December 12, 2024, 07:59:11 AM

Welcome, Guest

News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 28.0 [Torrent]

Bitcoin Forum>Bitcoin>Bitcoin Discussion

Pages:

«
1
2
3
»

Author

Topic: Go start your own fork you stupid fuck - (Read 2353 times)

deisik

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Wind_FURY on December 01, 2016, 09:46:10 PM

Quote from: deisik on December 01, 2016, 04:31:27 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on November 30, 2016, 10:15:22 PM

Quote from: deisik on November 30, 2016, 07:52:35 AM

In Bitcoin, the miners have the last say

Then I ask, why is there a need for all the drama from the Bitcoin Unlimited supporters since the miners will decide what is final anyway?

Maybe, they are just sowing the seeds of discord between miners?

Whatever they mean to do, it is not working. Right from the beginning the miners already know which "side" to support. To what reasons why they decided to pick a "side" is arguable. It may be politics, their earn or the safety and the well being of Bitcoin as a whole. So I do think in the end they will be supporting core all the way.

This is highly debatable

What you say basically comes down to claiming that people are stubborn in their choice and won't change their mind no matter what arguments and reasons are put forward. Yes, there are a lot of such people around us. But I'm still inclined to think that miners, just like other businessmen, are more oriented on maximizing their profits (and that's good) than on defending their views or choice even if it is proven to be wrong or just less profitable. Consequently, I see no reason why they might not want to change their stance if they see more profits ahead thanks to a competing approach

Wind_FURY

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: deisik on December 01, 2016, 04:31:27 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on November 30, 2016, 10:15:22 PM

Quote from: deisik on November 30, 2016, 07:52:35 AM

In Bitcoin, the miners have the last say

Then I ask, why is there a need for all the drama from the Bitcoin Unlimited supporters since the miners will decide what is final anyway?

Maybe, they are just sowing the seeds of discord between miners?

Whatever they mean to do, it is not working. Right from the beginning the miners already know which "side" to support. To what reasons why they decided to pick a "side" is arguable. It may be politics, their earn or the safety and the well being of Bitcoin as a whole. So I do think in the end they will be supporting core all the way.

jbreher

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1660

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: Holliday on December 01, 2016, 02:30:46 PM

I assumed naming it BUTT was sufficient to let everyone know it was a joke. Wink

Wink

But... but... BUTT is a useful tool: https://sourceforge.net/projects/butt/

Quote

Blockstream isn't really paying me enough to actually be funny. (That's another joke, BTW!)

zing!

Holliday

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1012

Quote from: franky1 on December 01, 2016, 03:00:57 PM

minted coin
minted coin

Yes, the proposal has those words included in the description of what happens. But it doesn't say a single thing about changing it in a way that affects the 21 million cap, which is what your previous post suggested.

Quote from: franky1 on December 01, 2016, 03:00:57 PM

so dont downplay the cores crappy thoughts and then make up thoughts about others.

I didn't downplay or make up anything. I made a joke and you took it seriously. Then I pointed out that you misrepresented something someone, who has nothing to do with Core, suggested.

Geeze man...

franky1

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: Holliday on December 01, 2016, 02:34:36 PM

Quote from: franky1 on December 01, 2016, 10:58:56 AM

Quote from: Holliday on December 01, 2016, 01:20:26 AM

I can't wait for Bitcoin Unlimited Take Two, where the block reward is dynamically determined by the free market...

actually those that love core were coming up with an option where dynamic blocks are possible, but with a penalty of reducing the blockreward if its implemented. and greg actually liked it

Quote from: Meni Rosenfeld on June 02, 2015, 03:16:17 PM

Elastic block cap
The heart of the suggestion is - instead of forbidding large blocks, penalize them. The miner of a large block must pay a penalty that depends on the block's size. The penalty will be deducted from the funds he collects in the generation transaction, and paid into the rollover pool, to be distributed among future miners. If the penalty exceeds the miner's income of tx fees + minted coins + his share of the current rollover pool, the block is invalid.

This requires choosing a function f that returns the penalty for a given block size. There is great flexibility and there's little that can go wrong if we choose a "wrong" function. The main requirements are that it is convex, and has significant curvature around the size we think blocks should be. My suggestion: Choose a target block size T. Then for any given block size x, set f(x) = Max(x-T,0)^2 / (T*(2T-x)). (graph)

This will mean that there are no penalties for blocks up to size T. As the block size increases, there is a penalty for each additional transaction - negligible at first, but eventually sharply rising. Blocks bigger than 2T are forbidden.

Quote from: gmaxwell on June 02, 2015, 11:31:48 PM

I think this kind of proposal is a massive improvement on proposals without this kind of control; and while it does not address all of the issues around larger blocks-- e.g. they do not incentive align miners and non-mining users of the system-- it seems likely that proposals in this class would greatly improve a some of them of them; and as such is worth a lot more consideration.

Thanks for posting, Meni-- I'm looking forward to thinking more about what you've written.

silly people wanting to play with bitcoins mining rewards output as a appendix to allowing bitcoin onchain scaling

its like saying "yea you can have more capacity but we will destroy bitcoins 21m coin cap mechanism if you do"

ofcourse messing with mining rewards is stupid and no one should even try messing with it. anyone seeing positives of messing with the blockreward mechanism should be watched, we should be careful of their other idea's. you never know what is hidden as a appendix to their concepts hidden between the lines of code

While there may have been actual proposals to toy with the block reward, what you've quoted is not that. Meni's proposal involves adjusting transaction fees in relation to the block size, and your quoted bit says as much.

minted coins

yes transaction fee is also mentioned but so is minted coin. so dont downplay the cores crappy thoughts and then make up thoughts about others.

many times people have protected gmaxwell, but then used his negative idea's and pretended other people opposing maxwells dominance as wanting what maxwell wants.

as shown in the OP of f*rking off.. only core and maxwell want to avoid true consensus and want there to be a network split.. not the other way round.

but it is very cute how you downplay cores mentions of messing with minted coins. but i would guess if you seen the exact same posts wrote by anyone not fanboying core. you would jump on them and scream like a sex addict with his first prostitute

Holliday

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1012

Quote from: franky1 on December 01, 2016, 10:58:56 AM

Quote from: Holliday on December 01, 2016, 01:20:26 AM

I can't wait for Bitcoin Unlimited Take Two, where the block reward is dynamically determined by the free market...

actually those that love core were coming up with an option where dynamic blocks are possible, but with a penalty of reducing the blockreward if its implemented. and greg actually liked it

Quote from: Meni Rosenfeld on June 02, 2015, 03:16:17 PM

Elastic block cap
The heart of the suggestion is - instead of forbidding large blocks, penalize them. The miner of a large block must pay a penalty that depends on the block's size. The penalty will be deducted from the funds he collects in the generation transaction, and paid into the rollover pool, to be distributed among future miners. If the penalty exceeds the miner's income of tx fees + minted coins + his share of the current rollover pool, the block is invalid.

This requires choosing a function f that returns the penalty for a given block size. There is great flexibility and there's little that can go wrong if we choose a "wrong" function. The main requirements are that it is convex, and has significant curvature around the size we think blocks should be. My suggestion: Choose a target block size T. Then for any given block size x, set f(x) = Max(x-T,0)^2 / (T*(2T-x)). (graph)

This will mean that there are no penalties for blocks up to size T. As the block size increases, there is a penalty for each additional transaction - negligible at first, but eventually sharply rising. Blocks bigger than 2T are forbidden.

Quote from: gmaxwell on June 02, 2015, 11:31:48 PM

I think this kind of proposal is a massive improvement on proposals without this kind of control; and while it does not address all of the issues around larger blocks-- e.g. they do not incentive align miners and non-mining users of the system-- it seems likely that proposals in this class would greatly improve a some of them of them; and as such is worth a lot more consideration.

Thanks for posting, Meni-- I'm looking forward to thinking more about what you've written.

silly people wanting to play with bitcoins mining rewards output as a appendix to allowing bitcoin onchain scaling

its like saying "yea you can have more capacity but we will destroy bitcoins 21m coin cap mechanism if you do"

ofcourse messing with mining rewards is stupid and no one should even try messing with it. anyone seeing positives of messing with the blockreward mechanism should be watched, we should be careful of their other idea's. you never know what is hidden as a appendix to their concepts hidden between the lines of code

While there may have been actual proposals to toy with the block reward, what you've quoted is not that. Meni's proposal involves adjusting transaction fees in relation to the block size, and your quoted bit says as much.

I don't think there have been any serious proposals where the 21 million cap was brought into question, but go ahead and prove me wrong.

Holliday

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1012

Quote from: jbreher on December 01, 2016, 10:40:40 AM

Quote from: Holliday on December 01, 2016, 01:29:32 AM

Quote from: jbreher on December 01, 2016, 01:27:09 AM

Holliday, I lurves ya, man. But reducito al absurdium is unbecoming.

Look at some of the responses in this thread. You are calling me out as unbecoming because I made a joke?

Naah. My mistake. I thought you were stating that you thought such was a real risk.

I assumed naming it BUTT was sufficient to let everyone know it was a joke. Wink

Wink

Apparently it wasn't that funny. Of course, Blockstream isn't really paying me enough to actually be funny. (That's another joke, BTW!)

franky1

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: Holliday on December 01, 2016, 01:20:26 AM

I can't wait for Bitcoin Unlimited Take Two, where the block reward is dynamically determined by the free market...

actually those that love core were coming up with an option where dynamic blocks are possible, but with a penalty of reducing the blockreward if its implemented. and greg actually liked it

Quote from: Meni Rosenfeld on June 02, 2015, 03:16:17 PM

Elastic block cap
The heart of the suggestion is - instead of forbidding large blocks, penalize them. The miner of a large block must pay a penalty that depends on the block's size. The penalty will be deducted from the funds he collects in the generation transaction, and paid into the rollover pool, to be distributed among future miners. If the penalty exceeds the miner's income of tx fees + minted coins + his share of the current rollover pool, the block is invalid.

This requires choosing a function f that returns the penalty for a given block size. There is great flexibility and there's little that can go wrong if we choose a "wrong" function. The main requirements are that it is convex, and has significant curvature around the size we think blocks should be. My suggestion: Choose a target block size T. Then for any given block size x, set f(x) = Max(x-T,0)^2 / (T*(2T-x)). (graph)

This will mean that there are no penalties for blocks up to size T. As the block size increases, there is a penalty for each additional transaction - negligible at first, but eventually sharply rising. Blocks bigger than 2T are forbidden.

Quote from: gmaxwell on June 02, 2015, 11:31:48 PM

I think this kind of proposal is a massive improvement on proposals without this kind of control; and while it does not address all of the issues around larger blocks-- e.g. they do not incentive align miners and non-mining users of the system-- it seems likely that proposals in this class would greatly improve a some of them of them; and as such is worth a lot more consideration.

Thanks for posting, Meni-- I'm looking forward to thinking more about what you've written.

silly people wanting to play with bitcoins mining rewards output as a appendix to allowing bitcoin onchain scaling

its like saying "yea you can have more capacity but we will destroy bitcoins 21m coin cap mechanism if you do"

ofcourse messing with mining rewards is stupid and no one should even try messing with it. anyone seeing positives of messing with the blockreward mechanism should be watched, we should be careful of their other idea's. you never know what is hidden as a appendix to their concepts hidden between the lines of code

jbreher

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1660

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: Holliday on December 01, 2016, 01:29:32 AM

Quote from: jbreher on December 01, 2016, 01:27:09 AM

Holliday, I lurves ya, man. But reducito al absurdium is unbecoming.

Look at some of the responses in this thread. You are calling me out as unbecoming because I made a joke?

Naah. My mistake. I thought you were stating that you thought such was a real risk.

deisik

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Wind_FURY on November 30, 2016, 10:15:22 PM

Quote from: deisik on November 30, 2016, 07:52:35 AM

In Bitcoin, the miners have the last say

Then I ask, why is there a need for all the drama from the Bitcoin Unlimited supporters since the miners will decide what is final anyway?

Maybe, they are just sowing the seeds of discord between miners?

Another thing that I got from the recent talks here is that any change or important update to Bitcoin should be accepted by 95% of all miners (that is called consensus, if I'm not mistaken). In this way, supporters of whatever idea might not actually want so much to get their idea accepted as to get a competing idea rejected. That seems to be a flip side of the consensus preventing insane ideas and concepts from being accepted

Killerpotleaf

sr. member

Activity: 812

Merit: 250

A Blockchain Mobile Operator With Token Rewards

what did the BU client say when he saw Core client push a TX?

...

HA the fool forgot to sign!

Killerpotleaf

sr. member

Activity: 812

Merit: 250

A Blockchain Mobile Operator With Token Rewards

Quote from: Holliday on December 01, 2016, 02:03:45 AM

Quote from: Killerpotleaf on December 01, 2016, 01:47:24 AM

Quote from: Holliday on December 01, 2016, 01:20:26 AM

Quote from: Killerpotleaf on December 01, 2016, 12:17:02 AM

Quote from: Holliday on November 29, 2016, 02:09:21 PM

No one can force someone else to run software against their will.

"let the free market determine block size dynamically"
and
"let gerg determine block size and discount signature data at his discretion"

Installing software which has a 1MB anti-spam block size limit in it is a free market choice. This also applies to any other rules included in the software.

its not, installing that software is more like saying, IDK but i Trust core.

Quote from: Holliday on December 01, 2016, 01:20:26 AM

I can't wait for Bitcoin Unlimited Take Two, where the block reward is dynamically determined by the free market...

what's the point the free market would choose the defaults.

dont blieve me? ask a few miners users devs and whoever else... come on..

Wait... so users make intelligent choices when building blocks, but are too stupid to choose which software they run?

ya!
well just because they dont know / have an opionon on block size dosnt make them stupid...
but anyway.

"stupid users" will accept what ever defaults come with the latest build, "non-stupid users" will not.

why you no like free market? why you no like freedom? why you such a communist!?

Holliday

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1012

Quote from: Killerpotleaf on December 01, 2016, 01:47:24 AM

Quote from: Holliday on December 01, 2016, 01:20:26 AM

Quote from: Killerpotleaf on December 01, 2016, 12:17:02 AM

Quote from: Holliday on November 29, 2016, 02:09:21 PM

No one can force someone else to run software against their will.

"let the free market determine block size dynamically"
and
"let gerg determine block size and discount signature data at his discretion"

Installing software which has a 1MB anti-spam block size limit in it is a free market choice. This also applies to any other rules included in the software.

its not, installing that software is more like saying, IDK but i Trust core.

Quote from: Holliday on December 01, 2016, 01:20:26 AM

I can't wait for Bitcoin Unlimited Take Two, where the block reward is dynamically determined by the free market...

what's the point the free market would choose the defaults.

dont blieve me? ask a few miners users devs and whoever else... come on..

Wait... so users make intelligent choices when building blocks, but are too stupid to choose which software they run?

Killerpotleaf

sr. member

Activity: 812

Merit: 250

A Blockchain Mobile Operator With Token Rewards

Quote from: Holliday on December 01, 2016, 01:20:26 AM

Quote from: Killerpotleaf on December 01, 2016, 12:17:02 AM

Quote from: Holliday on November 29, 2016, 02:09:21 PM

No one can force someone else to run software against their will.

"let the free market determine block size dynamically"
and
"let gerg determine block size and discount signature data at his discretion"

Installing software which has a 1MB anti-spam block size limit in it is a free market choice. This also applies to any other rules included in the software.

its not, installing that software is more like saying, IDK but i Trust core.

Quote from: Holliday on December 01, 2016, 01:20:26 AM

I can't wait for Bitcoin Unlimited Take Two, where the block reward is dynamically determined by the free market...

what's the point the free market would choose the defaults.

dont blieve me? ask a few miners users devs and whoever else... come on..

a key aspect of BU which poeple seem to forget....
its not like some % of the network can't be blocking futher block size increases.
for block size to incress a very large % of the network must agree to accept such a block.

digaran

copper member

Activity: 1330

Merit: 899

🖤😏

The average joe doesn't give 2 cents of rat's ass about all the technicality and knowing about forks and such.
Bitcoin isn't just a currency but an idea.
If that idea becomes like ETH and it's forks then we might as well say goodbye to real crypto currency which so far is only bitcoin.

Holliday

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1012

Quote from: jbreher on December 01, 2016, 01:27:09 AM

Holliday, I lurves ya, man. But reducito al absurdium is unbecoming.

Look at some of the responses in this thread. You are calling me out as unbecoming because I made a joke?

jbreher

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 3038

Merit: 1660

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: Holliday on December 01, 2016, 01:20:26 AM

I can't wait for Bitcoin Unlimited Type Two, where the block reward is dynamically determined by the free market...

Unlikely. The BU community approved a motion to implement a user-settable maxblocksize at the initiation of the BU project. As of yet, there has not even been a proposal -- BUIP or otherwise -- for variable block reward.

Holliday, I lurves ya, man. But reducito al absurdium is unbecoming.

Holliday

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1012

Quote from: Killerpotleaf on December 01, 2016, 12:17:02 AM

Quote from: Holliday on November 29, 2016, 02:09:21 PM

No one can force someone else to run software against their will.

"let the free market determine block size dynamically"
and
"let gerg determine block size and discount signature data at his discretion"

Installing software which has a 1MB anti-spam block size limit in it is a free market choice. This also applies to any other rules included in the software.

...

I can't wait for Bitcoin Unlimited Take Two, where the block reward is dynamically determined by the free market...

Killerpotleaf

sr. member

Activity: 812

Merit: 250

A Blockchain Mobile Operator With Token Rewards

Quote from: Holliday on November 29, 2016, 02:09:21 PM

No one can force someone else to run software against their will.

you should look into what a synthetic-fork is and revise this theory... lol! oh i love to joke.

Quote from: Holliday on November 29, 2016, 02:09:21 PM

The community is clearly divided between those who want to keep the block chain as lean as possible in order to preserve decentralization at the cost of on chain scaling, and those who want to put every transaction under the sun in the permanent ledger that all full nodes must keep a copy of forever.
These two sides will never see eye to eye! There is no point in furthering the perpetual argument.
Therefor, the best solution is one side to create a block which the other side refuses to acknowledge.
Forking will resolve these differences in the blink of an eye.

your perception of the 2 sides are greatly exaggerated.
at this point the two dominant sides are:

"let the free market determine block size dynamically"
and
"let gerg determine block size and discount signature data at his discretion"

when it comes to the second layer.
both sides agree that its cool and both sides what to see it happen.
but they view it slightly differently...

"a very cool experiment that will probably have some use cases, but needs time to mature?"
and
"THE FUTURE OF BITCOIN!"

ofc we have both sides throwing poop at each other...

" segwit will forever destroy bitcoins bits! "
and
" minners will make 100MB blocks and destroy decentraltion "

aahhhh bitcoin le 2016 the year we failed to scale.
2017 will go more smoothly....

Xester

hero member

Activity: 994

Merit: 544

Quote from: Holliday on November 29, 2016, 06:59:23 PM

Quote from: RawDog on November 29, 2016, 06:01:33 PM

Quote from: Holliday on November 29, 2016, 05:05:39 PM

Bitcoin means one thing to me: Freedom. I'm willing to wait a long time and pay handsomely in order to write into the permanent ledger that every full node must keep a copy of forever. I can use cash and credit cards for everything else.

Just because the application you personally love so much is well served by a crippled version of Bitcoin, the 1MB came later and is not a part of the original protocol, now you say everyone else's favorite applications can just fuck off.

Since 'store of value' is all YOU need, then other's concerns about deploying the network for other utility - are just not important to you.

Very dumb argument.

If we were still running "the original protocol" Bitcoin would be useless, so I don't really see any merits to that argument.

I never suggested everyone with a different opinion should "fuck off". What I suggested was that everyone can choose to run the software they want, and ultimately if you are running a version which allows for blocks of any size, at some point someone is going to have to create a block larger than 1MB (otherwise, what is the point of all this expended effort) at which point the network will fork. I'm perfectly fine with that. It will certainly solve this rift in the community in a hurry.

Also, let's not pretend that I'm the only person who views Bitcoin as a store of value in opposition to what "everyone else" wants. The community is clearly divided with support on both sides of this three year old argument (otherwise we wouldn't still be arguing about it). I want both sides to get what they want. Bitcoin's very nature provides a path to end. Why are you bitching about that?

There are different types of people who has different views on the subject. On the view of bitcoin protocols I agree that the argument between groups whose idea contradicts to each other will never end. But there are other side of the pictures, there are more users who have no idea whats happening and doesnt know what the hell the fork or bitcoin protocol is, maybe theres a need to educate this people on what bitcoin is and other technicalities behind it rather than arguing amongst ourselves who is right and who is wrong.

Pages:

«
1
2
3
»

Bitcoin Forum>Bitcoin>Bitcoin Discussion

Jump to: