Topic: Monero XMR ... Why do people fall for the shills and bullshit? (Read 6136 times)

 

Holy thread resurrection Batman!

Thanks, it allowed me to efficiently update my ignore list. :-)

Yes. Yes I would. *hugs*

lol... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_burn_centers_in_the_United_States

LOL!

Would you still love me if I said I own more XMR than BBR?

I love you too Mike!

You are an hero Mike.

Can't we all just get along tolerate each other?

Hardforks can work well or fail. Multiple examples for either case.

GUIs will be different.

BBR alias system is not perfect in current implementation.

Blockchain size can be handled different ways. We won't really know if one method is better for several years.

I will make mistakes.

We (the dev teams) are just arguing on the internet now. This arguing is a waste of our time. I would rather be working on my chosen cryptocurrencies than looking for flaws in some "oppenents" online post. Wouldn't you?

Is the code implemented in Boolberry from the start? You could point me to the implementation? If its not in the codebase yet aren´t you effectively the one who will decide it when you implement it?


Careful like this?
http://siliconangle.com/blog/2013/05/13/bitcoin-blockchain-hard-fork-coming-may-15th-final-warning/
https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2013-03-15-upgrade-deadline

Or the Dogecoin hardforks or the Darkcoin hardforks?

I agree it causes issues for users but can be done carefully planned.


I do agree also that of course not doing a hardfork is preferred.

What i do totally disagree with is this "this should be used only in extra situations, where you have no other way to fix issue."

I think, and its my personal opinion like everything i write, that a fork is justified whenever a sufficient improvement to the code or an economic flaw can be made.
Instead of just deciding to roll out feature XY at launch it should be done like Tromp does it for Cuckoo Cycle: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=707879.20
He has my utmost respect of how he handles his research.

I know your PoW has been also discussed in a seperate thread but somehow you didn´t get the right feedback, which isn´t your fault but still Cbuchner abused it to great extent.
You even thought about hardforking to cn.

For example your ALIAS feature, i totally disagree with how it works, as you can see here: http://boolberry.com/state.html
There are aliases registered for exchanges, for example this:

poloniex 1JVrM7Qg64Y5C3ANFegoCZjQokhkC5UtRQjddeuBDc7S7bjZWPpUCq8TBPbXxDVmHkWjugxf1Pk1CbZ D8gHQx4i4U22XywU
poloniex.com 1G467p3k4qGiqQCwFPDqSc46wzQZ9qnXB9JtLW9WD7T5UbnnT3imGsLeMnfjW5tsbBAibLbafcARU5e jW17mgYSd2Nxnq2W

Now, there´s no way to check if even one of them is really from Poloniex, which i doubt because miners control the whole alias infrastructure.
That opens doors for scammers litterally. You advertise it as a feedback but i see it as a drawback tbh.

It´s not the only thing where i see problems with some stuff you have build.

I also do think that Bitcoin (and we CN coins too) should do something against the Pool/Mining centralisation problem and it will prolly require a hardfork, but its a problem which definately needs to be solved sooner or later.
Or maybe Litecoin should have forked to counter the ASICs, they somehow lost their selling point with them, so at least for me its a "bug" which should have been fixed.

I can think of tons of improvements where a hardfork is simply justified.


a) We have 2 guis that are released and 1 gui in the works.
That makes a total of 3 guis, is 1 gui more real gui than 3 guis? Sorry i am not up2date with GUI-Math ;-)

Your GUI is insufficient for the broader mass.

I could argue now that we have more daemon and other stuff...but oh well...i better don´t start.


b) But see the alias for example, its flawed for me. I think such decisions should not be made by a single person. If you think a feature is good doesn´t mean its good in general.



The only reason a DB is not needed for BBR is the lack of transaction and the thus small blockchain.
But i argue, it IS needed to drive adoption and tooling for services around CN. I am still totally shocked that the CN codebase was released without a DB in mind.
The endusers don´t feel a difference, in your case at the moment, but every business or programmer interested in CN services or tooling will see a big difference.
Also our Daemon stuff is important for that, its not enough to please users with a simple GUI, the other side of the economy also needs to be supported.

Yeah, it may work until project is small, with mostly controlled community.

Sorry but its just naive to think that you could communicate with users and services in world famous product. It's mostly not possible to convince people to update their software even if you have product users subscribed emails or followers or whatever. They just lazy or don't care. Not to mention cryptocurrencies, where you have no idea who are using your coin.

Imagine what would happen if significant part of network won't update it(by different reasons) at time of block X ?
 

I'm not decides which, all RS will be cut-off after reaching some level of deepness. And this won't hurt anonimity or mixins. Or, if you think different, could you mention concrete technical objection ?

Here you contradict with yourself - if you do hardfork in the way you mentioned(just hardforked from block X) you not giving a way for users to decide.
I mean if some of them really decide against - then you just fuckup hardfork with network split at the moment of block X.

This why bitcoin have careful protocol for hardforking, where you have to wait until network will update to needed version and really give users a way to decide.


I didn't say that hardfork is not an option at all.
The flame started from my words:
and I am deeply convinced of this.
So my point is that hardfork is risky and/or slow case, this should be used only in extra situations, where you have no other way to fix issue.
And i do not rule that we in BBR would be forced to make hardfork once a day. And probably more than once, i agree that nobody can foresee everything in advance.

This is actually a good area to discuss.

My personal view is that crypto coins are a social contract between the develelopers and the users. The main branch of the coin (that has the brand) is the initial social contract (expectations) between the developers and the users.

If the users do not like something, they can then split and follow a new brand.

Example. Monero team in one year changes x in the code and hardfork happens. This is ok in my view because by using monero I agree to use this coin that is being developed by these developers. Of course there is a level of trust, if too many people disagree with the change then the coin will most likely be destroyed.

Let's not be naive. If the social contract with Monero was "the coin will never have any major changes even though competitors will most likely emerge" then I would not invest, and this is one of the reasons I wanted to move some money out of Bitcoin, because they are not reacting to the world at becoming complacent.

These currencies are not 100% trust less. You need to trust the market, the miners and the developers.

No its not; you dont need to wait on anyone, you simply make a block out where the hardfork gets active, lets say 1 month in the future. So people have at least a month time to uprade their software.
What it needs to do a hardfork is communication with the users and service providers and our communication with them is pretty good.

Funny enough that you will also have to hardfork as mentinoed in the XMR economy thread; when the blockreward runs out and we simply rely on tx fees, this won´t work in the next years, a minimum block reward is needed.

Sorry but its just naive to think that the current cryptocurrencies will survive the next 100 years without a single hardfork.



Says the one who decides which ring signatures to cut off in BBR...
It´s simple: the users will decide if they accept the changes or not.  

fluffypony, it is no doubt that you simply hypocrite. You sometimes pretend to be friendly and nice to bbr, but don't lose any chance to spread sensless FUD against BBR and me.
So keep you word and stop "that largely irrelevant debate".

Well, thanks
you are not giving me any chances to post something wrong 

I argue that none of them are widespread, nor even particularly close. If Bitcoin has problems with this issue, well, see my previous post for my opinion on that. It applies to Bitcoin as much as it applies to any other coin. Their example is not one to follow.

I understand what you mean, it's extremly important to be able to fix issues even if it need's hardfork. And this is exactly why i implemented alerts - that make users aware of critical updates asap.

But i still very disagree with you "disagreement".
Hard fork is very painful especcialy for big network - painful and slow process, since you need to wait until about 95% of network gonna update sortware. And unfortunately you don't have any reasonable way to force them to do that.
And i talk now about the case when everything is okay with community. The worse case will be if some part of comunity(or some silent miners) will disagree with hardfork changes and they would try to ingnore that - this may do hardfork impossible at all.

I have now doubt that you aware of how difficult it would be to make a hardfork for bitcoin now(if they want), and how much time it will take.

I meant it would be perfect for developers to be able make hardforks easily when they want - but it has some contradictions with crypto-currency nature (in my vision): it's a basement as a set of known rules and technologies. And when you change a basement it's very risky to ruin the whole construction.

So my point that hardfork is a bad case for currency, especcialy for widespread currency.

In the original cryptonote code it is not. However, ultimately miners will prioritize smaller and simpler transactions with the same fee so if you want a large transaction to confirm quickly (if at all), you probably need to put a bigger fee on it in practice.

Your attitude is appalling and quite shocking, crypto_zoidberg, especially given that I spoke so highly of you just a few posts back in this thread. I am so disappointed in you - I genuinely and truly believed you were more of a man than this. I thought I had read your character well and found you to be honourable, but now I see I was gravely mistaken.

I will not speak to your individual points since I have no desire to continue to engage and re-engage over a debate that is largely irrelevant. I do believe that both Monero and Boolberry have something to offer the community at large. I have, however, lost all respect for you and for Boolberry this evening, and I am saddened by this turn of events and the dishonourable behaviour I have observed.

Oh and as for responding to dga - if arguing over "the best" PoW algorithm was worth more than 20 seconds of my valuable time I would have responded. I respect dga very much, but I do not see a need for endless and ongoing PoW comparisons. We are not bound to CryptoNight by blood, and if we change in future you can bet it will be to something superior like a future iteration of Cuckoo Cycle and not to something functionally indistinguishable like "Wild Keccak". Rehashing that argument over and over is pointless.

Because he writes long posts and has a bad habit of not breaking up paragraphs, which I find makes them extremely hard to read, so I usually don't. I don't know if he is a native English speaker or not, but either way I find your writing easier to follow than his.

I largely disagree on this point, and I think it is fairly important.

It is better to be able to manage hard forks effectively with thoughtful design, good communication, broad buy-in, and successful execution (many of which ultimately reinforce the others). If hard forks become a "torment" (or worse are viewed as something that can't be done at all) this is a symptom of a much more serious problem with the development process and community that points toward paralysis, stagnation, and, likely, death.

Not that there was anything wrong with launching a CryptoNote fork with a different blockchain design from the start though (separate question).

There is a likely point of extreme stability, maturity, and near maximum adoption where further hard forks become both impractical and unnecessary. But as long as coin is young and in active development you had better plan for hard forks or you can't adapt and will likely be left behind. No one can make every important decision in advance.

This is theoretical though, as Monero hasn't delivered any hard forks yet. So we will see. If we fail to pull them off I think we will be in trouble.