Pages:
Author

Topic: BlockStream or BitcoinXT? Those are your choices, gentlemen. - page 2. (Read 6848 times)

hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 500
I don't pretend to know how sidechains work.  However, if they sidechain pegs (or whatever you call them)
require more space than a normal transaction, then why are they touted as a scalability solution?



But they are not. So either you are both unknowledgeable and misinformed or you are straight up disingenuous in your attempt at FUD.

Which is it?
One use case of sidechains is, that you peg Bitcoin to a side chain and then do what ever you want with that values on the sidechain for as long as you like
I don't think, a scenario where you peg Bitcoin to the sidechain, do one transaction on the sidechain and then put the values back in the Bitcoin blockchain makes much sense.
As far as I understand, that is what you are saying. If that is not what you are saying, than just be specific, I really don't want to play a guessing game, about what you are actually talking about.
sr. member
Activity: 252
Merit: 251
I don't pretend to know how sidechains work.  However, if they sidechain pegs (or whatever you call them)
require more space than a normal transaction, then why are they touted as a scalability solution?



But they are not. So either you are both unknowledgeable and misinformed or you are straight up disingenuous in your attempt at FUD.

Which is it?

I was under the impression that the lightning payment network was synonymous with sidechains or worked in conjunction with it.
(If that is incorrect, then I am misinformed.)

Regardless, they are both developments of Blockstream and as Roadtrain points out though, this payment network is being proffered for scalability ("mitigate the block size increases").


no Lightning network and sidechains are too different concepts.

actually i like lightning network very much, but it depends on bigger block (to be exact: it depends on the availability of blockspace.)

sidechains are more like an altcoin which value is pegged to bitcoin.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
I don't pretend to know how sidechains work.  However, if they sidechain pegs (or whatever you call them)
require more space than a normal transaction, then why are they touted as a scalability solution?



But they are not. So either you are both unknowledgeable and misinformed or you are straight up disingenuous in your attempt at FUD.

Which is it?

I was under the impression that the lightning payment network was synonymous with sidechains or worked in conjunction with it.
(If that is incorrect, then I am misinformed.)

Regardless, they are both developments of Blockstream and as Roadtrain points out though, this payment network is being proffered for scalability ("mitigate the block size increases").
legendary
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1009
Just going to copy/past this here until one of the trolls addresses it

I didn't bother reading this thread at all.

Let me just say:

Proofs used to reconcile between mainchain and sidechains compete with normal transactions for block space. Blockstream would be one of the main entity to benefit from bigger block size.

I say Blockstream benefits from smaller, not bigger blocks (which is why the blockstream guys don't want to raise the limit).

But, please... explain.  How will blockstream benefit from bigger blocks?
While brg444 is talking about sidechains, I'd also want to comment on the Lightning Network and its relevance to the blocksize limit.
Here's a quote from its paper:
In short: the LN allows the transaction throughput to rise without increasing blocksize, but only to a point -- if transactions on the blockchain are choked (as you suggest), the LN becomes unreliable as there's an attack vector which works when there's a transaction backlog. The LN depends on there being enough space in blocks.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
I don't pretend to know how sidechains work.  However, if they sidechain pegs (or whatever you call them)
require more space than a normal transaction, then why are they touted as a scalability solution?



But they are not. So either you are both unknowledgeable and misinformed or you are straight up disingenuous in your attempt at FUD.

Which is it?
sr. member
Activity: 252
Merit: 251
I don't pretend to know how sidechains work.  However, if they sidechain pegs (or whatever you call them)
require more space than a normal transaction, then why are they touted as a scalability solution?



afaik core-devs said that sidechains are not a scaleability solution
(though i dont know there reasoning)

to me it seems that a transaction which only happens inside a sidechain is not recorded on the bitcoin blockchain at all (only converting transactions which moves btc to sidechain and vice-versa are)
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
I don't pretend to know how sidechains work.  However, if they sidechain pegs (or whatever you call them)
require more space than a normal transaction, then why are they touted as a scalability solution?

hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
Just going to copy/past this here until one of the trolls addresses it

I didn't bother reading this thread at all.

Let me just say:

Proofs used to reconcile between mainchain and sidechains compete with normal transactions for block space. Blockstream would be one of the main entity to benefit from bigger block size.

I say Blockstream benefits from smaller, not bigger blocks (which is why the blockstream guys don't want to raise the limit).

But, please... explain.  How will blockstream benefit from bigger blocks?



Can you read?

Proofs used to reconcile between mainchain and sidechains compete with normal transactions for block space.

What you "say" has no implication on reality no matter how distorted your view of the world is.

Can you read?

I asked you explain it.

If you explain it so that I can understand it, maybe you'll recruit me to your side of the argument.
Are you posting to hear yourself type?  Or you want to influence opinion?
If you want to influence opinion, then please articulate your position.

Me, I'm interested in the truth.  If you show me where I've been wrong,
perhaps I'll take your side.

Proofs?  What proofs?  I have no idea what you're talking about.

When a user uses a sidechain it requires a transaction to a special output. A script is involved in the transaction so as to make the validation between chain. The SPV proof. These proofs/transactions are sometimes considerably larger than regular transactions.

Currently they are researching advanced cryptographic methods so as to reduce the size of these proofs given existing block space constrain. Raising the block size could significantly accelerate the deployment of the actual model of sidechains by delaying the eventual need for very efficient proofs.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Just going to copy/past this here until one of the trolls addresses it

I didn't bother reading this thread at all.

Let me just say:

Proofs used to reconcile between mainchain and sidechains compete with normal transactions for block space. Blockstream would be one of the main entity to benefit from bigger block size.

I say Blockstream benefits from smaller, not bigger blocks (which is why the blockstream guys don't want to raise the limit).

But, please... explain.  How will blockstream benefit from bigger blocks?



Can you read?

Proofs used to reconcile between mainchain and sidechains compete with normal transactions for block space.

What you "say" has no implication on reality no matter how distorted your view of the world is.

Can you read?

I asked you explain it.

If you explain it so that I can understand it, maybe you'll recruit me to your side of the argument.
Are you posting to hear yourself type?  Or you want to influence opinion?
If you want to influence opinion, then please articulate your position.

Me, I'm interested in the truth.  If you show me where I've been wrong,
perhaps I'll take your side.

Proofs?  What proofs?  I have no idea what you're talking about.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
Just going to copy/past this here until one of the trolls addresses it

I didn't bother reading this thread at all.

Let me just say:

Proofs used to reconcile between mainchain and sidechains compete with normal transactions for block space. Blockstream would be one of the main entity to benefit from bigger block size.

I say Blockstream benefits from smaller, not bigger blocks (which is why the blockstream guys don't want to raise the limit).

But, please... explain.  How will blockstream benefit from bigger blocks?



Can you read?

Proofs used to reconcile between mainchain and sidechains compete with normal transactions for block space.

What you "say" has no implication on reality no matter how distorted your view of the world is.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Just going to copy/past this here until one of the trolls addresses it

I didn't bother reading this thread at all.

Let me just say:

Proofs used to reconcile between mainchain and sidechains compete with normal transactions for block space. Blockstream would be one of the main entity to benefit from bigger block size.

I say Blockstream benefits from smaller, not bigger blocks (which is why the blockstream guys don't want to raise the limit).

But, please... explain.  How will blockstream benefit from bigger blocks?
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
Just going to copy/past this here until one of the trolls addresses it

I didn't bother reading this thread at all.

Let me just say:

Proofs used to reconcile between mainchain and sidechains compete with normal transactions for block space. Blockstream would be one of the main entity to benefit from bigger block size.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
We as the bitcoin community should remove the git right of any bitcoin core developers who are on the BlockStream  paycheck list. BlockStream is and will be toxic for the bitcoin development as long as they have influence in changing the block size.

point is most of them dont want to change it.. Roll Eyes
sr. member
Activity: 490
Merit: 250
We as the bitcoin community should remove the git right of any bitcoin core developers who are on the BlockStream  paycheck list. BlockStream is and will be toxic for the bitcoin development as long as they have influence in changing the block size.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
I was first chastised for not acknowledging that you had given me a logical statement:

There are multiple logical arguments for opposing XT. I outlined one because you said no one's giving one.

I had considered writing more, but after seeing your new post in which you continue to say "Anti-XTers" are not presenting logical arguments and only appealing to emotion I've decided not to bother.

I hope it was clear I was not trying to appeal to emotion and giving the outlines of a logical argument. Since you continue to say no one is giving logical arguments, I suspect you're continuing to say it without believing it. This makes conversation pointless.

Actually, you never challenged my argument.

And now your response to my rebuttal of your argument is that you never actually gave me a real logical argument because you realized that I'm a douche bag who doesn't actually listen to logic unless it's in my favor:

It was a long post and maybe it wasn't clear that I didn't actually make the argument. I claimed I could make one that gives the conclusion from axioms like the ones I gave (and maybe other axioms). I'm still willing to do it at some point. (I don't have time today.) I like to do different kinds of Coq developments to keep in practice.


Yep this is the logic you can expect from BitOfaLoserProdogy. He only hears what he wants to hear, note that he has totally avoided addressing me because I see him for exactly what he is, a cry baby shill who's only interested in logic when it suits him.

Even the title of this thread is a threat, stating that we have only two choices, both are provided by him without allowing an alternative or questions about his logic

How anybody can take this loser seriously when he says, "arguments that appeal to fear are bad, but your point of view is dangerous and we should be afraid of the minority that doesn't agree with me" deserves to be shunned as the Shill that has proclaimed himself to be.

His arguments consistently appeal to fear and personality attacks. I'm sick of seeing his threads but he keeps hammering away making more and more of them so they are kind of hard to ignore, like that nasty headache that you think will never go away... but eventually some sunshine and some smiles from friends and like minded people remind you that life is awesome, and the headaches are temporary.

Thank god this guy and his buddy trolls will lose this battle, it's obvious that they protest too much lol even if they succeed in ruining Bitcoin, the code is not alone, and they will just prove themselves to be a bunch of incompetents when Litecoin or some other nothing coins succeeds, not because it's better, but because some shills took the most trusted Crypo and turned into the least trusted.

In that, they may have temporarily succeeded already, but the fights not over yet or the shills wouldn't be working so hard to get "consensus"


I would much rather hear an argument which states that we should not increase the block size immediately so I can attack it, as that is my primary concern in all of this.


bitofaloserprodogy.  lol!  good one.

in all seriousness though, I find his position "core plus big blocks is best, but if we can't have that, go with XT" to make sense.  what's your position?  Keep the 1mb limit?

So we are supposed to have a choice between Bitcoin with larger Blocks, or BitcoinXT with larger blocks. It's not a real choice if you are boxed into to choosing between two equal stupid ideas

You have freedom of choice, between eating the cyanide cake or they cyanide biscuits. Welcome to freedom!!!

My Position is not to worry about it. If I wanted to be part of the "Majority" I wouldn't have an interest in Bitcoin. Bitcoins success is its a protocol that can arrive at agreement between parties that do not trust each other. XT requires us to trust the the list of IP's being filtered will not include ours, ie, it's not a trustless protocol

worrying is what marketing people use to sell stuff, I'm not interested in being consumed by the BS fear mongering that Bitcoin is going to crash because it's too popular.

I mean come on, how can anyone take that argument seriously lol... you have to be a moron to think that it's going to be sooooo popular that it will crash, and yet soooooo dangerous that people will be afraid to use it... but wait, there's more

After that I turn off - Click
You might think that both options are stupid but if you are running a full node or if you are mining Bitcoin then you do have to choose.

"Bitcoins success is its a protocol that can arrive at agreement between parties that do not trust each other." The ability to hard fork in this way represents the process that allows us to arrive at such an agreement.

"XT requires us to trust the the list of IP's being filtered will not include ours, ie, it's not a trustless protocol" This has been shown not to be true many times now, I will say it again. It is a ddos protection method that is only activated when your node is under a DDOS attack, so the alternative to not using the DDOS protection method when under attack is that Bitcoin will not be able to connect to the network. It does not leak IP's and it is disabled by default when connecting through TOR. Furthermore this option is entirely optional, you can turn it off within XT, or even run a version of XT that does not have this feature, or you could even run Core with a BIP101 patch.

"My Position is not to worry about it." If you are running full nodes or if you are mining, such a position is the same as a vote for Core. If the majority of full nodes and miners felt this way we would have one megabyte blocks forever IMHO.
sr. member
Activity: 660
Merit: 250
I was first chastised for not acknowledging that you had given me a logical statement:

There are multiple logical arguments for opposing XT. I outlined one because you said no one's giving one.

I had considered writing more, but after seeing your new post in which you continue to say "Anti-XTers" are not presenting logical arguments and only appealing to emotion I've decided not to bother.

I hope it was clear I was not trying to appeal to emotion and giving the outlines of a logical argument. Since you continue to say no one is giving logical arguments, I suspect you're continuing to say it without believing it. This makes conversation pointless.

Actually, you never challenged my argument.

And now your response to my rebuttal of your argument is that you never actually gave me a real logical argument because you realized that I'm a douche bag who doesn't actually listen to logic unless it's in my favor:

It was a long post and maybe it wasn't clear that I didn't actually make the argument. I claimed I could make one that gives the conclusion from axioms like the ones I gave (and maybe other axioms). I'm still willing to do it at some point. (I don't have time today.) I like to do different kinds of Coq developments to keep in practice.


Yep this is the logic you can expect from BitOfaLoserProdogy. He only hears what he wants to hear, note that he has totally avoided addressing me because I see him for exactly what he is, a cry baby shill who's only interested in logic when it suits him.

Even the title of this thread is a threat, stating that we have only two choices, both are provided by him without allowing an alternative or questions about his logic

How anybody can take this loser seriously when he says, "arguments that appeal to fear are bad, but your point of view is dangerous and we should be afraid of the minority that doesn't agree with me" deserves to be shunned as the Shill that has proclaimed himself to be.

His arguments consistently appeal to fear and personality attacks. I'm sick of seeing his threads but he keeps hammering away making more and more of them so they are kind of hard to ignore, like that nasty headache that you think will never go away... but eventually some sunshine and some smiles from friends and like minded people remind you that life is awesome, and the headaches are temporary.

Thank god this guy and his buddy trolls will lose this battle, it's obvious that they protest too much lol even if they succeed in ruining Bitcoin, the code is not alone, and they will just prove themselves to be a bunch of incompetents when Litecoin or some other nothing coins succeeds, not because it's better, but because some shills took the most trusted Crypo and turned into the least trusted.

In that, they may have temporarily succeeded already, but the fights not over yet or the shills wouldn't be working so hard to get "consensus"


I would much rather hear an argument which states that we should not increase the block size immediately so I can attack it, as that is my primary concern in all of this.


bitofaloserprodogy.  lol!  good one.

in all seriousness though, I find his position "core plus big blocks is best, but if we can't have that, go with XT" to make sense.  what's your position?  Keep the 1mb limit?

So we are supposed to have a choice between Bitcoin with larger Blocks, or BitcoinXT with larger blocks. It's not a real choice if you are boxed into to choosing between two equal stupid ideas

You have freedom of choice, between eating the cyanide cake or they cyanide biscuits. Welcome to freedom!!!

My Position is not to worry about it. If I wanted to be part of the "Majority" I wouldn't have an interest in Bitcoin. Bitcoins success is its a protocol that can arrive at agreement between parties that do not trust each other. XT requires us to trust the the list of IP's being filtered will not include ours, ie, it's not a trustless protocol

worrying is what marketing people use to sell stuff, I'm not interested in being consumed by the BS fear mongering that Bitcoin is going to crash because it's too popular.

I mean come on, how can anyone take that argument seriously lol... you have to be a moron to think that it's going to be sooooo popular that it will crash, and yet soooooo dangerous that people will be afraid to use it... but wait, there's more

After that I turn off - Click
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
I was first chastised for not acknowledging that you had given me a logical statement:

There are multiple logical arguments for opposing XT. I outlined one because you said no one's giving one.

I had considered writing more, but after seeing your new post in which you continue to say "Anti-XTers" are not presenting logical arguments and only appealing to emotion I've decided not to bother.

I hope it was clear I was not trying to appeal to emotion and giving the outlines of a logical argument. Since you continue to say no one is giving logical arguments, I suspect you're continuing to say it without believing it. This makes conversation pointless.

Actually, you never challenged my argument.

And now your response to my rebuttal of your argument is that you never actually gave me a real logical argument because you realized that I'm a douche bag who doesn't actually listen to logic unless it's in my favor:

It was a long post and maybe it wasn't clear that I didn't actually make the argument. I claimed I could make one that gives the conclusion from axioms like the ones I gave (and maybe other axioms). I'm still willing to do it at some point. (I don't have time today.) I like to do different kinds of Coq developments to keep in practice.


Yep this is the logic you can expect from BitOfaLoserProdogy. He only hears what he wants to hear, note that he has totally avoided addressing me because I see him for exactly what he is, a cry baby shill who's only interested in logic when it suits him.

Even the title of this thread is a threat, stating that we have only two choices, both are provided by him without allowing an alternative or questions about his logic

How anybody can take this loser seriously when he says, "arguments that appeal to fear are bad, but your point of view is dangerous and we should be afraid of the minority that doesn't agree with me" deserves to be shunned as the Shill that has proclaimed himself to be.

His arguments consistently appeal to fear and personality attacks. I'm sick of seeing his threads but he keeps hammering away making more and more of them so they are kind of hard to ignore, like that nasty headache that you think will never go away... but eventually some sunshine and some smiles from friends and like minded people remind you that life is awesome, and the headaches are temporary.

Thank god this guy and his buddy trolls will lose this battle, it's obvious that they protest too much lol even if they succeed in ruining Bitcoin, the code is not alone, and they will just prove themselves to be a bunch of incompetents when Litecoin or some other nothing coins succeeds, not because it's better, but because some shills took the most trusted Crypo and turned into the least trusted.

In that, they may have temporarily succeeded already, but the fights not over yet or the shills wouldn't be working so hard to get "consensus"


I would much rather hear an argument which states that we should not increase the block size immediately so I can attack it, as that is my primary concern in all of this.


bitofaloserprodogy.  lol!  good one.

in all seriousness though, I find his position "core plus big blocks is best, but if we can't have that, go with XT" to make sense.  what's your position?  Keep the 1mb limit?
sr. member
Activity: 660
Merit: 250
Present a logical argument against spying on IP addresses or admit you are a Anti-XT shill
There is actually an alternative version of XT that only changes the block size. You could even run a patched version of Core that implements BIP101. The block size increase is the only fundamental change to the protocol, the other features within XT are all optional. Therefore the discussion should be about BIP101, since those other features are irrelevant to the discussion in terms of reaching consensus.

I have presented you with a logical counter argument, so therefore I will not admit that I am a moron or an XT shill. lol
You didn't actually bother to read it all did you lol. You have presented an argument on an alternative topic. Not everyone thinks we need bigger block sizes hahahahaha... oh no, please save us from our small minds

I agree with the earlier post about the Hegelian dialectic... and I have no doubt the number of people fighting to change Bitcoin are inflated by Government Shills, Chad Poo Color aka BitOfaLoserProdigy has already admitted as much
I have read it all actually, I presumed that what was meant, was for me to present an argument against the spying on IP addresses within XT, I figured that the question is about BIP101, so therefore the extra features within XT (IP prioritization to prevent DDOS attacks through tor), are optional and therefore should not be a reason to not support BIP101. What was the question then which according to you I have failed to answer?

The whole thing was a parody, the point was that the choices are stupid, it's like now we are supposed to have a choice between Bitcoin with larger Blocks, or BitcoinXT with larger blocks. It's not a real choice if you are boxed into to choosing between two equal stupid ideas

Your statements where not an argument against IP filtering but rather for larger block sizes.

Anyway, on reflection I've edited the questions to make the stupidity more accurately reflect the OP. Thanks for your input

You have freedom of choice, between eating the cyanide cake or they cyanide biscuits. Welcome to freedom!!!
full member
Activity: 322
Merit: 115
We Are The New Wealthy Elite, Gentlemen
I was first chastised for not acknowledging that you had given me a logical statement:

There are multiple logical arguments for opposing XT. I outlined one because you said no one's giving one.

I had considered writing more, but after seeing your new post in which you continue to say "Anti-XTers" are not presenting logical arguments and only appealing to emotion I've decided not to bother.

I hope it was clear I was not trying to appeal to emotion and giving the outlines of a logical argument. Since you continue to say no one is giving logical arguments, I suspect you're continuing to say it without believing it. This makes conversation pointless.

Actually, you never challenged my argument.

And now your response to my rebuttal of your argument is that you never actually gave me a real logical argument because you realized that I'm a douche bag who doesn't actually listen to logic unless it's in my favor:

It was a long post and maybe it wasn't clear that I didn't actually make the argument. I claimed I could make one that gives the conclusion from axioms like the ones I gave (and maybe other axioms). I'm still willing to do it at some point. (I don't have time today.) I like to do different kinds of Coq developments to keep in practice.


Yep this is the logic you can expect from BitOfaLoserProdogy. He only hears what he wants to hear, note that he has totally avoided addressing me because I see him for exactly what he is, a cry baby shill who's only interested in logic when it suits him.

Even the title of this thread is a threat, stating that we have only two choices, both are provided by him without allowing an alternative or questions about his logic

How anybody can take this loser seriously when he says, "arguments that appeal to fear are bad, but your point of view is dangerous and we should be afraid of the minority that doesn't agree with me" deserves to be shunned as the Shill that has proclaimed himself to be.

His arguments consistently appeal to fear and personality attacks. I'm sick of seeing his threads but he keeps hammering away making more and more of them so they are kind of hard to ignore, like that nasty headache that you think will never go away... but eventually some sunshine and some smiles from friends and like minded people remind you that life is awesome, and the headaches are temporary.

Thank god this guy and his buddy trolls will lose this battle, it's obvious that they protest too much lol even if they succeed in ruining Bitcoin, the code is not alone, and they will just prove themselves to be a bunch of incompetents when Litecoin or some other nothing coins succeeds, not because it's better, but because some shills took the most trusted Crypo and turned into the least trusted.

In that, they may have temporarily succeeded already, but the fights not over yet or the shills wouldn't be working so hard to get "consensus"


I would much rather hear an argument which states that we should not increase the block size immediately so I can attack it, as that is my primary concern in all of this.


Hopefully you realize that we are on the same team. WE all want Bitcoin to succeed, and so we should work together to find the best solution to the problem we currently face.
sr. member
Activity: 660
Merit: 250
I was first chastised for not acknowledging that you had given me a logical statement:

There are multiple logical arguments for opposing XT. I outlined one because you said no one's giving one.

I had considered writing more, but after seeing your new post in which you continue to say "Anti-XTers" are not presenting logical arguments and only appealing to emotion I've decided not to bother.

I hope it was clear I was not trying to appeal to emotion and giving the outlines of a logical argument. Since you continue to say no one is giving logical arguments, I suspect you're continuing to say it without believing it. This makes conversation pointless.

Actually, you never challenged my argument.

And now your response to my rebuttal of your argument is that you never actually gave me a real logical argument because you realized that I'm a douche bag who doesn't actually listen to logic unless it's in my favor:

It was a long post and maybe it wasn't clear that I didn't actually make the argument. I claimed I could make one that gives the conclusion from axioms like the ones I gave (and maybe other axioms). I'm still willing to do it at some point. (I don't have time today.) I like to do different kinds of Coq developments to keep in practice.


Yep this is the logic you can expect from BitOfaLoserProdogy. He only hears what he wants to hear, note that he has totally avoided addressing me because I see him for exactly what he is, a cry baby shill who's only interested in logic when it suits him.

Even the title of this thread is a threat, stating that we have only two choices, both are provided by him without allowing an alternative or questions about his logic

How anybody can take this loser seriously when he says, "arguments that appeal to fear are bad, but your point of view is dangerous and we should be afraid of the minority that doesn't agree with me" deserves to be shunned as the Shill that has proclaimed himself to be.

His arguments consistently appeal to fear and personality attacks. I'm sick of seeing his threads but he keeps hammering away making more and more of them so they are kind of hard to ignore, like that nasty headache that you think will never go away... but eventually some sunshine and some smiles from friends and like minded people remind you that life is awesome, and the headaches are temporary.

Thank god this guy and his buddy trolls will lose this battle, it's obvious that they protest too much lol even if they succeed in ruining Bitcoin, the code is not alone, and they will just prove themselves to be a bunch of incompetents when Litecoin or some other nothing coins succeeds, not because it's better, but because some shills took the most trusted Crypo and turned into the least trusted.

In that, they may have temporarily succeeded already, but the fights not over yet or the shills wouldn't be working so hard to get "consensus"


I would much rather hear an argument which states that we should not increase the block size immediately so I can attack it, as that is my primary concern in all of this.

Pages:
Jump to: