Topic: Is the guy proposing BIP 106 from India ? (Read 2337 times)

+1

Thanks for the info.


Such a show of crab mentality. Shame on you skang.

On a lighter note, I am Modi supporter, big time Modi supporter. But I do not agree with lot of things he has done

Come one guys, Congrtas to Upal for sure. I would put this in my resume if my proposal is even discussed to be part of Bitcoin protocol. But why we need to attack skang ? If he has his point of view he should and can present it.

I will simply say, Upal make it as better as possible and I will be really very happy if your proposal gets in. Skang put your views forward and criticize this or all other proposal the way you want. You both are correct at your places.

Bitcointalk India forum picks one topic each month to have some discussion, this month its this topic

Regards
Mahin
Zebpay

Nice work digging my history, now dig my github, reddit and IRC history and you will have your answers.

I still don't get it what you wanna achieve with ad hominems.
I never attacked Upal or you or anyone personally.

You really don't understand how the scientific process work - I appreciate Upal's time and brain spent but I criticize his viewpoint by specifically telling him the problems with the argument.
I would do the same to anybody & your personal attack quoting partial context is funny at best. Go scroll down that DannyHamilton thread...


If you have any self-respect then try attacking my arguments.




(You know what, Jonathan Haidt and Paul Bloom have this research work studying political association with nature of a person.
If I go by their work I can try to make few guesses about you - You are more likely to be a family man, you are more likely to support BitcoinXT and you are more likely to be a Modi supporter. )

Neither the following quote nor your post history says so...
All your problems are with this BIP.


Really ? This is what he said...
Yah, he made a deadly mistake in praising you in your thread. But, where exactly you found that he is directly asking you for your opinion ?


You left the Development & Technical Discussion thread regarding this BIP because no one was talking to you. Only the Armory developer criticized your opinion. Not sure why you tried to convince Upal personally. He did not propose anything personally to you. He proposed to the community and community has discussed, reviewed & accepted in the main BIPs repo.


Why should we forget you as a person, while you are criticizing one proposal because of the nationality of a developer ? This was a topic about who wrote the BIP and you turned it into a showcase of your frustration. This is your standard of arguement...
Which developer will argue with you ? Every bitcoin pro on BitcoinTalk knows and respect DannyHamilton. This is what he stated about you...

Firstly, I have I have criticised all those BIPs you have mentioned. Secondly, & more importantly, Upal directly asked for my opinion & you had seen that.
Thirdly, I sensed I was being perceived that way so I backed out & refrained from commenting on last 3 occasions it was presented, after I tried to convince him personally.

Forget me and him as a person. Consider only the arguments; Is it such a bad thing that I am asking to consider the arguments?

Apart from BIP 106 all of BIP 100, 101, 103, 105 are suggesting block size increase/adjustment in various ways. I dont see you going to threads discussing those BIPs and protesting so vigorously. What prompts you for your warfare against BIP 106 ? Because an Indian has done it without taking your permission ?

You are saying that everyone is saying BIP 106 is very bad. But, as I can see, BIP 106 (which was known as BIP 1xx before the formal assignment of BIP no.) is getting more vote than BIP 100 and BIP 101 - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bip1xx-dynamicmaxblocksize-1164466 (though I am well aware that a public vote on BitcoinTalk is not very indicative about a critical decission).

I do also think that BIP 100 will win, not because it is the best, but because pool operators are backing it, as it gives final say to them. But, why are you so furuous about the fact that the proposal of an Indian is getting acclaimed in International platform ?

Gavin and other devs have openly criticised this and similar BIPS for giving all powers to miners.
Having a BIP number does not prove passing the review mechanism. You can write any sensible change and get a BIP number for reference.  BIP105 guy got a BIP number in the same way & guided Upal on how to get a BIP number. This BIP has not been incorporated in the client.

Since you read his BIP and understand it, can you help answer my doubts linked above; I'd gladly accept my mistakes.

If me having something better would be the only qualification for me to criticize something, then yes I have something but it is so weird that I am afraid to publish it (a proposal to reduce the blocksize to less than 1mb!) - PM me if you wanna discuss.

Its is a good proposal . I read the proposal and also https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3iblg7/bipdraft_dynamically_controlled_bitcoin_block/

Basically I find this almost like BIP 100 , which sounds better because it does not enforce directly halving/doubling and the rise could be more gradual.

Reddit thread and other responses are mostly positive . Whether the community accepts this or not is a different thing. There is criticsm for every BIP proposal.  But we should appericate that  it has passed through review mechanism(reviewed by gavin/others) and made it to bips github repository,

If you think you have a better idea, I invite you to submit a BIPS too. Note that some of them are slaughtered brutally on reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ilyav/going_full_retard_bips_proposal_for_implementing/. If your BIPS is acceppted in github repo,  I would gladly sing patriotic praises for you too !

Its great that Indians are thinking about the blocksize issue but this BIP does not have much to contribute.

UpalC proposed this solution in this sub-forum and then ignored the criticisms to the idea.
Dynamic blocksize is being discussed since atleast 2 years now and he is the first to formalize it. That is appreciated but there is a reason why the devs did not do it 2 years ago - it doesn't solve the blocksize issue at all, it only just states how to increase/decrease the blocksize & that too in a pro-centralization manner.

I tried explaining him the issues through every medium I could, but I guess he perceived me as a jealous fellow, so I gave up & backed out. I am still writing this post because many Indians tend to jump over anything "Indian" without considering its merits & that presents a bad representation of my country.

Anyways, all the problems I stated were repeated by other people when he presented it on reddit and in the dev sub-forum. Again he had no answers and ignored them too.

I would request people to read his BIP and you'll understand a. why this is the most obvious thing anybody can think of (and many people did in fact) & b.Why it doesn't solve the blocksize issue.

If after understanding the issue and also his solution, feel free to jump on the patriotic appreciation band-wagon, but if you do so I'd really wanna know what you liked or what new did he present.

Looks like he is in fact Indian .... proud to see this.. his pull request got accepted

Here is the link to the bitcointalk discussion thread https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bip-106-dynamically-controlled-bitcoin-block-size-max-cap-1154536 and his website

http://upalc.com/

Good work Upal Chakraborty !

Only a few proposals regarding bitcoin block size debate have been accepted in Bitcoin's central BIP repository on Github, i.e. BIP 101, BIP 105 & BIP 106. BIP 100 & BIP 103 are still pending to be formally added. While I was browsing the Github repo, I found BIP 106 is from a guy named Upal Chakraborty. The name appears to be Indian. Is he from India ? Does anyone know about him ?