Pages:
Author

Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 30. (Read 46564 times)

legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

This comes down to the same thing actually, what is the 'right goal'? This discussion goes in circles. In any case the Core developers are definitely better than those behind Classic.

Absolutely not the same thing.

To use an analogy, a CEO of a company may have a star programmer,
but that programmer is not qualified to do the CEOs job and decide
what the mission of the company should be, what kind of software
it should be producing, or what features are most important.

Experience in programming is one thing.  Deciding what Bitcoin should be is another.
 
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Warning: Confrmed Gavinista
I answered this earlier

Sensible bounds on memory usage per tx or time based rules mitigate or solve this entirely.

If you are putting so much into a tx, then you are exceeding isStandard() rules anyway.  
There is currently no solution and you are wrong. XT introduced a per transaction limit (if I'm correct). Core will address this via BIP 143 ,which is an actual improvement unlike the workaround in XT, and a limit. However this is node policy, miners can still create a transaction that would take too long to validate and that would harm the network.


I beg to differ, I think you are wrong when you suggest "there is no solution". Even the text of BIP143 describes what can be done - it says its non-trivial, not impossible. Their biggest objection is the hard fork ( as usual). But as I described, this can be mitigated by a refined version of the XT fix.

Bip143 is part of segwit. Its part of a 2000+ line change to implement it.  When we are ready for segwit, yeah fine.

XT does not have a per tx limit - its a per block limit. It strives to ascertain rational limits to allow most tx's through but to limit obviously vexatious ones.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
So let's take the development away from a group with several years of experience and assign it to people with much less experience or none? In what world does that make sense?
I think you are missing the point, it is not about one development team over another, it is about decentralizing development overall. Having multiple viable implementations of the Bitcoin protocol allows the governance mechanism of Bitcoin to function more effectively by giving us more freedom of choice.

Experience is important but it is not the only factor.  If the experienced group doesn't have the right goals, then you end up reaching the wrong ones.
This comes down to the same thing actually, what is the 'right goal'? This discussion goes in circles. In any case the Core developers are definitely better than those behind Classic.
Classic and Core have different goals, which one we consider better depends on our personal ideologies. I think that Classic is better since I think they are more willing to scale Bitcoin directly compared to Core.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 3000
Terminated.
I answered this earlier

Sensible bounds on memory usage per tx or time based rules mitigate or solve this entirely.

If you are putting so much into a tx, then you are exceeding isStandard() rules anyway.  
There is currently no solution and you are wrong. XT introduced a per transaction limit (if I'm correct). Core will address this via BIP 143 ,which is an actual improvement unlike the workaround in XT, and a limit. However this is node policy, miners can still create a transaction that would take too long to validate and that would harm the network.

Experience is important but it is not the only factor.  If the experienced group doesn't have the right goals, then you end up reaching the wrong ones.
This comes down to the same thing actually, what is the 'right goal'? This discussion goes in circles. In any case the Core developers are definitely better than those behind Classic.
sr. member
Activity: 433
Merit: 260
Thank you btcusury, this was an very interesting read. It even made me consider to understand theymos' censorship and ascribe him some kind of heroism.

But yes, what you write is to some kind an eye-opener to understand the small block side.

On the other side you and Lauda seem to fail to understand the other side - the big blockers - and so you built a conspiracy theory about some takeover through "leaders" and "companies" manipulating the markets. The truth may be more simple:

the economy lost faith in core to solve the scalability problem.

Why? From a technical side, core presented a solution (SW) that may be better (I have doubt, but don't want to discuss). But bitcoin is not just technology, it's also economy and politic. It's nothing without exchanges and holders, and a consensus is nothing without a compromise. You seem to recognise this by acknowledging peter_r's grafic. But you don't acknowledge it enough to understand the other side. Maybe this is a result of engineering dominance in core and a lack of understanding of the need of economics and politics.

In the context of Bitcoin, "consensus" refers to "technical consensus" at the protocol level, not "economic consensus" at the user level or "political consensus" at opinion level, despite how much the latter two ideas/memes have been spread lately. Yes, it's permissionless, so you are free to create a hardforked chain bootstrapped off the Bitcoin blockchain, but don't pretend there is "consensus" if the "consensus" is only at a user (economic/political) level after (what at least appears to be) a relentless disinformation campaign to direct the technology into a particular untested/risky nonreversible territory.


Quote
Try to see it as you were coinbase. The scalability issue is well known for years. In the past it was always said the blocklimit will just be raised. Now we discuss raising it since 1,5 years, and nothing happened by now.

Coinbase is just a business trying to benefit from a particular technology, without much regard for the direction of the technology -- one that happens to contain unprecedented revolutionary potential, which we should do our (technical) best to preserve/develop. The question is, why are you into Bitcoin? To make money? Or to help move us toward a fairer economic system free from central control and manipulation (debt-based fractional reserve fiat bankster "money")?


Quote
As a technologist you could say: yes, it was a coup de liberation, we have SW (there are reasons to discusss this, but here I don't mind). As a politician seeking consensus through compromise, you can only say, it's a disaster.

The premise of "a politician seeking consensus through compromise", and even the premise of a politician itself, is highly questionable, to say the least. Just as politicians (and their spokespeople, the mainstream media "news" outlets) manipulate minds by means of filtering out other information sources, thus exposing minds to particular agenda-driven ideas to the exclusion of more relevant/interesting/better ones, so any opposition group, be it a "radical" political party or grassroots organization or terrorist group or foreign "leader" of a country or (you can safely bet) a decentralized payment system, is targeted by means of getting people to promote disinformation as misinformation. So it's not that there would have to be many actual paid shills spreading disinformation (a major conspiracy, to use that term); the majority of them would be spreading misinformation after having been exposed to cleverly-crafted disinformation.


Quote
- the defenders of core's decision act "strange" (ddos, censorship)

Or, an impression has been created that they act strange. Discussion of DDoS comes from individuals, not Core devs, and you already got an answer to the moderation/censorship, no?


Quote
Do you really need a conspiracious takeover to understand why businesses support classic en mass?

No, but wouldn't it be the perfect opportunity for such a "takeover" to be executed? Like I asked sgbett (to no response), "At what point, if at all, do you suppose an organized effort to protect the dying old comes into play?"
legendary
Activity: 1064
Merit: 1000
As a developer for Bitcoin Classic, and co-Chief Architect along with jstolfi, you should have input into the message stored in the Classic "genesis block" that will be produced in a few months.

Oops, thanks for reminding me.  The Toomims tasked me with doing something momentous that will be the headline of /The Times/ on the launch date.  Maybe start a war, find Elvis, or commandeer a UFO to abduct the Pope from a nudist beach and demand ransom in bitcoin.

Only that it will not be a Genesis block, of course, but a Nativity block.

Ooooh Nativity blocks! Our Bitcoin is much more enlightened with 2 MB Nativity blocks.  Roll Eyes
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

So let's take the development away from a group with several years of experience and assign it to people with much less experience or none? In what world does that make sense?

Experience is important but it is not the only factor.  If the experienced group doesn't have the right goals, then you end up reaching the wrong ones.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Warning: Confrmed Gavinista

Are you referring to unbounded hashed bytes for sigops? Why not bound them? And are all these transactions isStandard()?
Example transaction.
What kind of transaction could take that long to validate?
Quote
a large transaction with a lot of SIGHASH_ALL signatures, basically
Quote
The problem is that the algorithm used for SIGHASH_ALL is O( n2 ), and requires that you hash 1.2 GB of data for a 1 MB transaction.


I answered this earlier

Sensible bounds on memory usage per tx or time based rules mitigate or solve this entirely.

If you are putting so much into a tx, then you are exceeding isStandard() rules anyway. 
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Warning: Confrmed Gavinista

Maybe you missed that highlighted bit.  You are giving me a list of those in involved in creating the approach, and attempt to pass it off as a list of those who support it.
So let's take the development away from a group with several years of experience and assign it to people with much less experience or none? In what world does that make sense?

I dont think that was the point we were making.

But as you mention it, it is an open source project. Anyone can make a contribution and if it passes review it can be accepted. Are you saying that the *only* talented developers in the world work with core? That is utter cock. There are plenty of talented developers who can get involved.

But its a moot point - most of the good contributors would continue with whatever gained consensus.  Unless they felt the politics is more important than the code. In which case they are welcome to leave.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 3000
Terminated.
Hmm ... let's write some lines of code to restrict transaction size to let's say 1 MB instead of writing 500 lines of code for Segregated Witness that quadripples the complexicity of bitcoin and brings less capacity to a later point in time?
Stop being hyperbolic.

Are you referring to unbounded hashed bytes for sigops? Why not bound them? And are all these transactions isStandard()?
Example transaction.
What kind of transaction could take that long to validate?
Maybe you missed that highlighted bit.  You are giving me a list of those in involved in creating the approach, and attempt to pass it off as a list of those who support it.
So let's take the development away from a group with several years of experience and assign it to people with much less experience or none? In what world does that make sense?
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Warning: Confrmed Gavinista


That is a list of people who support Core's scaling roadmap.  The "incisive point" is that you are a liar that claimed "nobody wants" Core's approach.

Quote
We, the undersigned, support the roadmap in Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system. We have been working on scalability for several years within the Bitcoin Core project and consider this the best possible continuation of our efforts.

The list of core contributers is much longer and may be found at github.

Maybe you missed that highlighted bit.  Do you have a list of turkeys who vote for Christmas?

You are giving me a list of those in involved in creating the approach, and attempt to pass it off as a list of those who support it. Of course they support it, you numpty.  Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004
The core development team had more than enough time now to design a version of Bitcoin that allows scalability.

Core has already designed "a version of Bitcoin that allows scalability."


Is that the one that Nobody Wantstm?

Nobody Wants a contentious hard fork and subsequent catastrophic consensus failure, except XT/Unlimited/Classic dead-enders (but you guys don't matter, because Bitcoin is not a democracy).

The people who matter support Core.  Here, have some Fact Welfare you poor, low-information Toominista.

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases

Why don't you follow your role model Mike Hearn's example, and ride off into the sunset?

You've got the whining part down, now you just need to GTFO.   Wink

You are always so angry. I love that about you....  Cool Cheesy Cheesy


These angry-miCE threads are amusing.

legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004
So whataya got for me?

A list of Core supporters that prove you are liar:


Please pout more about now "Nobody Wants" Core's scaling roadmap.  It's funny!   Grin

Ah, your Politbüro. Boring without picture.

hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Warning: Confrmed Gavinista


Thats a list of core contributors. Well done. I'm sure you meant to make an incisive point with that cut'n'paste, and as soon as I see it I will be sure to "+1" it for you.
 


I guess he wanted to say:

Quote
Look here, so many people did sign the roadmap. You must be a liar, because -- fuck you fuck you get out of bitcoin fork away let's me and my super-rich friends play alone you poor noob gavinist and toominist and statist and leftist.



I imagine his efforts on the keyboard are split roughly 50% typing and 50% spitting
sr. member
Activity: 409
Merit: 286


Thats a list of core contributors. Well done. I'm sure you meant to make an incisive point with that cut'n'paste, and as soon as I see it I will be sure to "+1" it for you.
 


I guess he wanted to say:

Quote
Look here, so many people did sign the roadmap. You must be a liar, because -- fuck you fuck you get out of bitcoin fork away let's me and my super-rich friends play alone you poor noob gavinist and toominist and statist and leftist.

hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Warning: Confrmed Gavinista
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
So whataya got for me?

A list of Core supporters that prove you are liar:

    Adam Back
    Alex Morcos
    Aaron Voisine
    Ben Davenport
    Ben Gorlick
    Bram Cohen
    Bryan Bishop
    BtcDrak
    Charlie Lee
    Christian Decker
    Cøbra
    Cory Fields
    Craig Watkins
    Daniel
    Daniel Kraft
    David A. Harding
    David Vorick
    Dev Random
    DexX7
    Douglas Huff
    Eric Lombrozo
    Glenn H Tarbox
    Gregory Maxwell
    Gregory Sanders
    James Hilliard
    Johnathan Corgan
    Johnson Lau
    Jonas Schnelli
    Jouke Hofman
    Lawrence Nahum
    Luke Dashjr
    Mark Friedenbach
    Eric Martindale
    Manuel Aráoz
    Marco Falke
    Matt Corallo
    Midnight Magic
    Michael Ford
    Nicolas Bacca
    Nicolas Dorier
    Obi Nwosu
    Patrick Strateman
    Pavel Janik
    Peter Todd
    Pieter Wuille
    Randy Waterhouse
    Rodolfo Novak
    Ruben de Vries
    Suhas Daftuar
    Theymos
    Thomas Kerin
    Wang Chun
    Warren Togami
    Wladimir J. van der Laan

Please pout more about now "Nobody Wants" Core's scaling roadmap.  It's funny!   Grin
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Warning: Confrmed Gavinista
The core development team had more than enough time now to design a version of Bitcoin that allows scalability.

Core has already designed "a version of Bitcoin that allows scalability."


Is that the one that Nobody Wantstm?

Nobody Wants a contentious hard fork and subsequent catastrophic consensus failure, except XT/Unlimited/Classic dead-enders (but you guys don't matter, because Bitcoin is not a democracy).

The people who matter support Core.  Here, have some Fact Welfare you poor, low-information Toominista.

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases

Why don't you follow your role model Mike Hearn's example, and ride off into the sunset?

You've got the whining part down, now you just need to GTFO.   Wink

You are always so angry. I love that about you....  Cool Cheesy Cheesy

So whataya got for me?

Contentious fork?  No such thing. It either forks with over 75% behind it or it doesn't happen. Just coz you are crying does not make it contentious.
Catastrophic Consensus Failure?   See first point.  You can swim against the tide all you like, bitcoin will move on without you.
Bitcoin is not a democracy?  This does not equal "Developer X decides the future"  Its consnesus - what the majority follow is what becomes the standard. you cant influence it or subvert it.
People who matter support core?  Not anymore. They had their chance and blew it. The market is tired of their procrastination  and buying time waiting for their overly complex solutions.
Whining?  Me?   Grin Grin Grin  
sr. member
Activity: 409
Merit: 286
https://twitter.com/borntricky/status/688280583038873600

Quote
@adam3us @pa49 @matthew_d_green a 2 mb block is not illogical and it would put and end to this. It's stubbornness that's killing bitcoin.
Pages:
Jump to: