Topic: Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs - page 36. (Read 34840 times)

Lmao im glad I didn't buy into the whole AMD ryzen hype. Looks like the markets don't give a fuck about their new GPU. What happened? from what I've heard ryzen was suppoed to be awesome.

Anyway I guess the people that bought in 2015 at 1 dollar are still up a good x10 in gains.. but Nvidia is looking better at least stock wise.

Anyway on topic... BU sucks, I dont like the idea, it will be a big fail.

UASF... too aggressive, and its just moving the problem from mining to running nodes.

The solution? I dont fucking know! If bitcoin keeps growing infinitely as it is, they don't touch it, fuck do I care? If fees get too high for regular usage, some other coin will be used for that, or LN assuming the risks. Just don't fuck with my digital gold or im dumping.

but when was bitcoin bitcoin

2009.
2013 pre sipa leveldb bug
2013 post sipa level db bug
2014 migration from satoshi-qt to core
2014 buyout of the main devs into blockstream and pushing other devs out of core

why is today out of 8 years.. the day that bitcoin is bitcoin and should remain in the exact form it is today without any other changes for the next couple centuries.

what is significant about this week that is getting the OP and others such as yourself so hopped up and endlessly ranting that bitcoin should stop all development right now

TL;DR

Hey look at this!

You don't fix it in bitcoin.   bitcoin is bitcoin.   just let it be bitcoin.   that's the point.

If you or anyone else has a brilliant solution for these and any other perceived problems, code them up and release the code with a new genesis block.   if the market truly values the fixes as a real advancement, then your new coin should get some adoption.   if  not, then maybe they weren't such problems to begin with, or your fixes were not the right ones.

seems pretty straight-forward to me.   and again:  this approach is the only moral path to changing consensus rules, as it is 100% opt-in.  No one has rules changed underneath them.

OP can talk to ideal money and economics rationale.    ;-)

and how do you fix the fee problem and the transaction being stuck constantly? isn't this a problem? doing nothing is not a solution, somehting must be done what about going back to the root, like when bitcoin had 32MB block limit? why it was changed? there was no real dos attack back then

the entertainment factor for this thread is rapidly waning...

so is carlton banks post.. but i guess he gets away with it by kissing ass

anyway this topic seems to have gone on and on and on about how much the op loves Nash..
even the OP who weeks ago was assuming nash was satoshi and bitcoin was ideal money has changed his mind to say its not ideal money and cant be.

the conclusion i came to is bitcoin is not 'ideal money' never can be ideal money.
its not a banana either, so w dont need 15+pages talking about banana's


but not being ideal money is not bad. bitcoin is a new paradigm

bitcoin DOES need further development. and using this 'nashes ideal money' as a lame excuse to halt development is just an attempt to keep things the same as the 1950's understanding of "money" rather than reaching forward and reinventing something new.

bitcoin is not intented to just be the same as what bankers want. its suppose to be new and revolutionary.

---

simple ONTOPIC question about the OP's possible future conclusion to this topic.

if bitcoin was to 'do a nash' and stop development.
at what point did the OP think bitcoin should have stopped development.. 2009?
2013 pre sipa leveldb bog
2013 post sipa leveldb bug
2016 pre segwit
2017 - post segwit or post dynamic
2018 - post confidential payment codes

when should bitcoin just live as bitcoin as a finalised unchanging system of fixed unalterable policy

at what point does the OP think that bitcoin should stop changing to fit his narrative.. oops nashative

There are plenty of other threads to debate the Segwit, BU or other schemes to "fix" bitcoin.  This thread is discussing the idea that Bitcoin does not need to be fixed by any of the proposed schemes.  So, your post is 100% off topic.

^ the real poke the bear topic derailer appears
1. if the combined data totals 1mb weight it requires no soft or hard fork. because (sarcasm) "segwit backward compatible" so segwit transactions can start being added to blocks today (end of sarcasm) we know theres more hidden issues than blockstream want to admit about backward compatibility
2. people are getting wise to the buzzword of the year 'conservative' .. nice poking the bear using it

now seriously
3. with a 250kb base block native nodes will only have 250kb blocks
4. with a 250kb base block if 100% used segwit keys... segwit nodes will only produce ~525kb of tx data+witness blocks. leaving 475k blank for future bloat features to append data after tx.
5. thats not scaling up tx data, thats not even doing anything practical
6. all its doing is enforcing blockstream nodes as the upstream gatekeepers of the network filtering data out
7. dont expect 250kb native blocks (~600tx) to turn into ~1200segwit tx.. because not everyone will use segwit keys.

Page 15. Running out of popcorn a bit ....

I am a little charmed by this thread.

OP, toknormal, danda and BurtW are making rather excellent points, I could almost get onboard, not least because I believe the Segwit blocksize increase not to be a perfect solution, but a compromise (I would have been happier with a hardfork Segwit that reduces the base blocksize to 250kB and introduces a 750kB witness block, i.e. super conservative)


Something that occurred to me while reading toknormal's posts: we are heading inexorably towards a Star Trek style labour-minimum world, where more and more physical toil (notably economic production) is handled by machine labour and machine "intelligence". How could this trend alter the preference of producers/manufacturers for stable value money when a critical majority of the value added in manufacturing is essentially eliminated by abundant manufacturing? i.e. anyone will be able to manufacture anything at base costs, and so buying manufactured goods will no longer make economic sense. Could this trend shift the overriding preference for stable value money strictly to those who need to invest in raw materials for research/experimental purposes?

All of my Compassion was Used Up,
by all of the Harm done to the World Populace and Environment because of the unoriginal theory (Collusion) of a man with a mental problem.

He has my sympathy for his disease but his releasing that idea has forever earned him my disdain.
The Death Toll for his theories , will always overshadow anything else the man has done, IMO.

 

No.  They used his ideas against him and us.  He was saying he is going to save us from colluding governments.  He was saying anti communist and communist governments were colluding against the people and he was going to save us.

If other people use his work for bad, thats not on him.

He was a good man.  Amazing.  Benevolent.  Mistreated. Misunderstood.  Where is your compassion?

Nope,
I meant collusion : Secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others

That is what his so called original idea inspired.
Which is why I can never see him as the saint that you do.

 

FYI:
One example where they were caught following Nash's Original Idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysine_price-fixing_conspiracy


FYI2:
The current Price Fixing of BTC is another example,
however the culprits doing it have not yet been exposed and may never be. 

Do you mean 'conflict'?

what word do you mean instead of collusion.  Collusion is the wrong word.  What language are you? I'll help you find the right word

Considering many of the evils by many corporations were a direct result of his collusion theories,
you can see why I have a problem with making him a saint.
(As a direct result of his theories Many Corporations quit competing with each other and began conspiring in Collusion against their clients.)

He also had the decades-long battle with schizophrenia, forgive me if I don't choose a role model that has sex with his imaginary friend.

Little tidbit, if you want to hurl insults, I am a professional at it.  

 

You matter.