Topic: Satoshi Roundtable Thoughts - Gavin Andresen (Read 3607 times)

yea, he and lauda both admit they dont code for bitcoin, but although i do not want to tarnish ciyam with the same brush as lauda, they are both heavily invested in the blockstream corporation control, and most arguments are more about trying to not let the community move away from the corporate agenda

i can see that CIYAM is a smart guy but instead of using his brain. he uses his emotion for the only purpose of protecting blockstreamers.
i have more respect for ciyam then i do for lauda. as ciyam actually knows how to code. and i do actually tailor my rebuttles in favour of him.
yet recently his rebuttles have lacked his intellect and just been pure emotion.
even when i have said its best he takes a break, chill out and think of a deep and meaningful answer. (i tried helping him out)

yet lauda and ciyam prefer to shout out emotional opinions but never back them up using facts or real data or scenarios.

their own doomsday scenarios collapse as soon as its highlighted that their leader (blockstream) is heading in the same direction,

EG summer 2015(pre-roadmap) 'the 2mb bloat is too much to handle' doomsday
turned into
winter 2015(post roadmap) '2mb is ok but it needs to be 2mb of segwit not real block limit changes' bait and switch

yet if all he can do is insult and ignore. then he needs to take a coffee break and realise he has ultimately achieved nothing, nor added anything concrete to the debate. so i will start to laugh when the only people he doesnt have on ignore is a small group of blockstreamers circle jerking each other until they are happily blind to the outside world.

then we will see him start to fight amongst his own friends, while still adding nothing concrete to the debates he tries to involve himself in.

Hmm.. did I say I'd put you on ignore?

Perhaps that might happen but no such luck for you at this stage (keep trying though).

did CIYAM give up O_o?

Behold - the mighty intellect of @franky1.

And yes - fuck it - I've put you on ignore (you are really just too boring to entertain me even when I make fun of you).

(so please don't forget to "get the last word" as I won't be replying to any more of your posts here or anywhere else on the forum)

insults and not bothering to supply evidence to back up your opinion..

seems its time to just copy and paste that last sentance to every reply to you. as its getting evident that you cant back up your assumptions without it turning into a insult.

by the way you can insult "franky1" all you like. it is just a name that has no birth certificate. you will not find any human being with a birth certificate of "franky1" so your insults are meaningless. but your lack of answering questions and inability of debunking theories and opinions using numbers and real proof is very revealing.

by the way if you ignore people that have differing opinions. the only people you have left are your oblivious circle jerking friends of blockstream all huddled up in a small little group all trying to act like gods.

goodluck with that.

Maybe time you went back to creating your VB version of Bitcoin.

(am sure Bill Gates is very much looking forwards to reading your code)

insults and not bothering to supply evidence to back up your opinion..

maybe time you went back to not programming bitcoin

No - I won't bother wasting my time with someone who doesn't even understand the basics.

You should spend more time in the "newbies" area where perhaps you could actually find someone who you could teach something to.

more insults, littleweight or evidence,
well done. now sit back on your sofa in all your glory and have a cup of coffee and a biscuit

if only you just replied with some better numbers,, but no.. you wont
just becareful when you do throw numbers

because although 2mb+segwit offers a 4mb buffer for growth. please include the 5x decrease in validation time due to libsecp256k1. and also factor in how fast 2000 transactions would grow to 8000 transactions.

i tried to be nice and did not including libsecp256k1 benefits. and just done a flat comparison of basic numbers based on 2015 data
i tried to be nice and suggest that the transaction count would increase by 500tx (250kb) every 6 months instead of 1 year

so feel free to exaggerate, which i know you love, but atleast be honest. especially when i was being generous with my numbers

@franky1 - validation time is dependent upon signatures and other complex operations - not upon the size of the data itself.

Learn something before you post your stupid stuff please (I am getting close to putting you on ignore as you just continually spout nonsense which clearly hardly anyone else on this forum takes seriously anyway so I don't really care to deal with you much more).

Go back to trying to code Bitcoin in VB please.

lol last 28 difficulty changes 5 down 23 up

so is majority= 4% (your empty block majority debate)
so is majority= 18% (your difficulty drop occurance rate)

now over that same year difficulty went from
47,427,554,951
to
158,427,203,767

thats over 300% (i rounded to the nearest 50billion to give you amounts in your favour (336% is more actual)).

so back to my 6 month scenario of miners slowly increasing data load. lets say 1.250mb full.. (knowing it took 4 years to get 500k(2009-2013) and 3 years to get near the 1mb barrier. i am again moving the goal post in your favour with 250k growth in 6 month(500k in 1 year instead of 4 or 3 years), just to give you a fighting chance)

so block validation time goes from 1minute to 1 minute 15 seconds (25%)
difficulty goes up 150% meaning chances of an empty block solve moves to maybe 1minute 30seconds instead of one minute.

thus miners have 15 seconds to start adding unconfirmed transactions before they might get lucky

then move on another 6 months (your best chance of now 1.5mb blocks(numbers still in your favour))
validation time 1 minute 30 seconds, with chance of hitting a block 2minutes.
giving 30 seconds to start adding unconfirmed data

then move on another 6 months (your best chance of now 1.75mb blocks(numbers still in your favour))
validation time 1 minute 45 seconds, with chance of hitting a block 2minutes 30 seconds.
giving 45 seconds to start adding unconfirmed data

meaning that *cough* majority *cough* will go from 4% DOWN because they have MORE TIME between validating a block and adding unconfirmed data, then they did before

WTF - you don't realise that the difficulty has gone down more than once before (and the propagation time has never done the same thing ever so trying to compare the two is simply ridiculous).

It's not my fault that you keep on putting your foot into your mouth - seemingly that's where you like it to be.

FYI - http://www.coinfox.info/news/5022-bitcoin-mining-difficulty-goes-down-for-the-first-time-in-eight-months

(now please do some reading before you post your next piece of nonsense)

all i see is insults.. but you did not debunk my argument about the timing.
and by the way, difficulty grows much faster then the propagation time. so when miners make blocks of 1.001mb (as a safe toe in the water to test propagation time) the difficulty will jump by 10%.
meaning a 0.1% increase in propagation time (well validation time to be specific) vs a 10% difficulty rise, means less chanc of empty blocks.

infact in 20 weeks we can see 100% difficulty increase. yet miner would increase the data included much slower. meaning that in that 1 minute validation time. empty blocks over 20 weeks may become 2 minutes to get lucky. while propagation time may only still be 1minute 10 seconds, or 1 minute 30 seconds.. meaning that there would be less of those lucky empty blocks.

so if you think that miners would jump from 950k filled blocks to 1950kb blocks in only 6 months, causing conflict in regards to empty blocks, before difficulty increases offset that risk. then maybe its time you sat back on your sofa had a cup of tea and use some of your braincells for scenario's instead of insults.

please take a few minutes to think before you speak

I see - another nonsensical argument from the legendary idiot.

You do get that increasing the block size would not alter this behaviour of creating empty blocks and in fact the harder it is to propagate new blocks (because of their size) the more likely it is that we'll see such empty blocks.

Is that simple enough for your simple mind to comprehend?

(it doesn't seem possible that you'll ever actually "score a point from me" but please keep trying harder as it keeps me entertained - and yes I know you aren't so quick on your feet so I'll patiently wait for another 10 minutes or so for you to reply)

All we know is that the FeeMarket is already there. Just some years too early as expected....

last thing to note to ciyam

them 'empty blocks'(minority) that you love so much, are not done out of greed and desire of the pool to only mine empty blocks forever. the actual reason is that when they see a possible solution from a competitor. they begin a new emptyblock and hash it WHILE they validate and check the competitors block.
then when they see its valid they know what transactions to not include in the next block because they are already confirmed in the block they just validated.

so they can then know for sure what unconfirmed transactions are left to put into the nextblock.

the problem is that they are lucky enough to get a solution before they had time to add valid unconfirmed transactions to their new attempt.
this can be seen because ALL the empty blocks were solve in 1minute or less after the previous block.

your argument would be more valid if they had 8-12(10minute average) blocks that were also empty.

have a nice day

You quote that idiot and think it has any weight whatsoever?

How about you get a quote from someone that "actually knows anything about the code" rather than the non-coder Classic sponsor (who has a vested interest to spread FUD)?

Seriously you must think we are all stupid to think you just made some sort of meaningful point with that "redittarded" post.

We know full well that you don't know what you are talking about.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/492tnm/if_according_to_core_roadmap_segwit_will_be/d0p0jes?context=3

just to add my 2 cents to this debate

though i do detest gavin for other reasons, i think that people need to stop being reliant on one overlord. especially if they are getting $50+million and consultations from financial companies.
hearne, gavin AND adam back are all guilty of it.

so thinking blockstream is your lord and savour is just as bad as thinking gavin is.

all people want is 2m+segwit. without 2 years of needless delays and pointless nontechnical based contention. if all 12 implementations had the 2mb+segwit code in by april. then people can upgrade to aprils version of their favourite codebase, be-it core, btcd, bitcoinj, classic, electrum, whatever. it wont matter.

and if people dont want it they wont upgrade.

but by trying to say that everyone should be in the core bandcamp and rely solely on cores roadmap and decision process, goes against everything decentralized.

there should be no single implementation. and no chance of any single person vetoing code. it should be added to all implementations and leave it to the users to adopt or ignore. then if it doesnt get consensus, it just sits there as unused code, or get consensus and become part of bitcoin as a whole.

the real funny thing is. if blockstream thinks people do not want it. they should have no problem including 2mb knowing that it wont ever get consensus. and thus not impact bitcoin in any way.. but by vetoing any chance of code in april they are just delaying any chance of knowing the truth either way

summary for shortminded CIYAM
its not a gavin vs adam debate about control. its about 2mb+segwit for the whole community or not.
trying to meander the debate into a gavin vs adam thing by saying dont follow gavin, dont follow hearn, dont follow garzic but blindly follow blockstream is the opposite of decentralized thinking

PS about earlier debate. out of 100 blocks i presume you looked at... only 4 of those were single tx blocks. (4%) but you keep spouting the "major", "majority" words out like confetti. 4%.. is not major, 4% is not majority

because you love exaggeration here goes.
of all the butterflies in the world, there are 4% in china that are causing all the tornado's around the world

Yeah - now you got that - and yes I'd support any fittness trainings for this great experiment here, patronishly if needed.