Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 210.

RoadTrain

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1009

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 02:53:15 PM

Quote from: RoadTrain on September 02, 2015, 02:50:09 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 02:40:44 PM

Again it's not dishonest.

It is, try to read once more. Your arguments have nothing to do with what poeEDgar has said.

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 02:40:44 PM

Their inactions are speaking louder than their actions. If they would have been really honest in solving the block size issue in a timely matter they would have communicated a clear path for doing so. Which they didn't.

THAT is either dishonest or incompetent.

Inaction? brg444 has given you a summary of what has been done by them in the recent years for Bitcoin scalability.
Jesus Christ, why are they gathering in Montreal in two weeks then? Because they are dishonest or incompetent? Or maybe to try to find a solution?

It gets really pathetic.

Ok so where is the deadline then for those solutions then? Because it all come to this.

Deadline for implementing a yet-nonexistent solution -- that boggles my mind. I hope you understand what you are writing.

Your suggested feel of urgency only means that anyone can feed you anything pretending to scale Bitcoin and you will be happy to eat it. In this case, I see no point in continuing arguing with you.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: brg444 on September 02, 2015, 03:00:12 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 02:58:50 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 02, 2015, 02:57:25 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 02:53:15 PM

Quote from: RoadTrain on September 02, 2015, 02:50:09 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 02:40:44 PM

Again it's not dishonest.

It is, try to read once more. Your arguments have nothing to do with what poeEDgar has said.

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 02:40:44 PM

Their inactions are speaking louder than their actions. If they would have been really honest in solving the block size issue in a timely matter they would have communicated a clear path for doing so. Which they didn't.

THAT is either dishonest or incompetent.

Inaction? brg444 has given you a summary of what has been done by them in the recent years for Bitcoin scalability.
Jesus Christ, why are they gathering in Montreal in two weeks then? Because they are dishonest or incompetent? Or maybe to try to find a solution?

It gets really pathetic.

Ok so where is the deadline then for those solutions then? Because it all come to this.

Why should there be a deadline?

Ask Coinwallet.

Anybody reported on Bitcoin being broken today? I don't see how these idiots throwing fees the miners way is somehow a problem.

Wait for all the noobs coming here in panic because their transactions don't make it through. That test is far from being over.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 02:58:50 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 02, 2015, 02:57:25 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 02:53:15 PM

Quote from: RoadTrain on September 02, 2015, 02:50:09 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 02:40:44 PM

Again it's not dishonest.

It is, try to read once more. Your arguments have nothing to do with what poeEDgar has said.

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 02:40:44 PM

Their inactions are speaking louder than their actions. If they would have been really honest in solving the block size issue in a timely matter they would have communicated a clear path for doing so. Which they didn't.

THAT is either dishonest or incompetent.

Inaction? brg444 has given you a summary of what has been done by them in the recent years for Bitcoin scalability.
Jesus Christ, why are they gathering in Montreal in two weeks then? Because they are dishonest or incompetent? Or maybe to try to find a solution?

It gets really pathetic.

Ok so where is the deadline then for those solutions then? Because it all come to this.

Why should there be a deadline?

Ask Coinwallet.

Anybody reported on Bitcoin being broken today? I don't see how these idiots throwing fees the miners way is somehow a problem.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: brg444 on September 02, 2015, 02:57:25 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 02:53:15 PM

Quote from: RoadTrain on September 02, 2015, 02:50:09 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 02:40:44 PM

Again it's not dishonest.

It is, try to read once more. Your arguments have nothing to do with what poeEDgar has said.

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 02:40:44 PM

Their inactions are speaking louder than their actions. If they would have been really honest in solving the block size issue in a timely matter they would have communicated a clear path for doing so. Which they didn't.

THAT is either dishonest or incompetent.

Inaction? brg444 has given you a summary of what has been done by them in the recent years for Bitcoin scalability.
Jesus Christ, why are they gathering in Montreal in two weeks then? Because they are dishonest or incompetent? Or maybe to try to find a solution?

It gets really pathetic.

Ok so where is the deadline then for those solutions then? Because it all come to this.

Why should there be a deadline?

Ask Coinwallet.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 02:53:15 PM

Quote from: RoadTrain on September 02, 2015, 02:50:09 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 02:40:44 PM

Again it's not dishonest.

It is, try to read once more. Your arguments have nothing to do with what poeEDgar has said.

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 02:40:44 PM

Their inactions are speaking louder than their actions. If they would have been really honest in solving the block size issue in a timely matter they would have communicated a clear path for doing so. Which they didn't.

THAT is either dishonest or incompetent.

Inaction? brg444 has given you a summary of what has been done by them in the recent years for Bitcoin scalability.
Jesus Christ, why are they gathering in Montreal in two weeks then? Because they are dishonest or incompetent? Or maybe to try to find a solution?

It gets really pathetic.

Ok so where is the deadline then for those solutions then? Because it all come to this.

Why should there be a deadline?

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: RoadTrain on September 02, 2015, 02:50:09 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 02:40:44 PM

Again it's not dishonest.

It is, try to read once more. Your arguments have nothing to do with what poeEDgar has said.

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 02:40:44 PM

Their inactions are speaking louder than their actions. If they would have been really honest in solving the block size issue in a timely matter they would have communicated a clear path for doing so. Which they didn't.

THAT is either dishonest or incompetent.

Inaction? brg444 has given you a summary of what has been done by them in the recent years for Bitcoin scalability.
Jesus Christ, why are they gathering in Montreal in two weeks then? Because they are dishonest or incompetent? Or maybe to try to find a solution?

It gets really pathetic.

Ok so where is the deadline then for those solutions then? Because it all come to this.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 02:40:44 PM

Quote from: RoadTrain on September 02, 2015, 02:33:38 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 02:19:44 PM

Quote from: poeEDgar on September 02, 2015, 02:12:57 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 01:50:06 PM

And those who think they can wait forever are delusional. Time = money, you are about to experience it the hard way.

This is the crux of the argument for most BIP101 supporters. "If you don't support this single reckless proposal now, it means you are waiting forever and/or support only the status quo."

That's simply dishonest.

What's dishonest? As far as I know bitcoin still doesn't scale, still has a 1 mb limit and Core has no clear timely path to change this.

Prove me wrong.

I thought you could read. He clearly stated what is dishonest, and you're fighting a straw man.

Again it's not dishonest. Their inactions are speaking louder than their actions. If they would have been really honest in solving the block size issue in a timely matter they would have communicated a clear path for doing so. Which they didn't.

THAT is either dishonest or incompetent.

You were sold the lie that it was a pressing matter and that we should address it with urgency. What do you know anyway about their actions?

Quote

Much work has already been done in this area, from substantial improvements in CPU bottlenecks, memory usage, network efficiency, and initial block download times, to algorithmic scaling in general.

These guys have been busy fixing bottlenecks that necessarily meant your 8MB blocks would've been useless. They are the scalability champions of Bitcoin so far in its life and you impressionable noob would rather we side with two irresponsible defectors who themselves stifled technical discussion and consequently derailed the incentive to continue productive work toward resolution of the issue by wasting time doing damage control because of the XT fiasco.

Mike & Gavin's actions are the epitome of dishonesty and incompetence. I am absolutely joyous that they have shown their true face and their exile from the community will be a blessing.

RoadTrain

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1009

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 02:40:44 PM

Again it's not dishonest.

It is, try to read once more. Your arguments have nothing to do with what poeEDgar has said.

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 02:40:44 PM

Their inactions are speaking louder than their actions. If they would have been really honest in solving the block size issue in a timely matter they would have communicated a clear path for doing so. Which they didn't.

THAT is either dishonest or incompetent.

Inaction? brg444 has given you a summary of what has been done by them in the recent years for Bitcoin scalability.
Jesus Christ, why are they gathering in Montreal in two weeks then? Because they are dishonest or incompetent? Or maybe to try to find a solution?

It gets really pathetic.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: RoadTrain on September 02, 2015, 02:33:38 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 02:19:44 PM

Quote from: poeEDgar on September 02, 2015, 02:12:57 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 01:50:06 PM

And those who think they can wait forever are delusional. Time = money, you are about to experience it the hard way.

This is the crux of the argument for most BIP101 supporters. "If you don't support this single reckless proposal now, it means you are waiting forever and/or support only the status quo."

That's simply dishonest.

What's dishonest? As far as I know bitcoin still doesn't scale, still has a 1 mb limit and Core has no clear timely path to change this.

Prove me wrong.

I thought you could read. He clearly stated what is dishonest, and you're fighting a straw man.

Again it's not dishonest. Their inactions are speaking louder than their actions. If they would have been really honest in solving the block size issue in a timely matter they would have communicated a clear path for doing so. Which they didn't.

THAT is either dishonest or incompetent.

RoadTrain

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1009

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 02:19:44 PM

Quote from: poeEDgar on September 02, 2015, 02:12:57 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 01:50:06 PM

And those who think they can wait forever are delusional. Time = money, you are about to experience it the hard way.

This is the crux of the argument for most BIP101 supporters. "If you don't support this single reckless proposal now, it means you are waiting forever and/or support only the status quo."

That's simply dishonest.

What's dishonest? As far as I know bitcoin still doesn't scale, still has a 1 mb limit and Core has no clear timely path to change this.

Prove me wrong.

I thought you could read. He clearly stated what is dishonest, and you're fighting a straw man.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 02:19:44 PM

Quote from: poeEDgar on September 02, 2015, 02:12:57 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 01:50:06 PM

And those who think they can wait forever are delusional. Time = money, you are about to experience it the hard way.

This is the crux of the argument for most BIP101 supporters. "If you don't support this single reckless proposal now, it means you are waiting forever and/or support only the status quo."

That's simply dishonest.

What's dishonest? As far as I know bitcoin still doesn't scale, still has a 1 mb limit and Core has no clear timely path to change this.

Prove me wrong.

Quote

Much work has already been done in this area, from substantial improvements in CPU bottlenecks, memory usage, network efficiency, and initial block download times, to algorithmic scaling in general. However, a number of key challenges still remain, each with many significant considerations and tradeoffs to evaluate. We have worked on Bitcoin scaling for years while safeguarding the network’s core features of decentralization, security, and permissionless innovation. We’re committed to ensuring the largest possible number of users benefit from Bitcoin, without eroding these fundamental values.

Core developers are responsible for Bitcoin having scaled to support current network load and are dedicated to continue advancing that way. You have no shame.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 02:09:57 PM

Problem #1: Bitcoin doesn't scale.
Problem #2: Core devs are incapable of making any decision in a timely manner.

Face it.

Fact #1: Bitcoin doesn't scale how you'd like it to. You will eventually get to accept this. Until then it seems your head is too far up into your ass to make any kind of valid judgement.

Fact #2. You were "sold the controversy" that Core decision process was broken by two defectors who stifled technical discussions in exchange for populist politics. There is absolutely no grounding in this accusation and quite simply a devilish attempt to make a lie into an half-truth by suggesting any sane persons actually consider the disagreements between core developers to be irresolvable.

You're a sheep.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: poeEDgar on September 02, 2015, 02:12:57 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 01:50:06 PM

And those who think they can wait forever are delusional. Time = money, you are about to experience it the hard way.

This is the crux of the argument for most BIP101 supporters. "If you don't support this single reckless proposal now, it means you are waiting forever and/or support only the status quo."

That's simply dishonest.

What's dishonest? As far as I know bitcoin still doesn't scale, still has a 1 mb limit and Core has no clear timely path to change this.

Prove me wrong.

poeEDgar

sr. member

Activity: 299

Merit: 250

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 01:50:06 PM

And those who think they can wait forever are delusional. Time = money, you are about to experience it the hard way.

This is the crux of the argument for most BIP101 supporters. "If you don't support this single reckless proposal now, it means you are waiting forever and/or support only the status quo."

That's simply dishonest.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: brg444 on September 02, 2015, 01:55:13 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 01:50:06 PM

Quote from: poeEDgar on September 02, 2015, 01:47:51 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 02, 2015, 01:43:19 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 01:04:44 PM

Quote from: poeEDgar on September 02, 2015, 01:00:37 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 01, 2015, 09:35:25 PM

Quote from: erik777 on September 01, 2015, 08:23:37 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on September 01, 2015, 07:50:01 PM

Quote from: hdbuck on September 01, 2015, 05:52:44 PM

Stop the crap, forking is purely an attack on bitcoin.

Forking Bitcoin is not a attack on Bitcoin.

saying "Forking Bitcoin is not a attack on Bitcoin" is an attack on consensus.

No. Because the fork can't happened without a consensus either ways.

Actually, a fork could happen and consensus could not be achieved, which is one good reason why the 75% threshold is far too low. 95% is the standard. 75% is only half the hashing power with a lucky run. This is what people mean by two, or multiple chains. If consensus isn't achieved nearly immediately, we run a greater and greater risk of having competing chains.

These numbers are a standard by according to who? The larger bitcoin grows, the more opposite views it will encounter and the less easy it would be to achieve consensus. Targeting a 95% is IMO too high and only guarantees to block any possible changes.

Did I read that right? We should lower consensus threshold as Bitcoin grows so as to make it more easy to achieve consensus!?!

You're out of your mind Cheesy

+1

I'm really trying to keep an open mind here, and debate this honestly. But that is just laughable. The idea basically guarantees that bitcoin will be broken into competing blockchains in the future.

This is not the last controversy bitcoin will have. It is not the last hard fork bitcoin will have. Those who think we can solve all of tomorrow's technical problems today are simply naive.

And those who think they can wait forever are delusional. Time = money, you are about to experience it the hard way.

The first step in your rehabilitation will be admitting there is no problem with Bitcoin.

Yeah sure, bitcoin is perfect right? Roll Eyes

Why we need Core devs at all then?

Problem #1: Bitcoin doesn't scale.
Problem #2: Core devs are incapable of making any decision in a timely manner.

Face it.

RoadTrain

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1009

Quote from: brg444 on September 02, 2015, 01:59:36 PM

Quote from: RoadTrain on September 02, 2015, 01:56:30 PM

I personally think 90% would be enough for a hard fork justification.

These damn percentages are meaningless and perpetuate the myth that somehow the miners "decide". They are nothing but an activation threshold for miners adoption of a proposal decided on by the economic majority.

I'm aware of the economic majority concept, and I'm inclined to think it applies. I've been talking about activation threshold as to minimize possible harm, really.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: RoadTrain on September 02, 2015, 01:56:30 PM

I personally think 90% would be enough for a hard fork justification.

These damn percentages are meaningless and perpetuate the myth that somehow the miners "decide". They are nothing but an activation threshold for miners adoption of a proposal decided on by the economic majority.

RoadTrain

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1009

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 01:46:02 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 02, 2015, 01:43:19 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 01:04:44 PM

Quote from: poeEDgar on September 02, 2015, 01:00:37 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 01, 2015, 09:35:25 PM

Quote from: erik777 on September 01, 2015, 08:23:37 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on September 01, 2015, 07:50:01 PM

Quote from: hdbuck on September 01, 2015, 05:52:44 PM

Stop the crap, forking is purely an attack on bitcoin.

Forking Bitcoin is not a attack on Bitcoin.

saying "Forking Bitcoin is not a attack on Bitcoin" is an attack on consensus.

No. Because the fork can't happened without a consensus either ways.

Actually, a fork could happen and consensus could not be achieved, which is one good reason why the 75% threshold is far too low. 95% is the standard. 75% is only half the hashing power with a lucky run. This is what people mean by two, or multiple chains. If consensus isn't achieved nearly immediately, we run a greater and greater risk of having competing chains.

These numbers are a standard by according to who? The larger bitcoin grows, the more opposite views it will encounter and the less easy it would be to achieve consensus. Targeting a 95% is IMO too high and only guarantees to block any possible changes.

Did I read that right? We should lower consensus threshold as Bitcoin grows so as to make it more easy to achieve consensus!?!

You're out of your mind Cheesy

I am out of mind while you are delusional

If we lower the consensus threshold, we only increase the chances Bitcoin becomes irrelevant.

And what about your lovely economic incentives? If the feature proposed is so cool and will allow Bitcoin to thrive, why would anyone block this change? You know why, because not all participants are behaving rationally, or they have different incentive structures.

I personally think 90% would be enough for a hard fork justification.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 01:46:02 PM

Quote from: brg444 on September 02, 2015, 01:43:19 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 01:04:44 PM

Quote from: poeEDgar on September 02, 2015, 01:00:37 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 01, 2015, 09:35:25 PM

Quote from: erik777 on September 01, 2015, 08:23:37 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on September 01, 2015, 07:50:01 PM

Quote from: hdbuck on September 01, 2015, 05:52:44 PM

Stop the crap, forking is purely an attack on bitcoin.

Forking Bitcoin is not a attack on Bitcoin.

saying "Forking Bitcoin is not a attack on Bitcoin" is an attack on consensus.

No. Because the fork can't happened without a consensus either ways.

Actually, a fork could happen and consensus could not be achieved, which is one good reason why the 75% threshold is far too low. 95% is the standard. 75% is only half the hashing power with a lucky run. This is what people mean by two, or multiple chains. If consensus isn't achieved nearly immediately, we run a greater and greater risk of having competing chains.

These numbers are a standard by according to who? The larger bitcoin grows, the more opposite views it will encounter and the less easy it would be to achieve consensus. Targeting a 95% is IMO too high and only guarantees to block any possible changes.

Did I read that right? We should lower consensus threshold as Bitcoin grows so as to make it more easy to achieve consensus!?!

You're out of your mind Cheesy

I am out of mind while you are delusional

Can you even defend that position? If not GTFO of my thread you troll. Hard forks should be hard. We're only going to get more noobs like you trying to "fix" Bitcoin into what they "think" is right. Consensus means you respect a majority of vetos. Stop trying to make Bitcoin into a democracy so that a "majority" of you idiots can somehow influence the decision of sane people.