Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 25. (Read 2032266 times)

If you are adamant about XT not being an off-topic altcoin, and equally convinced r/bitcoin moderation is the same thing as censorship, this is the place for you:



Go on smoothie.  Go on evoorhees.  Fuck off to greener, censorship-free pastures where may you attempt to attack Bitcoin all you want.

Don't let me stop you.  You're free now...move into the light...   

What's up bagholders?

more censorship on reddit: https://de.reddit.com/r/bitcoin/comments/3h5211

[–]evoorhees 259 Punkte 8 Stunden zuvor
I posted this about 10 min ago and my thread was deleted immediately:
Title: XT is not only On Topic, it is THE most important topic right now. Stop the censorship. (self.Bitcoin) submitted 12 minutes ago by evoorhees
Text: The discussion of XT and the fork is the most important topic in Bitcoin right now. Please stop censoring it. Regardless of one's opinion on block sizes, the debate must happen. Whichever mod/s is censoring needs to stop.

The authoritarian Marxist-Leninist Sandinistas won, and the people of Nicaragua lost.

Ollie North kicks ass.  You pinkos are still butt-raging about his efforts to keep communism contained.  Boo hoo, you lost the Cold War!   

They are stupid or trolling or both.


So you are saying if you disagree with a moderation policy you wouldn't express that? I'm skeptical to the extreme. We can have still opinions without authority.

218

Peter, how do we get your voice of reason better heard amidst all this noise?
I feel like what happened today mirrors the current state of the election cycle. The masses are moths to the flame of drama, and we've been served up a heaping helping today.

You recognize the critical aspects. Wall Street, Bankers, and the rest of the world is never going to commit to a currency which is yet to prove it can solve its own problems. Bitcoin is open source, and we are at the inflection point where it stands to begin its journey to a world currency.  We must demonstrate to the world that, somehow, an open source project can solve its own problems.

A hard fork is contentious.

For months, I thought on this problem. Yeah I'm a 15-year SE, and I've followed Bitcoin closely since 2011. But I'm not in the trenches like you guys. My technical breadth may be broader, but you guys blow me away in depth.  Predictably, my voice has not been heard. 

My attempts have been at trying to find a conciliatory path.
In my mind, the only way this could ever happen would be to burn a cycle. First we'd need to deploy a mechanism which allows for an open-source voting mechanism to be embedded within the protocol. Simultaneously, that voting behavior would be used to control block size.

I find it difficult to argue against your position.  The off-the-cuff Sybil attacks, I presume, are refuted by the detailed analysis you provided in your recent, excellent paper. (Though I do have concerns about bad actors for whom monetary gain is not their primary motivator.)

It seems to me what you propose gives everyone what they want.

Nobody is discussing this today. It is all about "Is the Satoshi email real", censorship, and everyone trying to figure out whether they will be entrenching themselves on the side of "Forks are evil" or "this is necessary", making the problem worse.

What to do?

i hope you don't take that simplistic attack seriously.  if MP and you Cripplecoiner's insist on it, i may have to step in and take some free coin.

I agree, although I will note that it is unclear how to determine the "will of the economic majority" objectively.

I also do not rule out that changes to the original design (such as validity being determined in some manner other than by miners building on top of blocks they consider to be valid) may be desirable or can be done in an appropriate manner. I do not believe that appropriate manner includes assuming such a change to have already been made.

I think your observation is quite important.  Three arguments against changing the block size were:

   (a) that it changes Bitcoin in a fundamental way;

   (b) that changes to the consensus layer should never (or only extremely rarely) occur;

   (c) that it would lead to centralization.

According to this new interpretation, a change to the block size doesn't represent a fundamental change to Bitcoin because it was always miners that determined the validity of a block by mining on top of it anyways.  Furthermore, this re-inforces the idea we were talking about yesterday that the block size limit is not actually part of the consensus layer.  The consensus layer should only define which transactions are valid.

Point (c) may or may not be true.  But by a group of developers limiting the block size and ignoring the will of the economic majority, Bitcoin would have already lost the battle against centralization.  

They still won.  

If they ever make a movie about the Bitcoin Fork, you should get Col. Ollie North to play you,

The absurdity and offensiveness exists regardless of the sources' intentions.  The occasional cynical calculation only compounds the offense.

Once the difference has been explained to them, people are responsible for using the proper term.  What do you make of those who refuse to acknowledge the distinction (and why it's important), to justify there persistence in being sloppy and ignorant?

In this case, your peanut gallery "interpretation of the moderation rules" is not relevant, because you and the Godwinning poo-flingers are not mods, admins, or site owners.

If you can't abide (as The Dude should) by theymos' decision wrt XT, there are plenty of other forums to patronize.

Sure I agree with you that an equivalence between reddit and repressive governments is absurd and offensive, I'm just not sure the mis-usage is always as calculated as you suggest. A lot of people are just somewhat sloppy and ignorant in their use of language. I know I am sometimes guilty of that.

In this case I also disagree with the interpretation of the moderation rules, since Bitcoin-XT even if it is and altcoin, certainly is also highly relevant to Bitcoin itself. That's a distinction that eliminates most altcoin discussion generally but should also allow some. For example when discussing Bitcoin's fungibility and privacy one might draw contrasts between Bitcoin and Monero. Likewise discussing issues that exist between Bitcoin and Bitcoin-XT are also relevant.

Being moderated on a private forum is NOTHING like being suppressed by censorship.  What a nasty, horrible lie!  Why don't you just track down some Chinese dissidents and shit on their faces?  Either way the [trivializing, disrespectful] substance is the same.   

What you gloss over as "imprecise use of the word censorship" isn't accidental or mere ignorance.  It is a calculated attack on the mods' integrity (IE shaming), and a purposeful re-framing so as to paint them as victimizing brave supporters of free speech ("zomg it's a human right!!!").

As to their (and now your) "concern as being over the subreddit banning or even over-aggressively moderating" let us note that alt-coin discussion is explicitly subject to certain time/place restrictions by the forum/sub rules.  If you break those rules, expect to be moderated.  If you persist despite moderation, expect to be banned.  Duh!  This isn't hard, except when thou doth protest too much.

It is not honest to, by visitation and participation, implicitly agree with the existing moderation rules and their arbiters (the mods), but then act SHOCKED when playing the Censorship Card fails to win a dispute over/with them.

According to the original design I believe so. Furthermore, I believe that a correct interoperation of the second phrase according to the original design is identical to the first, because the determination of validity is made by miners.

Very nice.  Is it fair then to say:

   "Bitcoin is the longest proof-of-work chain composed of valid transactions"

This is a subtle difference from the phrase that certain personas employ to label Bitcoin-XT and other larger-block clients as "alt-coins":

  "Bitcoin is the longest proof-of-work valid chain"

I live in a place where we are mostly careful about pretending that our own little circlejerk is a just representation of what the world looks like.

The problem in your little zanity is you are convinced that reddit and this forum is a reasonable approximation of the community's opinion.

The barriers of entry here and there being extremely low, everyone and their sheep can voice their "opinion" and claim it to be as valuable as any others when realistically there couldn't be anything further from the truth.

You have a point somewhat but it is also fair to say that harping on the admittedly imprecise use of the word censorship isn't the point. When people make the censorship objection, you can reasonably interpret their concern as being over the subreddit banning or even over-aggressively moderating the topic. Either way the substance is the same.

Anyway, I noticed something interesting today. If you read the white paper.

1. There is nothing about block size. According to the white paper, any block (with no reference to size) is valid if the contained transactions are valid.

2. The determination of validity is made by miners, expressed by mining on top of it.

As a corollary of #2, users who see a longest chain they believe to be invalid should simply be fixing/upgrading their software, not claiming that miners are misbehaving.

While perhaps a "good idea", the concept of a longest valid chain as distinct from the longest chain is not part of the design.

Whether this is a good idea is another question entirely, but it seems to me the small block side has skipped a step in their argument.

Sorry, I spent most the day watching submissions and comments get deleted from /r/bitcoin.

I think a BIP (or something like it) is very much needed.  We have to get people to stop thinking about "Bitcoin Core" versus "Bitcoin XT," and just thinking in terms of "do I want to run software that supports bigger blocks?"  In that respect, our proposal is ideal because we could show how it would be compatible with both Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin XT.  The node operator just needs to set his block size limit to, say, 32 MB, and his node will always follow the longest proof-of-work chain composed of valid transactions.  

Moreover, we don't need 75% of the hash power to run Bitcoin XT to activate BIP101.  Instead, we need 75% of the hash power to set that flag bit.  That flag bit could be set with a patched version of Core, or by running the version of Bitcoin that we're proposing.

To answer your question about the not-quite-a-hard-fork idea, I think it's a great!  But like you said earlier, simple is better.  We need to be clear that all we're really proposing is to move the block size limit from the consensus layer to the transport layer.  

The stuff like my signalling idea and your "BSL governor" idea don't need strict consensus.  There could be several competing implementation with various degrees of interoperability.  It would still work fine.  

I supposed you have censused every Bitcoin owner to be able to present that as fact?