-snip-
Why are you asking me to do something about it? Tell the precious 'leader' mister Gavin, who refuses to listen to pretty much every Core developer and the miners. BIP109 would be better (for example) if the grace period was a minimum of 6 months and it had a consensus threshold of 90-95%. You can create your own fork and apply a modified BIP109, I just couldn't bother. 
Topic: Did Blockstream veto the roundtable consensus? - page 2. (Read 2919 times)
i should rename the thread to
DidBlockstream shills veto the roundtable consensus?
Did
Adam is turning again. Canadians... some of them even speak french.
You heard me
In the final months of the Second World War, Canadian forces were given the important and deadly task of liberating the Netherlands from Nazi occupation. I'd suggest you recognize.
lmao, all hope is lost.
i was under the impression this was an acceptable compromise to most poeple, with a few exceptions coming from within blockstream.
lets not count the shills....
It is hard not to. Once you say that they are being unreasonable because they're rejecting everything from Core and claim 'shill-like behavior' they attack you like a lion defending its cubs. lets not count the shills....
how the F is getting an upgrade to effective block size of 2MB ASAP with segwit, and then later 4MB effective block size with HF increase, not acceptable to some poeple? and they would rather risk War, over getting the 2MB HF done first (a few months sooner), this is ludacris!
Actually the 2 MB proposal (BIP109) is flawed by design and that is one of the problems. The grace period is too short (even Garzik agrees with this and he 'supports' Classic), the consensus threshold is too low, it doesn't provide a solution for the quadratic validation problem (it adds a limit/workaround to prevent the problem). However, the problem with Segwit is that people do not seem to understand it (which is normal, they don't really understand how the underlying protocols work either) but they're being hyperbolic about it. There is also that group that would reject a perfect[1] solution to scaling (right now; with 1 Million TPS without harming any part of the network (e.g. decentralization)) just because it was presented by Core. [1] Assuming that a 'perfect' thing could actually exist (the TPS is rather a random example).
i was under the impression this was an acceptable compromise to most poeple, with a few exceptions coming from within blockstream.
lets not count the shills....
It is hard not to. Once you say that they are being unreasonable because they're rejecting everything from Core and claim 'shill-like behavior' they attack you like a lion defending its cubs. lets not count the shills....
how the F is getting an upgrade to effective block size of 2MB ASAP with segwit, and then later 4MB effective block size with HF increase, not acceptable to some poeple? and they would rather risk War, over getting the 2MB HF done first (a few months sooner), this is ludacris!
Actually the 2 MB proposal (BIP109) is flawed by design and that is one of the problems. The grace period is too short (even Garzik agrees with this and he 'supports' Classic), the consensus threshold is too low, it doesn't provide a solution for the quadratic validation problem (it adds a limit/workaround to prevent the problem). However, the problem with Segwit is that people do not seem to understand it (which is normal, they don't really understand how the underlying protocols work either) but they're being hyperbolic about it. There is also that group that would reject a perfect[1] solution to scaling (right now; with 1 Million TPS without harming any part of the network (e.g. decentralization)) just because it was presented by Core. [1] Assuming that a 'perfect' thing could actually exist (the TPS is rather a random example).
i should rename the thread to
DidBlockstream shills veto the roundtable consensus?
Did
Adam is turning again. Canadians... some of them even speak french.
You heard me
i should rename the thread to
DidBlockstream shills veto the roundtable consensus?
Did
Adam is turning again. Canadians... some of them even speak french.
i should rename the thread to
DidBlockstream shills veto the roundtable consensus?
Did
Adam is turning again. Canadians... some of them even speak french.
while i would prefer an unlimited block limit and let miners risk getting orphaned if they broadcast a block that is too big ...
i'm not on any side in particular, i will go along with any "consensus" that looks to increase effective block size ASAP
short of "consensus" and off to "war" we go, my support falls with gavin...
how the F is getting an upgrade to effective block size of 2MB ASAP with segwit, and then later 4MB effective block size with HF increase, not acceptable to some poeple? and they would rather risk War, over getting the 2MB HF done first (a few months sooner), this is ludacris!
how the F is getting an upgrade to effective block size of 2MB ASAP with segwit, and then later 4MB effective block size with HF increase, not acceptable to some poeple? and they would rather risk War, over getting the 2MB HF done first (a few months sooner), this is ludacris!
i should rename the thread to
DidBlockstream shills veto the roundtable consensus?
Did
Adam is turning again. Canadians... some of them even speak french.
i should rename the thread to
DidBlockstream shills veto the roundtable consensus?
Did
sorry i thought the round table consensus was an attempt to get both BigBlockers and SmallBlockers to come to a compromise
"segwit ASAP + 2MB in about a year"
felt like the result of the 2 sides coming together.
Okay, I don't think you realize the meaning of the words "right now". You can have both in 2017 for sure, but not within the next 6 months. Either we implement Segwit first, or we implement 2 MB block size limit (with the sigops workaround). "segwit ASAP + 2MB in about a year"
felt like the result of the 2 sides coming together.
you're saying this isn't acceptable to alot of poeple on both sides?
i didnt realize how divided poeple are on this matter...
There are a lot of people (or shills) for which anything from Core isn't acceptable because it is Core. These people should be ignored at all cost (including people for which anything from the other side isn't acceptable for the same reason). i didnt realize how divided poeple are on this matter...
i was under the impression this was an acceptable compromise to most poeple, with a few exceptions coming from within blockstream.
lets not count the shills....
sorry i thought the round table consensus was an attempt to get both BigBlockers and SmallBlockers to come to a compromise
"segwit ASAP + 2MB in about a year"
felt like the result of the 2 sides coming together.
Okay, I don't think you realize the meaning of the words "right now". You can have both in 2017 for sure, but not within the next 6 months. Either we implement Segwit first, or we implement 2 MB block size limit (with the sigops workaround). "segwit ASAP + 2MB in about a year"
felt like the result of the 2 sides coming together.
you're saying this isn't acceptable to alot of poeple on both sides?
i didnt realize how divided poeple are on this matter...
There are a lot of people (or shills) for which anything from Core isn't acceptable because it is Core. These people should be ignored at all cost (including people for which anything from the other side isn't acceptable for the same reason). i didnt realize how divided poeple are on this matter...
i just want to know why there appears to be some animosity with the roundtable consensus?
You're asking me something like: Why do some people do bad things? Why doesn't everyone want world piece?. These are questions that nobody can answer for everyone. People have different views about scaling Bitcoin in addition to there being sadists and possibly a paid campaign. There are a lot of sides, views, different personalities.who is not loving it?
Pretty much every Classic supporter. sorry i thought the round table consensus was an attempt to get both BigBlockers and SmallBlockers to come to a compromise
"segwit ASAP + 2MB in about a year"
felt like the result of the 2 sides coming together.
you're saying this isn't acceptable to alot of poeple on both sides?
i didnt realize how divided poeple are on this matter...i was under the impression this was an acceptable compromise to most poeple, with a few exceptions coming from within blockstream
i just want to know why there appears to be some animosity with the roundtable consensus?
You're asking me something like: Why do some people do bad things? Why doesn't everyone want world piece?. These are questions that nobody can answer for everyone. People have different views about scaling Bitcoin in addition to there being sadists and possibly a paid campaign. There are a lot of sides, views, different personalities.who is not loving it?
Pretty much every Classic supporter. O_O?
Classic wants segwit!
CLASSIC!
i'm done with you
You apparently have some comprehension deficits. Either get educated or go away with your random nonsense. It is Segwit or 2 MB block size limit first. You can't have both right now, and that is causing this issue. Classic wants segwit!
CLASSIC!
i'm done with you
i just want to know why there appears to be some animosity with the roundtable consensus? who is not loving it?
O_O?
Classic wants segwit!
CLASSIC!
i'm done with you
You apparently have some comprehension deficits. Either get educated or go away with your random nonsense. It is Segwit or 2 MB block size limit first. You can't have both right now, and that is causing this issue. Classic wants segwit!
CLASSIC!
i'm done with you
what is with these BS technicalities!?
AFAIK only one group is against the 2MB blocks, and thats blockstream
is there another group? ( forum members don't count -_- )
Nonsense. Show me the list of developers that support 2 MB blocks, then show me the list of developers that support Segwit. You will see a huge difference in numbers there. It is either one or the other, you can't have both right now.AFAIK only one group is against the 2MB blocks, and thats blockstream
is there another group? ( forum members don't count -_- )
Classic wants segwit!
CLASSIC!
i'm done with you
what is with these BS technicalities!?
AFAIK only one group is against the 2MB blocks, and thats blockstream
is there another group? ( forum members don't count -_- )
Nonsense. Show me the list of developers that support 2 MB blocks, then show me the list of developers that support Segwit. You will see a huge difference in numbers there. It is either one or the other, you can't have both right now. AFAIK only one group is against the 2MB blocks, and thats blockstream
is there another group? ( forum members don't count -_- )
Jump to: