Author

Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 147. (Read 378996 times)

sr. member
Activity: 278
Merit: 254

I can not prove with absolute certainty that the decrease in the hashrate of Antpool was because of this incident. However since I tend to keep an eye on pool distribution I do distinctly remember Antpool having over thirty percent of the hashpower before the time of this incident and now they only have sixteen percent. One aspect of that has been the recent increase in the overall hashpower since I am looking at the percentage not the hashrate. I do share your concerns about mining centralization, however I do not think that increasing the blocksize would effect mining centralization for the reasons I have explained here. That is a good website by the way, thank you for linking it, there is some very good analysis on there.


My new Antminer S7 came preconfigured to mine on Antpool.  As soon as I powered up the machine I saw that it was busy hashing and blowing hot air.  It took me a few seconds to figure out that it was stealing my electricity for Bitmain's benefit.  Because of the SPV mining incident, Antpool is the last pool I would consider using, so I immediately shut the machine down until I could figure out how to set it up without it supporting a pool that remains in my "bad" book and will remain so, unless or until they give me good reason to believe otherwise.
donator
Activity: 980
Merit: 1000

Big market (makers?!) here..



Grin

You have to admire the hard work and persistence that these dozen-or-so nimrods put into appearing they are more than they are through sockpuppetting and brigading, and the useful idiots they are able to assemble.

They are mostly wrong, and mostly misguided, but you have to admit their discipline. They just don't stop going at it. I guess they will eventually have to either wake up or start doing something productive with their time.
sr. member
Activity: 346
Merit: 250
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.
sr. member
Activity: 278
Merit: 254

Development is decentralized by nature because it's open-source -- anyone is free to fork the code.


Free to fork the code?  Maybe.  Free to successfully fork the code?  In the absence of concise  and precise documentation of the bitcoin protocol and blockchain data structures this task is unnecessarily difficult and risky.  Unfortunately, the present "core" developers are doing nothing to change this situation.

Free to run the forked code?  Not on your life.  I downloaded and ran an XT node, but it was DDoS'd.  More accurately, my ISP was DDoS'd and my neighbors suffered collateral damage.  Human nature being what it is, this experience did not enamor me to any of the "small blockers".


legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
http://interledger.org/

Wow this sounds tailor-fitted for you forkers.
a crazy idea that has no implementation, which tries to solve a non existing "problem", while not being entirely clear how this would reduce TX on the main chain.... you sure this isn't ideal material for your "bitcoin is a holy ledger, which we must never scale" position?
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
http://interledger.org/

Wow this sounds tailor-fitted for you forkers.
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
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.
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004

You mean companies with a big fat 0 next to the revenue line in their balance sheet?

"Start-ups" burning through VC money to stay afloat? Market makers ?

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

You mean stream blocking inc.?

Blockstream is churning burning out code money.


hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Ahahah...  That brings it to a whole new level. I did follow that debate, and the only one opposing soft-forks at the time was Mike, and then Peter R came with his GIFs. I wonder how it got to 'a lot of opposition'. Need to read some new postings.

Maybe you should listen to the arguments why people are opposed to soft forks.  There are sound technical reasons having to do with the dynamics of the block chain under various scenarios.  With multiple types of fork there are additional failure modes in the distributed system and this makes understanding and managing fault tolerance more difficult.  Allowing only hard forks is a much more conservative design.

People with serious experience in distributed systems and computer networking will have no problem appreciating this argument.  Some of us have personal experience with complex failure modes that seemed unlikely or were entirely unanticipated, but yet happened.

soon enough we will have sidechains so this is a nonissue

How does sidechains solve the block size again?

 Roll Eyes

Read the previous post stupid. Noone is talking about the block size.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

You mean companies with a big fat 0 next to the revenue line in their balance sheet?

"Start-ups" burning through VC money to stay afloat? Market makers ?

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

You mean stream blocking inc.?

Blockstream is churning out code.

Your "market-makers" are an amalgam of broken wallets, incompetent payment processors and typical banking parasites.

sr. member
Activity: 346
Merit: 250
...Only Mathematics rules, and no, it does not encompass any democratic procedures within it...

It sounds like you believe that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics, rather than by the market.  Is this an accurate assessment?

Under what conditions (if any) do you believe it is possible for the Bitcoin protocol rules to be changed (e.g., adopting a larger block size limit)?


None.


Communist utopia in perfection. The market will soon teach you some thing.

You do not, and in any way, represent "the market".

Nor would you have any metrics to back your insolent deluded claims.

Just a random poor wannabe, that is as irrelevant as the market it pretends to derive from.

He does not represent the market, he just understand it, which you don't.


Big market (makers?!) here..



Roll Eyes

Big market makers are here.

http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/


Them website does not even function properly.

And btw, MtGOX was a way better "market maker" than they will ever be. Grin


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.

That took exactly two pages. lol

I'm making it three just for you, although I'm still loosing my time.

Just do Bitcoin and its decent - authentic - community a favor and fork off with your alikes.

Altcoin Paradise is wide open.  Kiss
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
--------------->¿?

Ahahah...  That brings it to a whole new level. I did follow that debate, and the only one opposing soft-forks at the time was Mike, and then Peter R came with his GIFs. I wonder how it got to 'a lot of opposition'. Need to read some new postings.

Maybe you should listen to the arguments why people are opposed to soft forks.  There are sound technical reasons having to do with the dynamics of the block chain under various scenarios.  With multiple types of fork there are additional failure modes in the distributed system and this makes understanding and managing fault tolerance more difficult.  Allowing only hard forks is a much more conservative design.

People with serious experience in distributed systems and computer networking will have no problem appreciating this argument.  Some of us have personal experience with complex failure modes that seemed unlikely or were entirely unanticipated, but yet happened.

soon enough we will have sidechains so this is a nonissue

How does sidechains solve the block size again?
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Ahahah...  That brings it to a whole new level. I did follow that debate, and the only one opposing soft-forks at the time was Mike, and then Peter R came with his GIFs. I wonder how it got to 'a lot of opposition'. Need to read some new postings.

Maybe you should listen to the arguments why people are opposed to soft forks.  There are sound technical reasons having to do with the dynamics of the block chain under various scenarios.  With multiple types of fork there are additional failure modes in the distributed system and this makes understanding and managing fault tolerance more difficult.  Allowing only hard forks is a much more conservative design.

People with serious experience in distributed systems and computer networking will have no problem appreciating this argument.  Some of us have personal experience with complex failure modes that seemed unlikely or were entirely unanticipated, but yet happened.

soon enough we will have sidechains so this is a nonissue
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
Consequences of "mass adoption" & failure to enforce centralized limits and account for market incentives.

legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004

You mean companies with a big fat 0 next to the revenue line in their balance sheet?

"Start-ups" burning through VC money to stay afloat? Market makers ?

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

You mean stream blocking inc.?
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1393
You lead and I'll watch you walk away.
...Only Mathematics rules, and no, it does not encompass any democratic procedures within it...

It sounds like you believe that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics, rather than by the market.  Is this an accurate assessment?

Under what conditions (if any) do you believe it is possible for the Bitcoin protocol rules to be changed (e.g., adopting a larger block size limit)?


None.


Communist utopia in perfection. The market will soon teach you some thing.

You do not, and in any way, represent "the market".

Nor would you have any metrics to back your insolent deluded claims.

Just a random poor wannabe, that is as irrelevant as the market it pretends to derive from.

He does not represent the market, he just understand it, which you don't.


Big market (makers?!) here..



Roll Eyes

Big market makers are here.

http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/


Them website does not even function properly.

And btw, MtGOX was a way better "market maker" than they will ever be. Grin


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.

That took exactly two pages. lol
sr. member
Activity: 278
Merit: 254

Ahahah...  That brings it to a whole new level. I did follow that debate, and the only one opposing soft-forks at the time was Mike, and then Peter R came with his GIFs. I wonder how it got to 'a lot of opposition'. Need to read some new postings.

Maybe you should listen to the arguments why people are opposed to soft forks.  There are sound technical reasons having to do with the dynamics of the block chain under various scenarios.  With multiple types of fork there are additional failure modes in the distributed system and this makes understanding and managing fault tolerance more difficult.  Allowing only hard forks is a much more conservative design.

People with serious experience in distributed systems and computer networking will have no problem appreciating this argument.  Some of us have personal experience with complex failure modes that seemed unlikely or were entirely unanticipated, but yet happened.


hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
...Only Mathematics rules, and no, it does not encompass any democratic procedures within it...

It sounds like you believe that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics, rather than by the market.  Is this an accurate assessment?

Under what conditions (if any) do you believe it is possible for the Bitcoin protocol rules to be changed (e.g., adopting a larger block size limit)?


None.


Communist utopia in perfection. The market will soon teach you some thing.

You do not, and in any way, represent "the market".

Nor would you have any metrics to back your insolent deluded claims.

Just a random poor wannabe, that is as irrelevant as the market it pretends to derive from.

He does not represent the market, he just understand it, which you don't.


Big market (makers?!) here..



Roll Eyes

Big market makers are here.

http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

 Cheesy

You mean companies with a big fat 0 next to the revenue line in their balance sheet?

"Start-ups" burning through VC money to stay afloat? Market makers ?

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004

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.

q.e.d.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12616609
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004
...Only Mathematics rules, and no, it does not encompass any democratic procedures within it...

It sounds like you believe that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics, rather than by the market.  Is this an accurate assessment?

Under what conditions (if any) do you believe it is possible for the Bitcoin protocol rules to be changed (e.g., adopting a larger block size limit)?


None.


Communist utopia in perfection. The market will soon teach you some thing.

You do not, and in any way, represent "the market".

Nor would you have any metrics to back your insolent deluded claims.

Just a random poor wannabe, that is as irrelevant as the market it pretends to derive from.


Another notorious ad hominem 'Bitcoiner' who calls other users sheeps and sheeples. Are there some normal small blockers anywhere who don't work against their own position?
Jump to: