After 86 pages, you know damn well that no one is reading anything anymore, and it's his thread to lock whenever he wants anyway.
Nobody is censoring you. As stated, you can open up your own thread and lock it whenever you feel it's appropriate.
Topic: LOL @ ck-'s censorship (Read 404 times)
Oh... the outrage!
...over an OP locking his own thread.
/yawn
...over an OP locking his own thread.
/yawn
1) This isn't censorship.
2) This thread is not appropriate for Meta.
3) If you want to discuss something after a thread has been locked, you can always open up one yourself.
2) This thread is not appropriate for Meta.
3) If you want to discuss something after a thread has been locked, you can always open up one yourself.
LOL @ ck-
So he locked the 86 pages thread after people started speaking the truth about SegWit.
He gave the following excuse:
I am sure similar discussions is all over the place in the thread.
You know what is even funnier, every time people toss out a truth grenade here you Core fanbois either delete it or lock the post.
Fuck off -ck, if you have to censor, just censor, don't jump on some imaginary moral high horse and give bullshit excuses.
http://archive.is/FkhWS
So he locked the 86 pages thread after people started speaking the truth about SegWit.
He gave the following excuse:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.19682416
Re: The Barry Silbert segwit agreement with >80% miner agreement.
-ck June 21, 2017, 04:46:26 AM
One major one is the belief that segwit provides "discounted" transactions because the fee is only related to their block space usage and not the segregated witness component which is not stored in the block. In some regards this is somewhat true as the resources required to store and transmit the data for a segwit transaction are slightly larger than an equivalent classic transaction. The argument against this is that the data need not be stored long term and that the actual computational complexity of segwit transactions is less than that of traditional transactions. Pools are hoping that a rapid change to 2MB blocks means most people will continue to use traditional transactions and the accompanying fee schedule. There was a lot of debate about what block weight and segwit transaction weighting should mean if core implemented 2MB+segwit themselves, but because they felt the argument for 2MB+segwit was a bait and switch exercise by miners they abandoned it. Which means the miners are implementing their own segwit2x without even really thinking about it, and leaving the alleged discounted transactions in. Funny...
The second major reason is that they've been arguing for so long that a bigger block is an easy, simple, safe way to scale that they can't change their minds now. It's hard to know if they're aware it's unnecessary and it's a massive saving-face exercise, or they still believe they're right about it, but the end result is the same.
Finally there's the concern that if they don't strike while the iron's hot, then we'll be stuck with 1MB+segwit only as a transaction expansion mechanism for the foreseeable future. Since there is no other hard scaling solution committed to the development timeline, in some respects this is also partially true. If we wait till another scaling solution comes around, and yet again it provides more discounted ways of increasing transaction capacity without a concomitant rise in fees, then rising fees as an incentive to miners are once again at risk.
In essence it's primarily about fees and secondarily about saving face.
Re: The Barry Silbert segwit agreement with >80% miner agreement.
-ck June 21, 2017, 04:46:26 AM
Quote
Quote from: JayJuanGee on June 21, 2017, 04:03:50 AM
I continue to wonder why there are so many folks who continue to assert that 2mb is needed and a kind of must and a kind of emergency, without even verifying how segwit plays out. Causes me to tentatively conclude that there is likely some hidden agenda in regards to such a desire to implement something that really seems to be unnecessary - and whether the implementation of unnecessary is for governance reasons or just some kind of big business reasons seems to escape me.
I continue to wonder why there are so many folks who continue to assert that 2mb is needed and a kind of must and a kind of emergency, without even verifying how segwit plays out. Causes me to tentatively conclude that there is likely some hidden agenda in regards to such a desire to implement something that really seems to be unnecessary - and whether the implementation of unnecessary is for governance reasons or just some kind of big business reasons seems to escape me.
One major one is the belief that segwit provides "discounted" transactions because the fee is only related to their block space usage and not the segregated witness component which is not stored in the block. In some regards this is somewhat true as the resources required to store and transmit the data for a segwit transaction are slightly larger than an equivalent classic transaction. The argument against this is that the data need not be stored long term and that the actual computational complexity of segwit transactions is less than that of traditional transactions. Pools are hoping that a rapid change to 2MB blocks means most people will continue to use traditional transactions and the accompanying fee schedule. There was a lot of debate about what block weight and segwit transaction weighting should mean if core implemented 2MB+segwit themselves, but because they felt the argument for 2MB+segwit was a bait and switch exercise by miners they abandoned it. Which means the miners are implementing their own segwit2x without even really thinking about it, and leaving the alleged discounted transactions in. Funny...
The second major reason is that they've been arguing for so long that a bigger block is an easy, simple, safe way to scale that they can't change their minds now. It's hard to know if they're aware it's unnecessary and it's a massive saving-face exercise, or they still believe they're right about it, but the end result is the same.
Finally there's the concern that if they don't strike while the iron's hot, then we'll be stuck with 1MB+segwit only as a transaction expansion mechanism for the foreseeable future. Since there is no other hard scaling solution committed to the development timeline, in some respects this is also partially true. If we wait till another scaling solution comes around, and yet again it provides more discounted ways of increasing transaction capacity without a concomitant rise in fees, then rising fees as an incentive to miners are once again at risk.
In essence it's primarily about fees and secondarily about saving face.
I am sure similar discussions is all over the place in the thread.
You know what is even funnier, every time people toss out a truth grenade here you Core fanbois either delete it or lock the post.
Fuck off -ck, if you have to censor, just censor, don't jump on some imaginary moral high horse and give bullshit excuses.
http://archive.is/FkhWS
Jump to: