Pages:
Author

Topic: BitPico throwing down against Roger Ver - page 4. (Read 1175 times)

legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
No. I never claimed that "only miners should run nodes".

I never said you did. But maybe I assumed that you agreed with it because you support Roger Ver, Craig Wright, and Bitcoin Cash.

You know what I find hilarious? The apparent OCD need that small blockers have to insert personalities such as Roger and Craig (and the other favorite boogieman, whom you missed - Jihan) into every conversation about Bitcoin Cash. I do not 'support' such personalities. Their existence is completely irrelevant to my 'support' of Bitcoin Cash, which I support for its superior properties.

Just. Get. Over. It.

Quote
Sorry. But do you believe that only miners should run full nodes?

No. I believe that nobody should be barred from running non-mining validators. As an example, I am not a miner, and I run a non-mining validator. Several actually. But I am not laboring under any false pretense that my running of these non-mining validators brings any benefit to the Bitcoin network. They might benefit me as an end user in my ability to transact purely permissionlessly, but they do nothing for the network as a whole.

Quote
Quote
And again, you have not answered the question:

Why do you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'?

Because it gives the economic majority, merchants, exchanges and users all together to enforce the rules of the network.

Do you believe you have answered the question with the statement above? Because you have not. I don't know whether you are being intentionally obtuse, or if you are just suffering some cognitive dissonance. Let me try again. There is a concept of 'economic power' it is measured in actual holdings of Bitcoin (whether BTC or BCH as appropriate per network) - fundamentally, after stripping away all the bullshit, this is a scalar quantity. There is also an absolute count of the number of non-mining validators - another integer. The question is: Why do you think that knowledge of the integer number of non-mining validators has anything whatsoever to do with the integer that is a measure of economic power?
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1823
...

Jeebus buck this is getting tiresome. Answer the flipping question:

Why do you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'?

Read my posts, the answer is there.

Because they can reject blocks and transactions that are invalid on the network. If the miners start pushing their own agenda and the economic majority resists, there is nothing the miners can do but to risk a chain split or follow the network rules.

Is your brain broken? You have done nothing to answer the question. The question is not about miners vs. economic majority. Re-read, absorb the meaning, and reply to the actual question.

Because the more nodes there are, the more node decentralization there is, and the more the network is resilient.

But you believe that only miners should run nodes, right? How is that good for the network where there is miner cartelization?

No. I never claimed that "only miners should run nodes".

I never said you did. But maybe I assumed that you agreed with it because you support Roger Ver, Craig Wright, and Bitcoin Cash. Sorry. But do you believe that only miners should run full nodes?

Quote
And again, you have not answered the question:

Why do you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'?

Because it gives the economic majority, merchants, exchanges and users all together to enforce the rules of the network. The more nodes there are, the more resilient the network will be. But explain to me why you believe not and why I am wrong.

Maybe you are also right that, at full scale, Bitcoin's consensus security does not come from the amount of full nodes. But we will never go to a point of "security at full scale" if the users' ability to run their own nodes are taken away from them, and to let the miners freely dictate consensus.
legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
...

Jeebus buck this is getting tiresome. Answer the flipping question:

Why do you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'?

Read my posts, the answer is there.

Because they can reject blocks and transactions that are invalid on the network. If the miners start pushing their own agenda and the economic majority resists, there is nothing the miners can do but to risk a chain split or follow the network rules.

Is your brain broken? You have done nothing to answer the question. The question is not about miners vs. economic majority. Re-read, absorb the meaning, and reply to the actual question.

Because the more nodes there are, the more node decentralization there is, and the more the network is resilient.

But you believe that only miners should run nodes, right? How is that good for the network where there is miner cartelization?

No. I never claimed that "only miners should run nodes".

And again, you have not answered the question:

Why do you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'?
legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
Really!? Exactly why has my post been deleted? It is exactly on-topic, and it is not abusive to any other participants. Exactly what drew your ire?

about a month has passed from this, so can someone give us a summary of what exactly happened.

Yeah. Nothing.

Not to mention the other posts you deigned to eradicate... uncomfortable truths, Mr Moderator?
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1823
...

Jeebus buck this is getting tiresome. Answer the flipping question:

Why do you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'?

Read my posts, the answer is there.

Because they can reject blocks and transactions that are invalid on the network. If the miners start pushing their own agenda and the economic majority resists, there is nothing the miners can do but to risk a chain split or follow the network rules.

Is your brain broken? You have done nothing to answer the question. The question is not about miners vs. economic majority. Re-read, absorb the meaning, and reply to the actual question.

Because the more nodes there are, the more node decentralization there is, and the more the network is resilient.

But you believe that only miners should run nodes, right? How is that good for the network where there is miner cartelization?
legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
...

Jeebus buck this is getting tiresome. Answer the flipping question:

Why do you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'?

Read my posts, the answer is there.

Because they can reject blocks and transactions that are invalid on the network. If the miners start pushing their own agenda and the economic majority resists, there is nothing the miners can do but to risk a chain split or follow the network rules.

Is your brain broken? You have done nothing to answer the question. The question is not about miners vs. economic majority. Re-read, absorb the meaning, and reply to the actual question.
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1823
...

Jeebus buck this is getting tiresome. Answer the flipping question:

Why do you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'?

Read my posts, the answer is there.

Because they can reject blocks and transactions that are invalid on the network. If the miners start pushing their own agenda and the economic majority resists, there is nothing the miners can do but to risk a chain split or follow the network rules.

I have said this before. Bitcoin Cash would be a better network without Roger Ver and Craig Wright.

Well, you're not making much sense. What would you have us do? Expel Roger and Craig? Surely, you can understand that in the permissionless environment, that would be impossible.

Right?

Publicly denounce him.
legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
You do realize who you are arguing with

Haha. I gotta ask. Just whoop you think I am?

A paid shill

Where's my pay? Do you dole it out? You owe me big time, dude (or dudette).
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1823
I have said this before. Bitcoin Cash would be a better network without Roger Ver and Craig Wright.

Oof. Forgot about Craig Wright, aka Satoshi Nakamoto. Two of the biggest known liars in the cryptosphere.

Its like, how much money is enough? The average GDP of all the countries in the world is $17,300, yet these two multimillionaires throw their weight around trying to bend reality for even more personal financial gain, instead of promoting cryptocurrency for what it was intended: helping the average person by leveling the financial playing field.

No, I believe the end goal of Bitcoin, and I cannot speak for other cryptocurrencies, is censorship resistance. Plus decentralization is only the means to reach that goal, which many people mistake as "it, decentralization," as the goal.

Quote
I don't think all the money in the world would be enough for these two. They are driven by a weird, deep-seeded psychological need to be recognized as God, or something.

They also love conspiracy theories, https://news.bitcoin.com/why-is-blockstream-working-with-national-spies-sigint-humint/
newbie
Activity: 40
Merit: 0
The fact that they use the word bitcoin in their coin shows how much confidence they have on their coin. We cannot say it was unintentional, he did it on purpose to fool others.
legendary
Activity: 3010
Merit: 8114
I have said this before. Bitcoin Cash would be a better network without Roger Ver and Craig Wright.

Oof. Forgot about Craig Wright, aka Satoshi Nakamoto. Two of the biggest known liars in the cryptosphere.

Its like, how much money is enough? The average GDP of all the countries in the world is $17,300, yet these two multimillionaires throw their weight around trying to bend reality for even more personal financial gain, instead of promoting cryptocurrency for what it was intended: helping the average person by leveling the financial playing field.

I don't think all the money in the world would be enough for these two. They are driven by a weird, deep-seeded psychological need to be recognized as God, or something.
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1823
about a month has passed from this, so can someone give us a summary of what exactly happened. i honestly missed it and the media seems to only have talked about the initial intention to spam attack and then talk about nodes and how centralized they are based on Bitpico tweet about their nodes being banned!!! but i can't find what happened to the blocks.
like for example what was this 6MB block that took nodes 40+GB RAM to verify?

Regardless, this coin is a joke led by mass deception, and after what Roger did with bitcoin.com it should be evident to anybody capable of critical thought that he's something of a greed-driven, egotistical madman.

Roger Ver also used his website to threaten Bity to list Bitcoin Cash or "he would remove the exchange from bitcoin.com's exchange listing". Haha.



I have said this before. Bitcoin Cash would be a better network without Roger Ver and Craig Wright.
legendary
Activity: 3010
Merit: 8114
about a month has passed from this, so can someone give us a summary of what exactly happened. i honestly missed it and the media seems to only have talked about the initial intention to spam attack and then talk about nodes and how centralized they are based on Bitpico tweet about their nodes being banned!!! but i can't find what happened to the blocks.
like for example what was this 6MB block that took nodes 40+GB RAM to verify?

It would appear the attack failed, the reason given (as you mentioned) was their 800 nodes were banned from the network, which can be seen as an act of centralization. Blocks don't seem to be of any size out of the ordinary, at an average of 70-80 kb (pretty miniscule). Still, the network remains in tact.



Regardless, this coin is a joke led by mass deception, and after what Roger did with bitcoin.com it should be evident to anybody capable of critical thought that he's something of a greed-driven, egotistical madman.
member
Activity: 364
Merit: 13
Killing Lightning Network with a 51% Ignore attack
about a month has passed from this, so can someone give us a summary of what exactly happened. i honestly missed it and the media seems to only have talked about the initial intention to spam attack and then talk about nodes and how centralized they are based on Bitpico tweet about their nodes being banned!!! but i can't find what happened to the blocks.
like for example what was this 6MB block that took nodes 40+GB RAM to verify?


BitPico said within 6 weeks, so he still has until August 7,2018 before his supposed time window is up.

You can monitor his twitter : https://twitter.com/bitpico?lang=en

Aside from claiming to record Bitcoin Cash node IP address, not really much else mentioned so far.


legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1823
Quote
"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."
     - 'Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System', Satoshi Nakamoto


The words of Satoshi. Do you believe we should follow it like a religion?

No. At least not just because they are The Words Of Satoshi. But it does concisely explain how Bitcoin actually operates. No matter how much bloviating is directed to the incorrect impression that non-mining entities have any enforcement power over the chain consensus, the design decision of the miners determining the rules is unchanged. As it should.

But that is not the case on how Bitcoin operates today.

You are incorrect. It is exactly how bitcoin operates today.

Ok so from your point of view it was the miners that agreed and decided to activate Segwit without outside pressure?

Whether or not subject to outside pressure, it was indeed the miners that activated The SegWit Omnibus Changeset.

That did not answer the question. Did or did the miners not succumb from outside pressure and went along to activate Segwit? Or do you believe they did the decision by themselves?

Yes, it answered the question fully. There is no way of knowing what the motivation of any party is, as that is internal to their mind only. All we can know is what happened - which is that miners activated Segwit.

We know what the answer is. If the miners activate it under their own prerogative, it would have activated some months before August, 2017. But you are free to believe what you believe.

You do realize who you are arguing with

Haha. I gotta ask. Just whoop you think I am?

A paid shill

does not matter what you believe in

Future proves past

nice timing

Do they pay in Bitcoin Cash or Bitcoin? Haha.
legendary
Activity: 3472
Merit: 10611
about a month has passed from this, so can someone give us a summary of what exactly happened. i honestly missed it and the media seems to only have talked about the initial intention to spam attack and then talk about nodes and how centralized they are based on Bitpico tweet about their nodes being banned!!! but i can't find what happened to the blocks.
like for example what was this 6MB block that took nodes 40+GB RAM to verify?
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1061
Smile
You do realize who you are arguing with

Haha. I gotta ask. Just whoop you think I am?

A paid shill

does not matter what you believe in

Future proves past

nice timing
legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
You do realize who you are arguing with

Haha. I gotta ask. Just whoop you think I am?
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1061
Smile
Speaking of Sybil attacks, who controls the Alibaba nodes in Bitcoin Cash? Is it Roger Ver, Craig Wright, or Jihan Wu? Those nodes might be used to force a hard fork to the direction of who controls them on the whole network.


You do realize who you are arguing with
legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
Quote
"They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism."
     - 'Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System', Satoshi Nakamoto


The words of Satoshi. Do you believe we should follow it like a religion?

No. At least not just because they are The Words Of Satoshi. But it does concisely explain how Bitcoin actually operates. No matter how much bloviating is directed to the incorrect impression that non-mining entities have any enforcement power over the chain consensus, the design decision of the miners determining the rules is unchanged. As it should.

But that is not the case on how Bitcoin operates today.

You are incorrect. It is exactly how bitcoin operates today.

Ok so from your point of view it was the miners that agreed and decided to activate Segwit without outside pressure?

Whether or not subject to outside pressure, it was indeed the miners that activated The SegWit Omnibus Changeset.

That did not answer the question. Did or did the miners not succumb from outside pressure and went along to activate Segwit? Or do you believe they did the decision by themselves?

Yes, it answered the question fully. There is no way of knowing what the motivation of any party is, as that is internal to their mind only. All we can know is what happened - which is that miners activated Segwit.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Hypothetical situation, what if the miners disagree with the economic majority in activating something and the economic majority announces that it will activate and enforce it themselves and take the risk of a chain split?

In such a case, it would be a Mexican standoff until one or the other groups capitulates. There is no a priori way to determine which group would cave. For while it is true that a chain that nobody wants (as if it would be nobody) is worthless, similarly a chain that cannot be traded upon is also worthless.

But a more important question to ask would be why it is that you think that non-mining, validating entities -- the most Sybil-able group in the ecosystem -- has anything to do whatsoever with economic power?

But that was not what I was asking. I was asking about the importance of non-mining nodes enforcing the rules and validating transactions and blocks themselves. If there was "economic power" that would come with it, it would be secondary or a side effect.

No. See my bolding of your quote. You were not asking about the importance of non-mining validators. You asked about a divergence between miners' desires, and desires of the economic majority. You seem to me to imply that non-mining validator count is an indication of economic majority. If this indeed be your claim, I call bullshit. Non-mining validators are a trivial cost to spin up any number of sybil clones. As opposed to mining power or demonstrated coin hodlings.

Nevertheless, I am asking why you think non-mining validator count has any bearing on a measurement of 'economic majority'?

But if the miners came to decide to do a Sybil attack because it is "easy", do you believe that the economic majority running non-mining nodes will follow? Would it not cause another chain-split? Do you really believe that the miner's chain will be called "the Bitcoin"?

Why are you dodging my question? Answer the question I posed to you above.

And again, you seem to be laboring under some delusion that non-mining validators have some relation to economic power. What is your justification for this assumption?

Pages:
Jump to: