part of the pie chart could grow fists and beat the XT part silly until it bleeds and cries and gets overtaken. This wouldn't prove anything, but it would be funny and arguably a more accurate representation of the current situation.
But I have to say, as someone who's relieved that XT hasn't gained traction, those of us against XT could be a bit more gracious. Maybe Peter R's gif is just an indication that he's in the denial stage. People dancing on XT's grave probably isn't helping.
Are you sure that Peter Rizun is just incapable of thinking rationally? You're alluding to the implausibility of that notion when you concede that you cannot understand Peter's motivation for using misleading graphics or fantasy mathematics.
This thread moves too fast for people like me.
My impression is that Peter R is approaching this like a political campaign of sorts. He develops some talking points and then repeats them over and over. He tends to write a paragraph supporting the current talking point (and in the latest case a gif) and then cuts and pastes that paragraph into responses on different forums. The responses may have some other texts before and/or after the cut and paste. Obviously it's difficult to have a dialogue when one party is approaching the conversation this way. It's possible he wants to be a politician and this is him practicing in a small community.
I mentioned Peter R being in the "denial stage" as an offhand comment. Now that I've looked it up the stages of grief it might fit what we're seeing from XT supporters. In this thread, along with many others, there's been no shortage of "anger." The new "goal" of just wanting there to be competing implementations seems to fit the "bargaining" stage.
After seeing Peter R's animated gif (where XT temporarily gets ahead of Core) I must admit that his P.R. skills have definitely Rizun, something that Mike couldn't have possibly Hearn, but don't worry we will get through this, now that Adam is Back!
This thread reminds me of the Monty Python's Flying Circus Argument Clinic, where we have gone through "a whole lot of abuse", "lengthy arguments with contradictions", "plenty of complaints", "beating over the head lessons" and subsequent "moderating and censorship". Flying Circus it is!
http://i.imgur.com/eb5owLN.gif http://i.imgur.com/iDtSyfL.gif
Hope everyone enjoyed the ride!
Pools are masters, and miners are slaves. Yes, miners can change their masters, but they can't get free. In the end, the pools that give the most (more income due to natural reasons) will attract most miners.
Just imagine an extreme situation with ~8Gb (read: very large) blocks. In this case, apparently the most effective configuration would be 1 single pool, or a couple pools located in the same data-center. And you miners wouldn't be able to do anything with this centralization.
Hogwash. Anyone with sufficient capital can afford to solo mine, even today. For a few thousand dollar investment one can purchase miners that will score a block in under two years, on the average. The risk involved is that this won't happen and one will lose their investment, but if they are not poor and living in their parent's basement this will not be much of a problem. Other people may even consider this situation beneficial, if they consider it a form of gambling.
As to the single data center idea. I suggest you do the math. There are two costs here, the node cost and the orphan cost. To get the total node cost, calculate the cost of running a single node and multiply it by the number of pools. The node costs consist of storage cost, processing cost, and bandwidth cost. These all relate to the number of transactions the network processes, so you can calculate a node cost per transaction. (You can look at prices quoted by Amazon AWS, etc.) Now multiply this cost by the number of pools. I think you will find that there can be quite a large number of nodes that can easily be supported by existing transaction fees, far more than the number of pools of significance today.
The orphan cost can also be estimated, but it depends on the protocol design and network topology between the pools. The question of one data center vs. multiple data centers comes down to the speed of propagation. The speed of light can not be avoided, but the block size need not affect the results significantly provided an efficient protocol is used. There is no need to "store, verify and then forward" blocks, but even if this is done the orphan rate will still be low with 4 GB blocks if the data centers are connected by 10 Gbps pipes and the number of hops is kept low. Much better designs are possible, as would be known to any networking expert or even bittorrent user.
I do not expect to convince any small blocker, which is why I am not putting out any numbers (a.k.a. targets). Rather, I hope that some fence sitters might do their own calculations and reach their own conclusions. My conclusion is that some work is needed before there can be a large increase in network transaction capacity, but this mostly involves improvements in the bitcoin network protocols and in the processing efficiency of the network hardware.
(my claim is orthogonal to actual numbers). 
At first i liked XT, but too many undocumented changes happened there.
BIP101 is also bad :/, won't use it.
BIP101 is also bad :/, won't use it.
Big market (makers?!) here..
Is that really the same cypherdoc that accused me of not understanding the network effect?
Quote
I wonder how the network value of that 6-member circlejerk forum compares to BitcoinTalk (544282 Members) and /r/bitcoin (173,242)?
In fairness to frap.doc, that place is still better than Ver's shitty bitcom.com.
A notorious liar. More than 200.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12619823
Big market (makers?!) here..
Is that really the same cypherdoc that accused me of not understanding the network effect?
Quote
I wonder how the network value of that 6-member circlejerk forum compares to BitcoinTalk (544282 Members) and /r/bitcoin (173,242)?
In fairness to frap.doc, that place is still better than Ver's shitty bitcom.com.
A notorious liar. More than 200.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12619823
Ah, you deleted your promise to disappear. Hard life when someone fights a fight against himself.
There's too much conspiratorial accusations on both sides here. I'm not inclined to think Peter R wants to "kill Bitcoin." But I'm also not inclined to think BlockStream is trying to "block the stream of transactions," so it's hard for me to get too upset about people accusing Peter R of trying to "kill Bitcoin."
But Peter R, I can't imagine why you thought this animated gif was a good idea. I know it's supposed to depict a "possible future" that you want to help bring about, but someone not following the issue could easily think that XT has grown to be competitive with Core, which isn't true at all. And the fact that you keep reposting it in various venues is -- well, it makes me wonder what you think you're accomplishing. And calling it a "Nash Equilibrium"? Why? Is there some mathematics supporting the gif?
Someone against XT could make a similar gif depicting a "Tyson Equilibrium" that would show XT growing to about 10% with Core being close to 90% and then the Core part of the pie chart could grow fists and beat the XT part silly until it bleeds and cries and gets overtaken. This wouldn't prove anything, but it would be funny and arguably a more accurate representation of the current situation.
But I have to say, as someone who's relieved that XT hasn't gained traction, those of us against XT could be a bit more gracious. Maybe Peter R's gif is just an indication that he's in the denial stage. People dancing on XT's grave probably isn't helping.
But Peter R, I can't imagine why you thought this animated gif was a good idea. I know it's supposed to depict a "possible future" that you want to help bring about, but someone not following the issue could easily think that XT has grown to be competitive with Core, which isn't true at all. And the fact that you keep reposting it in various venues is -- well, it makes me wonder what you think you're accomplishing. And calling it a "Nash Equilibrium"? Why? Is there some mathematics supporting the gif?
Someone against XT could make a similar gif depicting a "Tyson Equilibrium" that would show XT growing to about 10% with Core being close to 90% and then the Core part of the pie chart could grow fists and beat the XT part silly until it bleeds and cries and gets overtaken. This wouldn't prove anything, but it would be funny and arguably a more accurate representation of the current situation.
But I have to say, as someone who's relieved that XT hasn't gained traction, those of us against XT could be a bit more gracious. Maybe Peter R's gif is just an indication that he's in the denial stage. People dancing on XT's grave probably isn't helping.
Are you sure that Peter Rizun is just incapable of thinking rationally? You're alluding to the implausibility of that notion when you concede that you cannot understand Peter's motivation for using misleading graphics or fantasy mathematics.
This thread moves too fast for people like me.
My impression is that Peter R is approaching this like a political campaign of sorts. He develops some talking points and then repeats them over and over. He tends to write a paragraph supporting the current talking point (and in the latest case a gif) and then cuts and pastes that paragraph into responses on different forums. The responses may have some other texts before and/or after the cut and paste. Obviously it's difficult to have a dialogue when one party is approaching the conversation this way. It's possible he wants to be a politician and this is him practicing in a small community.
I mentioned Peter R being in the "denial stage" as an offhand comment. Now that I've looked it up the stages of grief it might fit what we're seeing from XT supporters. In this thread, along with many others, there's been no shortage of "anger." The new "goal" of just wanting there to be competing implementations seems to fit the "bargaining" stage.
Big market (makers?!) here..
Is that really the same cypherdoc that accused me of not understanding the network effect?
Quote
I wonder how the network value of that 6-member circlejerk forum compares to BitcoinTalk (544282 Members) and /r/bitcoin (173,242)?
In fairness to frap.doc, that place is still better than Ver's shitty bitcom.com.
A notorious liar. More than 200.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12619823
Big market (makers?!) here..
Is that really the same cypherdoc that accused me of not understanding the network effect?
Quote
I wonder how the network value of that 6-member circlejerk forum compares to BitcoinTalk (544282 Members) and /r/bitcoin (173,242)?
In fairness to frap.doc, that place is still better than Ver's shitty bitcom.com.
A notorious liar. More than 200.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12619823
Everybody out there is talking about the ideas of Peter R.
Nobody is talking about the ideas of the brg and that mod.
Which is no surprise.
Nobody is talking about the ideas of the brg and that mod.
Which is no surprise.
Everybody out there is laughing about the 'spherical blockchain' ideas of Peter R.
Which is no surprise.
Of course, that's why they are forced to censor him. Poor core devs and mods.
And you still insist on conflating moderation with censorship. What an insult to actual victims of censorship. Why not claim theymos is raping Peter R as well?
Your argument sucks, so you have to redefine and trivialize powerful words to make them do the advocacy work for you. That's why XT's vaunted Streisand Effect failed to achieve much of anything.
Moderating only controls time/place/behavior. Censorship attempts to control ideas. Learn to tell the difference, please!
Everybody knows how censorship is defined correctly:
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3nq0bk/antonopoulos_gives_his_opinion_of_rbitcoin_at_5540/
Big market (makers?!) here..
Is that really the same cypherdoc that accused me of not understanding the network effect?
Quote
I wonder how the network value of that 6-member circlejerk forum compares to BitcoinTalk (544282 Members) and /r/bitcoin (173,242)?
In fairness to frap.doc, that place is still better than Ver's shitty bitcom.com.
Everybody out there is talking about the ideas of Peter R.
Nobody is talking about the ideas of the brg and that mod.
Which is no surprise.
Nobody is talking about the ideas of the brg and that mod.
Which is no surprise.
Everybody out there is laughing about the 'spherical blockchain' ideas of Peter R.
Which is no surprise.
Of course, that's why they are forced to censor him. Poor core devs and mods.
And you still insist on conflating moderation with censorship. What an insult to actual victims of censorship. Why not claim theymos is raping Peter R as well?
Your argument sucks, so you have to redefine and trivialize powerful words to make them do the advocacy work for you. That's why XT's vaunted Streisand Effect failed to achieve much of anything.
Moderating only controls time/place/behavior. Censorship attempts to control ideas. Learn to tell the difference, please!
Already more than 200 or so. And: Quality before quantity. No censorship cheerleaders, no ad hominem pseudo Bitcoiners, no bullshit.
That's - in short - the difference.
That's - in short - the difference.
I've invited you all to leave several times, and seeing as you're constantly complaining about having your feelings hurt (and behaving that way too), why are you still here? Do you enjoy hanging out in places where your over-zealous behaviour has made you a pariah?
Pools are masters, and miners are slaves. Yes, miners can change their masters, but they can't get free. In the end, the pools that give the most (more income due to natural reasons) will attract most miners.
Just imagine an extreme situation with ~8Gb (read: very large) blocks. In this case, apparently the most effective configuration would be 1 single pool, or a couple pools located in the same data-center. And you miners wouldn't be able to do anything with this centralization.
Hogwash. Anyone with sufficient capital can afford to solo mine, even today. For a few thousand dollar investment one can purchase miners that will score a block in under two years, on the average. The risk involved is that this won't happen and one will lose their investment, but if they are not poor and living in their parent's basement this will not be much of a problem. Other people may even consider this situation beneficial, if they consider it a form of gambling.
As to the single data center idea. I suggest you do the math. There are two costs here, the node cost and the orphan cost. To get the total node cost, calculate the cost of running a single node and multiply it by the number of pools. The node costs consist of storage cost, processing cost, and bandwidth cost. These all relate to the number of transactions the network processes, so you can calculate a node cost per transaction. (You can look at prices quoted by Amazon AWS, etc.) Now multiply this cost by the number of pools. I think you will find that there can be quite a large number of nodes that can easily be supported by existing transaction fees, far more than the number of pools of significance today.
The orphan cost can also be estimated, but it depends on the protocol design and network topology between the pools. The question of one data center vs. multiple data centers comes down to the speed of propagation. The speed of light can not be avoided, but the block size need not affect the results significantly provided an efficient protocol is used. There is no need to "store, verify and then forward" blocks, but even if this is done the orphan rate will still be low with 4 GB blocks if the data centers are connected by 10 Gbps pipes and the number of hops is kept low. Much better designs are possible, as would be known to any networking expert or even bittorrent user.
I do not expect to convince any small blocker, which is why I am not putting out any numbers (a.k.a. targets). Rather, I hope that some fence sitters might do their own calculations and reach their own conclusions. My conclusion is that some work is needed before there can be a large increase in network transaction capacity, but this mostly involves improvements in the bitcoin network protocols and in the processing efficiency of the network hardware.
Big market (makers?!) here..
You have to admire the hard work and persistence that these dozen-or-so nimrods
Already more than 200 or so. And: Quality before quantity. No censorship cheerleaders, no ad hominem pseudo Bitcoiners, no bullshit.
That's - in short - the difference.
I've watched paid shills change opinions on this forum for years. Some of them are quite successful. They generally argue against seemingly rational and well thought out arguments with a vigor that highlights their true purpose. The next steps in the irrational debate are name calling and doxing. This happens because someone arguing against the shill wants to invalidate, what appears to be, an unwavering irrational argument. The last step is usually the "you're stupid, I'm leaving the debate" stage. What step in the process are we at now? I think we're 2-4 pages from the last step.
Wow, that was amazing. I am very impressed!
edit: I'm done here, wasted enough time on you poor irrelevant sheeps, hope you find the altcoin that would fill your noobish fantasies tho. bye.
Derive my perfectly sound argument exposing your irrelevance with some accusations of seeing through whatever your simple mind can deal with while constantly vomiting your fraud of a view, making you no better than what you are accusing me to be, if not just a no-life-forum-jerking wannabe.
What now, should I spend dozens of pages chitchating with you idiotic forkers? I don't think so.
You even can't trust your own promises to fork off the thread. Your core competence is ad hominem, as precisely predicted by @QoA.
Jump to: