Maybe this is just an attitude . that regardless of which side wins. most people would give their time to listen and I
read that a lot of people who have more than 50 addresses .
Topic: Bitcoinocracy, tables have turned, big blocks in the lead (Read 598 times)
Bitcoin is not proof of Stake coin, so voting with coins is pointless in my opinion. And voting with under 1% of all Bitcoins on Bitcoinocracy is not very representative sample, plus the likelihood over 50% of all mined Bitcoins going to vote for some change is practically zero - thats why any suggestion future hard fork changes should have support from majority of coins is pointless. I would answer this way regardless who was winning on Bitcoinocracy, Im not 1 MB supporter anyway.
Yeah it is a pointless vote, as you say.
But the question of OP was to Core supporters "is Bitcoinocracy still a reliable metric and should the results be respected by the devs?"
Which it clearly isn't... anymore... now.
Which is why there were no reply's here in over 36 hours..
This.
Bitcoinocracy is very lacking and it's easy to abuse (ie businesses voting with customers' deposits etc). But when pretty much every other poll showed support for blocksize increase, Core supporters dismissed them as unreliable and they quoted Bitcoinocracy results as the only good indicator of what "real bitcoin holders" want. So what happens now?
This is only posturing, regardless of which side is winning.
Real voting can only occur post fork when actual value is on the line. (Even then games can still be played to make it seem like one side is the clear winner before everything suddenly flips.)
Anyway... lets fork and see what happens? The block size debate grows tiresome. Time to act!
Real voting can only occur post fork when actual value is on the line. (Even then games can still be played to make it seem like one side is the clear winner before everything suddenly flips.)
Anyway... lets fork and see what happens? The block size debate grows tiresome. Time to act!
Glad to see an ole' timer like yourself support a hard fork.
This is only posturing, regardless of which side is winning.
Real voting can only occur post fork when actual value is on the line. (Even then games can still be played to make it seem like one side is the clear winner before everything suddenly flips.)
Anyway... lets fork and see what happens? The block size debate grows tiresome. Time to act!
Real voting can only occur post fork when actual value is on the line. (Even then games can still be played to make it seem like one side is the clear winner before everything suddenly flips.)
Anyway... lets fork and see what happens? The block size debate grows tiresome. Time to act!
number of coins shouldn't mean a great deal. I read somewhere that andreas guy has over 100 but not much more and he's someone most people are gonna give their time to listen to.
Bitcoin is not proof of Stake coin, so voting with coins is pointless in my opinion. And voting with under 1% of all Bitcoins on Bitcoinocracy is not very representative sample, plus the likelihood over 50% of all mined Bitcoins going to vote for some change is practically zero - thats why any suggestion future hard fork changes should have support from majority of coins is pointless. I would answer this way regardless who was winning on Bitcoinocracy, Im not 1 MB supporter anyway.
Yeah it is a pointless vote, as you say.
But the question of OP was to Core supporters "is Bitcoinocracy still a reliable metric and should the results be respected by the devs?"
Which it clearly isn't... anymore... now.
Which is why there were no reply's here in over 36 hours..
Bitcoin is not proof of Stake coin, so voting with coins is pointless in my opinion. And voting with under 1% of all Bitcoins on Bitcoinocracy is not very representative sample, plus the likelihood over 50% of all mined Bitcoins going to vote for some change is practically zero - thats why any suggestion future hard fork changes should have support from majority of coins is pointless. I would answer this way regardless who was winning on Bitcoinocracy, Im not 1 MB supporter anyway.
During the whole blocksize debate, I recall many 'small blockers' pointing to Bitcoinocracy as a likely the best tool to measure the community's sentiment (or just serious holders).
All the polls relating to blocksize debate were in favour of the Core side for a long time, until yesterday when huge-amount (>40k btc) address (Bitmain?) voted and reversed polls results.
http://bitcoinocracy.com/addresses/1KwA4fS4uVuCNjCtMivE7m5ATbv93UZg8V
So the natural question to the Core supporters: is Bitcoinocracy still a reliable metric and should the results be respected by the devs?
Jump to: