Author

Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 188. (Read 378996 times)

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


Are you sure you really actually understand what democracy (statism) is? Watch this... if you can handle it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5mZ5FBHg0A


Yes, since I live in the most democratic democracy on this planet, I know what democracy is.
The majority rules via institutions. That's similar in the Bitcoin-World.

There is only one human organisation that is better than democracy: anarchy. But anarchy and consensus is only possible in nuclear communities. They are self-sufficient and don't trade with aliens.

So please explain again how are votes distributed in this Bitcoin democracy?

How do you determine "majority"?

In the same way as in a democracy. Votes are distributed between miners, devs, nodes, merchants, users, bitcointalkers etc.
Some have more charisma and influence, some less.


there is no votes. Roll Eyes

what that over simplified brain dead analogy with your beloved democracy.

pathetic statist.


Can't you read, pathetic fascist? There is only one human organisation that is better than democracy: anarchy. But anarchy and consensus is only possible in nuclear communities. They are self-sufficient and don't trade with aliens.

Bitcoin is human organisation. It is consensus driven. Thank you  Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004


Are you sure you really actually understand what democracy (statism) is? Watch this... if you can handle it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5mZ5FBHg0A


Yes, since I live in the most democratic democracy on this planet, I know what democracy is.
The majority rules via institutions. That's similar in the Bitcoin-World.

There is only one human organisation that is better than democracy: anarchy. But anarchy and consensus is only possible in nuclear communities. They are self-sufficient and don't trade with aliens.

So please explain again how are votes distributed in this Bitcoin democracy?

How do you determine "majority"?

In the same way as in a democracy. Votes are distributed between miners, devs, nodes, merchants, users, bitcointalkers etc.
Some have more charisma and influence, some less.


there is no votes. Roll Eyes

what that over simplified brain dead analogy with your beloved democracy.

pathetic statist.


Can't you read, pathetic fascist? There is only one human organisation that is better than democracy: anarchy. But anarchy and consensus is only possible in nuclear communities. They are self-sufficient and don't trade with aliens.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002


Are you sure you really actually understand what democracy (statism) is? Watch this... if you can handle it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5mZ5FBHg0A


Yes, since I live in the most democratic democracy on this planet, I know what democracy is.
The majority rules via institutions. That's similar in the Bitcoin-World.

There is only one human organisation that is better than democracy: anarchy. But anarchy and consensus is only possible in nuclear communities. They are self-sufficient and don't trade with aliens.

So please explain again how are votes distributed in this Bitcoin democracy?

How do you determine "majority"?

In the same way as in a democracy. Votes are distributed between miners, devs, nodes, merchants, users, bitcointalkers etc.
Some have more charisma and influence, some less.


there is no votes. Roll Eyes

what that over simplified brain dead analogy with your beloved democracy.

pathetic statist.

legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004


Are you sure you really actually understand what democracy (statism) is? Watch this... if you can handle it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5mZ5FBHg0A


Yes, since I live in the most democratic democracy on this planet, I know what democracy is.
The majority rules via institutions. That's similar in the Bitcoin-World.

There is only one human organisation that is better than democracy: anarchy. But anarchy and consensus is only possible in nuclear communities. They are self-sufficient and don't trade with aliens.

So please explain again how are votes distributed in this Bitcoin democracy?

How do you determine "majority"?

In the same way as in a democracy. Votes are distributed between miners, devs, nodes, merchants, users, bitcointalkers etc.
Some have more charisma and influence, some less.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


Are you sure you really actually understand what democracy (statism) is? Watch this... if you can handle it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5mZ5FBHg0A


Yes, since I live in the most democratic democracy on this planet, I know what democracy is.
The majority rules via institutions. That's similar in the Bitcoin-World.

There is only one human organisation that is better than democracy: anarchy. But anarchy and consensus is only possible in nuclear communities. They are self-sufficient and don't trade with aliens.

So please explain again how are votes distributed in this Bitcoin democracy?

How do you determine "majority"?
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
@btcusury & MLauda

So we shouldn't allow miners to vote by choosing the software they run? (and how exactly are you going to dictate and prevent that?)

That was the core of my comparison. I never mentioned democracy, so let's get back on track.

Nodes run the software, not miners (although of course it is preferable that miners validate transactions they mine by also running full nodes themselves)
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004


Are you sure you really actually understand what democracy (statism) is? Watch this... if you can handle it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5mZ5FBHg0A


Yes, since I live in the most democratic democracy on this planet, I know what democracy is.
The majority rules via institutions. That's similar in the Bitcoin-World.

There is only one human organisation that is better than democracy: anarchy. But anarchy and consensus is only possible in nuclear communities. They are self-sufficient and don't trade with aliens.
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
@btcusury & MLauda

So we shouldn't allow miners to vote by choosing the software they run? (and how exactly are you going to dictate and prevent that?)

That was the core of my comparison. I never mentioned democracy, so lets get back on track.
sr. member
Activity: 433
Merit: 260
And how sidechains solve the scaling exactly? It just moves the bloat elsewhere where people will have to run full bloat sidechain nodes. It's a pathetic solution that complicates everything for almost no gain.

Sidechains are part of an orthogonal scaling solution.  The "pathetic solution" is bloating Layer 1 until it loses it's unique properties, and then breaks.  XT is the canonical implementation of such a pathetic solution.  That's why it's fukkin' #R3KT, with no chance of ever winning.   Grin



Just wanna point out to you the contradictory observation of your signature exposing the debt-based money scam and your misunderstanding of the primary purpose of Bitcoin being creative destruction rather than scaling to fit a decrepit consumer culture created by the debt-based money scam in the first place... Wink Decentralization and fungibility must be kept to the maximum possible. Orthogonal scaling solutions are exactly the kind of thing we'd want, not a parallel fork. Imagine if TCP/IP had been bloated beyond 40-byte headers or larger maximum payloads? Increasing max block size also increases the applicability of the withholding timing attack.


Well, whoever wanted to split the community the way Gavin and Mike did, DESERVES TO FAIL.

You talk to people if you want changes, you do not introduce parallel BTC.
I concur. What was proposed was more than risky in this case. 75% is nowhere near enough, and trying to take over power does not make it better. This is one of the main reasons for which I have showed my dissatisfaction with XT and both Hearn and Gavin.

Still fighting your proxy war, dear iCEMAN?

XT has already won
Oh the irony that you're failing to see here.


Do you also dislike having several political candidates to vote on?
This analogy is wrong. This is not a democracy.

It is democracy. Some centralist/authoritarian devs and teir followers think it is centralism/authoritarianism/fascism, but it isn't.


Are you sure you really actually understand what democracy (statism) is? Watch this... if you can handle it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5mZ5FBHg0A


newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
You guys do realize that the people in control of Bitcoin and its future direction are not participating in this thread, right?

Just wondering.

Who are these people? If you can name them I'd like to ask them about bitcoin's future direction. If they are in control they will surely know it exactly. You know, like a person who is in control of a car surely knows where it's heading. Smiley
legendary
Activity: 4760
Merit: 1283
You guys do realize that the people in control of Bitcoin and its future direction are not participating in this thread, right?

Just wondering.

It's hard to know exactly who reads exactly what.  And when they do so, and why.  If the thread has periods of entertainment value I suspect it gets read by a variety of people in their leisure time if nothing else.

It is also the case that an individual's 'productivity' usually waxes and wanes.  Some people who are diddling around and figuring things out now and probably going to end up taking enough of an interest to make viable contributions of one nature or another in the future.  Just as some people who are very active in certain operational spheres now are destined to lose interest and drift away in the future.

hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
You guys do realize that the people in control of Bitcoin and its future direction are not participating in this thread, right?

Just wondering.

thank god
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1393
You lead and I'll watch you walk away.
You guys do realize that the people in control of Bitcoin and its future direction are not participating in this thread, right?

Just wondering.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
...and Peter responded to that already 9 pages ago.

He who yells loudest and last ain't right.

There is no "responses" or "arguments" to "that". These are facts.

Peter is free to revise his paper by including these assumptions but I don't see how that would be productive.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
...and Peter responded to that already 9 pages ago.

He who yells loudest and last ain't right.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
A fee market already exists and will exist with or without a block size limit:

https://scalingbitcoin.org/papers/feemarket.pdf

Obligatory response:

Your paper is fundamentally flawed because it addresses nothing resembling the current dynamics at stake in Bitcoin. More precisely it ignores the incentives for miners to centralize (as they have shown to have) to mitigate propagation times. In effect your paper clearly demonstrates it is more profitable to do so under free-floating blocks and you essentially rely on their altruism to maintain the validity of your model to make decisions going forward. In short, your work might be sound from a technical standpoint but can not be used to construct security models that depend on worst-behaviours assumptions.

Relevant material:
http://pastebin.com/jFgkk8M3
https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-wizards/2015-08-30/?msg=48477664&page=1
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010737.html

Everyone is free to read and make their own judgment but considerable holes have been poken into Peter's work and he has often been urged to revise his conclusions. He is now parading his charts, illustration all over the forum in an attempt to obtuse the debate, confusing more impressionable users who do not have time, ability or care for validating his propositions.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
A fee market already exists and will exist with or without a block size limit:

hey peter do you even exist?

WHO ARE YOU?
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007
Are you delusional enough to think Bitcoin will escale to surpass VISA without blockstream? wake up man, time to smell the coffee.

I might be that delusional.  Personally, I don't know how much Bitcoin could scale on chain.  Will it be useful for sour-candies from 7-11, XBoxes from BestBuy, or something else?  What I do know, however, is that people tend to underestimate how quickly technology and the free market can solve problems.

On-chain transactions will have to be go under a fee market cos there isnt any other way around it that doesnt involve centralization of nodes.

A fee market already exists and will exist with or without a block size limit:

https://scalingbitcoin.org/papers/feemarket.pdf
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
I dont really understand the anti blockstream guys. Are you delusional enough to think Bitcoin will escale to surpass VISA without blockstream? wake up man, time to smell the coffee. On-chain transactions will have to be go under a fee market cos there isnt any other way around it that doesnt involve centralization of nodes.

LN is fine.  Stonewalling bigger blocks isn't.

We still want Bitcoin to scale, even if it ultimately falls short of "surpassing VISA" on the main chain.

hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 509
I dont really understand the anti blockstream guys. Are you delusional enough to think Bitcoin will escale to surpass VISA without blockstream? wake up man, time to smell the coffee. On-chain transactions will have to be go under a fee market cos there isnt any other way around it that doesnt involve centralization of nodes.
Jump to: