Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 85. (Read 378993 times)

Dunno Ice, love ya dude, but Front National genuinely are so xenophobic that they're openly racist really. Seriously, you'll very easily get tarred with that brush.

Le Pen and her British equivalents remind me of the Fake-a-tarians that totally saturate the American media outlets; there to make the ideology look bad. There's nothing libertarian about closed borders and/or rejecting non-native workers from working in a cogent population.

heh, thx, we all in the same globalist bs war against terrorism whilst being milked by them banksters...

fud is the way into the nwo.

fuckem. at least i got bitcoins.

Je ne peux que vous souhaitez bonne chance pour la suite. Ca va être la galère....

I'm not even referring to the block size. You're done as far as I'm concerned. Ignored for ever.

I'd ask that everyone in the thread does the same and we stop entertaining this retard

ay, cheers mon ami!

marion for the win <3 ^^

Today, all of civilization is French.

Besides, I've always had a fondness for the elder Le Pen and more recently developed a little crush on Marine.

While not True Libertarians^® anyone that sends transnational progressives and other Marxists into howling fits of rage is A-OK in my book.   

The will of the economic majority is more important then Satoshi's vision. Invoking Satoshi's vision surely must be a mistake on your behalf however since he did support increasing the blocksize:


He even specified how we should phase it in:

only if it mines bitcoin!

With great power comes great responsibility. If we followed your reasoning, not only would we be letting the users re-code Bitcoin by general election, we'd also democratise the hydrogen bomb as well. One in every home! What a thought!

Exactly what is actually going on with all those posts.... the problem is that is still going on and who knows when it will end

Nice try, but the whitepaper was an early description focused on the basics of the system Satoshi was creating.

Here, half a decade later, we are discussing attempts to subvert the system by strong-arm tactics of breaking the protocol and manipulating total work ratios to accomplish it.  That was well beyond the scope of Satoshi's whitepaper.


There's that 'valid' word again.

To say the truth, I've always expected attackers to achieve an advantage in the potential for 'cumulative work' eventually.  I'm surprised it has not happened yet, and very heartened because sha256 mining has lived long enough for a subordinate chains ecosystem to be viable.

This means several things:

- The owners of the hash hardware are under risk of losing their investment should the nuclear option be undertaken (that is, modification of the current POW hashing methods.)  They will be most conducive to mounting a majority attack only if their investments are insured against this eventuality (which is quite possible) but it would not be terminal for Bitcoin anyway.

- A mostly successful cumulative work attack suddenly turns into something with is maybe not even half bad.

    - Hodlers might be able to capitalize in it since funds would flow in to make it work

    -  Freeloaders would be drawn to the GoogBook fork and thus, away from core.

     - A lot more focus would be put on hardening Bitcoin against a variety of attack types and much more focus would be put into exploring the network attack failure modes and how to thwart them.

lmao ice whats that new profile pic? you french now?

Satoshi decided for us. Should we tear apart the whole thing and have it rewritten by "the economic majority"?

Valid being a subjective term is indeed a good observation. The question still stands of who decides? Obviously you think that the Core developers should decide for us, I think that the decision making process for Bitcoin should become more distributed instead, the future of Bitcoin should be decided by the economic majority which as far as I understand it is also how Bitcoin ultimately still functions today.

valid is as subjective as what gives bitcoin value.

certainly the devs are irrelevant in such mechanism: if their code is bad it wont take over the mix of paranoia, greed and selfishness...

Valid is subjective of course, and the changes to that are decided by the dev team. Very perceptive! That's how it's always been, seeing as even now Bitcoin is still a work in progress.

The system is already decentralised in the ways that Satoshi imagined. Yours and the "Bitcoin Unlimited" crowd's mentality involves letting the user loose with deciding every aspect of the system. It's lunacy, it's the opposite of what's been going on up to now, and it would end with all the different "Bitcoins" disintegrating, apart from the overbloated centralised one perhaps

An unfair comparison, it is easier to change the code of Bitcoin compared to changing the laws of nature.

Most people will simply choose the implementation that they prefer, I do not see a problem with this, you are obviously against this type of freedom of choice which is inherent in Bitcoin. In political thought concentrations of power are generally not considered a good thing, which is why I would like to see development become more distributed.

The economic majority might not agree with you, time will tell. Bitcoin is also not your coin, it belongs to everyone, Satoshi's gift to the world.

Great post!  

Regarding "longest chain" versus "longest valid chain," I am using the language from Satoshi's white paper.  He refers to it simply as "the longest chain" and only refers to transactions as being valid or invalid.  From page 3:

- Nodes accept the block only if all transactions in it are valid and not already spent.

- Nodes express their acceptance of the block by working on creating the next block in the chain, using the hash of the accepted block as the previous hash.

- Nodes always consider the longest chain to be the correct one and will keep working on extending it.

In other words, "the longest chain" means the chain with the greatest cumulative work that is composed exclusively of valid transactions.