Topic: blockstream - wants to tax you and become the new Bitcoin oligarchy - page 5. (Read 8953 times)

One baseless claim meant to create FUD with nothing to back it up, and then tell others to discuss. Lame attempt at propaganda, at least put a little effort into it.

Sidechains is a flawed concept invented by programmers with a Bitcoin techno-centric view of the world economy who do not believe in monetary diversity. (Go to time:42:45)

However the world is a subjective place and when the global economy looks back at bitcoin with all those ridiculous extensions, all it will see is an unattractive, unfungible, immobile, ambiguous mess that's simply a drag on monetary velocity, however much it does justice to a "one-off event".

If you want to improve a monetary medium - be it physical or digital - you need to enhance its monetary properties, not deplete them.

Sidechains may be a nice technical extension to bitcoin but they conflict substantially with the priorities of money. In particular, the properties of mobility and fungibility are adversely impacted. The former due to the hard exchange with the sidechain (as opposed to a soft exchange facilitated by markets which allows the bitcoin to stay in circulation) and the latter due to recasting of parts of the coin supply so that they are no longer capable of "mutual substitution".

When we invest in a different currency (e.g. forex or even altcoin), the money we invest stays in circulation because a genuine exchange takes place and the other party is free to re-spend our committed funds in their commercial sector as we are free to re-spend theirs in ours. This is not the case with sidechains. Instead of an exchange, a portion of the coin supply is "recast" thereby turning bitcoin from a solid, unambigious currency into a kind of "chameleon" that changes its spots according to demand with ever diminishing fungibility.

This is not a currency in any economic sense but rather a digital interface. Something invented by programmers, not economies.

To be avoided.

I was explaining it for someone who apparently didn't quite understand, but you're right.  The repetition is not necessary
and the OP is clear.  As far as it being false, well that is your opinion and you make some fair arguments but
so far I think my hypothesis is still valid. 

Banter away...

jonald, you cannot make a false statement true simply by repeating it again and again.

You know the position of the Core devs is not as simple as "1MB", yet you keep choosing to misrepresent their position by presenting it this way. Stop doing it, it is harming your cause.

i can imagine many reasons why a miner would not build on a block which is valid by protocol rules (eg because his country has blacklists for certain transactions or they are trying to push out competition; as long as 51% of them think the same it'll work for them)

but anyhow: this discussion is about XT which i fully support. 1mb is simply not enough.

lol. true.

onemorexmr:  let me break this down for you.  miners will build on any valid block that follows the protocol rules.  Right now we are trying to determine what those rules should be.  the current rule is that no block can be bigger than 1mb but as blocks are getting more and more full, people want to raise it.  Gavin, Jeff,  and Mike all want to raise it.  Unfortunately many of the other core devs dont, because they would rather peruse a sidechain solution with their new company called Blockstream.  

What I find particularly interesting is the blurring between what is "off-topic" or "too broad in scope" (so that's its removal can be justified as being "objective") with the removal of content that has a certain political slant in the block size debate (its removal would be seen as "biased" or as "censoring").  I found this comic quite accurate in depicting the point I'm trying to communicate:

Peter, you're being evasive and manipulative, I have told you once already about my attitudes to the censorship, yet you keep repeating that I am avoiding your questions. Sadly, the evidence is all here for anyone who wishes to look. I am disappointed that you have revealed yourself to be quite so sociopathic, but rather sooner than later I suppose. Don't address me again, I will not reply.

Here are your exact words:


I am sorry if I mis-interpretted your question, Carlton. When you asked "who?" I thought you were asking me to list some people.  As for the remainder of your comment, a don't think I can parse what you are trying to say.  

In the mean time, you've still avoided my original question.  Let me ask it a different way:

Q: When we look back on this a year from now, will people agree that the discussion of BitcoinXT was off-topic?  Will they agree that the locking of Cypherdoc's thread by the Administration "because threads with a broad scope are no longer permitted" was an objective decision?

I patently did not ask for such a list. Peter, why aren't you paying attention to your own argument? It comes across as a little inconsistent when you "resume" an argument that you were not making previously, on the basis of things that people did not say.

My apologies LaudaM.  I have always appreciated your commentary.  Carlton asked for examples of people who appeared to be in favour of the censoring removing off-topic content and threads that are broad in scope and I recalled your recent comment in favour of the action the Forum Administration took by locking Cypherdoc's thread.

The trouble with words (such as censoring) is that we can twist their meanings to prove our points.

I said early that:

"I just find it fascinating how we attempt to contort reason to justify otherwise reprehensible behaviour.  I suppose that it's difficult, without the benefit of hindsight, to recognize the extent to which we are guilty of this ourselves."

When we look back on this a year from now, will people agree that the discussion of BitcoinXT was off-topic?  Will they agree that the locking of Cypherdoc's thread by the Administration "because threads with a broad scope are no longer permitted" was an objective decision?

1 down, 4 to go. Peter?

I'm not even sure what to comment on this. That link does not prove either assumption that you've made. You're spreading false information regarding me (I will not comment the others). I was actually advocating for the increase a few months back in a huge thread (that was over 100 pages long). I never said that the block size limit should not be increased. While I do support a increase (which is not urgent as some think), I do not support XT at all. There is a difference.

As for the "censorship", there are two possible situations: a) either you are not able to comprehend what real censorship is; b) or you have forgotten that this is a privately owned forum.
IMHO this is off-topic.

---

---

Thank you sir. Supporting a block size increase (in general, not specific to any limit) =/= supporting XT.

---

---

Obviously for you to in order to use their technology/product, you are probably going to have to pay fees. However, if people really think that these fees are going to be high, think again. If they introduce a model with high fees, nobody is going to use their product. Besides, nobody is forcing you to do transactions off chain. Pay the normal (or higher, whichever is necessary) fee and you aren't going to have a problem transacting Bitcoin during heavy amount of TX traffic.

Well, I'm glad there's at least one other person who's enthusiastic about it, even if you almost choked on your Doritos. If I'm causing people who agree with me to commit involuntary suicide, maybe this is a sign that it's guaranteed dystopia after all  

i just dont think miners are dumb.
if there is a 1GB block i dont think any miner will build on top off it (except it is absolutely necessary)

it will double every two years.
personally i'd prefer an unlimited blocksize.

We need to raise block size limit. A dynamic block size limit is better than a static block size limit because for later, we need to hardfork everytime the block is full or nearly full. A dynamic block size limit can resolve this issue. The proposal I linked above is a good one but we can make it better by making some changes.


If Mike or Gavin remove patches such as "blacklist of IP", then I might also use XT but XT contains questionable patches and sometimes they add buggy codes too.

and 14% of all nodes are already XT nodes ...within 7 days.

hopefully the core devs come to consensus or XT will stay or win. i support bigger blocks. the only way at the moment is XT.

But isn't that proposal for maximum block size? There's no need to make blocks that enormous unless there's an actual need for them. It just permits the possibility.

Doubling every two years is not a good solution IMHO. A better dynamic increment or a temporary static increment is needed. For example, https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bip-106-dynamically-controlled-bitcoin-block-size-max-cap-1154536.