Topic: Go start your own fork you stupid fuck - - page 2. (Read 2353 times)

Thank you for putting it in that context, that really clears everything up and that will be a good response to the people who are spreading FUD about how the Core developers are trying to seize control over Bitcoin.


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?

As far as I can see, Core don't have any real power (miners have) so their "dictatorial" habits or manners are irrelevant. And this is in striking contrast to what we see in Linux. Linus (or one of his lieutenants) either approves a change or a patch and it gets included in the kernel or rejects it and it gets thrown away (or redesigned until it gets accepted). This has nothing to do with dictatorship. Linus doesn't tell anyone what to do, he is sort of control department either accepting the work or rejecting it...

In Bitcoin, the miners have the last say

If the developers in Bitcoin continue along the direction that they are going now, people will get frustrated and they will move to other options, even if it turns out to be pump n dumps or scam coins. Bitcoin is under attack from all sides, even from within for profits.

< Warning > OP, is a known troll/Shill and threads like this is created to fuel the flames of negativity. Bitcoin has turned into a social experiment for me, and the human behavior is spectacular. < Greed, Jealousy, Hate ... everything is there > Bring the Popcorn, this is FUN! ^smile^  

I seriously don't see many new types of coins succeeding but we'll see

Oh really? Do you think it is failing right now? Core is already being "dictatorial" according to some people in the community yet Bitcoin is thriving. The price is going up, usage in the darkmarket is increasing, there are more hackers developing more Bitcoin ransomware and usage will keep increasing.

A dictator is not really a bad thing. Look at the development of Linux. Linus is known to be a dictator but their community and the OS are both flourishing.

well, last time i have spotted that seriously many people want to start a new altcoin.
I dont know what the fuck is going on, we already have tons of fakecoins, shitcoins, scamcoins etc... there are basically no funds to start a new batch but well, i wanna see them success haha

pools wont get to 95% for a more rational reason..
unless they see that there are enough nodes to double check the data that competing pools push out

although a soft fork doesnt need nodes to activate. pools rationally wont start sending out funky data unless they see the node network not only accept it but FULLY validate it..

thats the mutual 2 part security.. nodes validate out bad blocks and pools validate in good tx's
they need each other.
even if a feature only needs one side.. both sides are mutually exclusive rather than not involved with each other.
its a double union concept, they work together but on separate things.

hense why doing what the community want will inspire the community and then inspire the pools.

again dynamic block with default starting 2mb base 4mb weight is a
win for scalability community,
win for second layer one time boost community
win for pools confidence

triple win

I am bitching about it because SegWit and other altcoins come in under the notion that GMax has commit access and calls that shit 'Bitcoin' while he tells others to go start their changes to the protocol on a forked chain. 

To be fair, we should fork today on three prongs: - 1) no changes; 2) SegWit and 3) BU. 

ALL miners have to abandon what they are running now and EXPLICITY choose one of the 3 prongs.  Miners who don't take an explicit decision will be mining on a CLOSED chain. 

That system will work to effect a clear decision.  Of course, two prongs will survive and everyone will shit bricks.  But this is the only way to be fair. 

The notion that 95% consensus is going to solve this is crazy.  Just as soon as GMax realizes 95% cannot be achieved, they will declare 85% enough for consensus and invoke SegWit on that.  Otherwise, we would clearly be stuck on 'no changes' forever. 

I didn't say we should run the original protocol - you stupid fuck.  Can't you read?

I said that big blocks were part of the original protocol.  You don't ever see merit to any argument because you are unable to comprehend what is being said - just like you do everytime you see something and slant it far into your own twisted understanding.  No wonder Blockstrem loves you as their little bitch shill.

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?

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. 

Will not a split the community?

I think you underestimate the ability of authorities around the world to force ISPs in their jurisdictions to block Bitcoin network traffic in order to protect against flavor-of-the-week bogeymen.

At that point, it becomes a cat and mouse game. The leaner the requirements (bandwidth) to facilitate a working Bitcoin network, the easier it is to maintain it in the face of direct censorship.

I filter EVERYTHING through that lens. We have basically ONE asset (you could argue other cryptocurrencies as well) on the planet which can't be controlled by some authority. I don't want to lose it.

When we have a worldwide decentralized wireless mesh network in place which is capable of hosting the Bitcoin network with blocks bigger than 1MB, I will gladly support increasing the direct on-chain scaling of Bitcoin. Until then, we should use layers that can be peeled away in a worst case scenario situation.

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.

All transactions do not need to be censorship-proof in a world where censorship-proof transactions exist.

As far as "ignoring the problem", I strongly believe that everyone who wants to increase the on-chain capacity simply by increasing the block size is ignoring the problem. There are real trade-offs and I will err on the side of a lean, robust block chain every single time.

Anyway, instead of attacking me, why don't you do something constructive and enact your solution and let it compete on the market? I'm not screaming for change in another new thread every day, I'm perfectly content to have everything remain in stasis for years to come. I'm not interested in "Bitcoin for the mainstream" and I personally don't believe the average mainstream debt slave cares about Bitcoin in the slightest.

^ his solution, ban each others ip to avoid consensus by refusing to acknowledge eachother....... basically an intentional split reworded.(gmaxwell twin?)


^ his solution, dont mention the problem just shut up and stand in the corner. let the bankers advertise uninterrupted

i can see where Holliday's allegiances lay.. very obvious what his desires are.

blockstream=hitler

I guess this can hardly be questioned

Really, if you think that your system is superior to its competitors, why raise meaningless and endless arguments, debates and discussions about that in a futile attempt to prove anything to anyone? Just stick to it and let your competitors use their inferior systems to your advantage. Talk is cheap, after all

Not a new thing for thousands of years humann beings have looked to a leader to lead them, #sadstateofaffairs we are very easily lead.

yep thats what maxwell wants. so his monero and his bosses hyperledger can rule supreme

Welcome to Ethereum 2.0
Disaster in 3..2...1