Topic: So who the hell is still supporting BU? - page 14. (Read 29824 times)

It's not like Gavin has written dozens of patches to fix workaround what you are now conceding is an "issue."

My initial tirade could only refer to a single, specific patch because Gavin only wrote one patch to fix work around the quadratic hashing issue.

There ARE NO OTHER tx_size limiting patches for you to have been confused by, you quivering deflecting hand-waving piece of shit.

I'll change my mind about the O(n^2) attack being a "problem" when Gavin does, since he was the one who identified it as such.

What happened to your overwhelming conviction that the quadratic sigop scaling problem isn't really an issue, merely an 'aspect' or 'attribute'?

Oh that's right, I showed you where Gavin used the word "problem" to describe the potential attack vector, and you were thus BTFO.

I'm not surprised you'd rather drop that point and pretend like it never happened, and glad you've decided to live in consensus reality, where an O(n^2) attack is considered by sane, informed people to be a PROBLEM.

Pro tip: when you make a shitty unsupportable argument like "this O(n^2) issue isn't a problem or an issue, oops I called it an issue, I take that back, I mean to say 'aspect' or 'attribute'" and then drop it when BTFO, it reflects poorly on the rest of your credibility.

If you didn't lack the necessary background required to form intelligent opinions on the subject matter, you'd be aware of GMAX and others' negative responses to Gavin's 100k tx size limit fix workaround.

Those critical responses gave Gavin's quick and dirty proposal NACKs because it is unforgivably kludgy and the opposite of future-proof (requiring another hard fork if it needed to be changed).


Objection.  Calls for speculation.

Assumes facts not in evidence.  Your anointed vision, epistemological closure, and metaphysical certainty don't count as evidence.  But good luck deducing from first principles empirical matters of fact!  


I'll do that right after you familiarize yourself with the essential aspects of the topic and stop glossing over vital bits simply because you were not aware of them (or not aware of their significance).  

The devil is in the detail.  The details you casually and instantly dismiss as "irrelevant" are anything but.  Get a clue or STFU.

Asking you to know WTF you are talking about before promoting your worthless Bitcoin Horoscope opinion as incontrovertible fact is not asking too much; it's a reasonable request.

Your initial tirade was insufficiently specific to know which specific pull req that you referred to as 'unbelievably klugy'. After you actually bothered to identify that to which you were referring, it was evident I was already aware of it. Said identification, of course, being exactly why I pointed out that the thing of which I was unaware was what thing you had not at that point identified. Accordingly, until you identified it, I was not aware of what specific thing you were referring to. This is absolutely elementary. English much?


I don't need to convince Gavin of doodly-squat. He's an uninvolved third party in this discussion. So far, this discussion is you and me, and you have not as of yet bothered to identify any shortcoming to my  observation of the fact that mining incentives are already aligned to make the quadratic sig hash issue a non-problem. After three rounds, I am about to conclude you are unable to.

How about, instead of hurling insults, and non-responsive drivel, you actually engage the topic with reasoning? Incapable?.

Nobody is twisting anything, otherwise I wouldn't have formulated it so clearly. If anyone is twisting things, then it is probably you with absurdly large paragraphs.

You do realize that those people can't create bigger blocks if they don't use Segwit TXs? Therefore, problem that could occur at 2 MB gets solved.

I'm neither a salesman nor is there such a thing as me trying to sell some product.

lol i made something bold. which is where you are word twisting to make it sound like it solves the problem for bitcoin but it only prevents users who use these "relevant " (segwit) tx's from doing the things that cause a problem.

but you are not realising that people wont use those "relevant" (segwit) tx's.. meaning.. in the real world.. outside of your utopia.. the problem for bitcoin is not solved.

scammers and spammers will continue to use native keys to make native tx's, even after segwit would activate.
accept the reality! segwit does not solve the problem

you have no clue, you are just a bad salesman that has only had 1 hour training on the product your trying to sell..
you have failed to sweep the real problem under the carpet. and instead done the most obvious and crappy attempt to sweep the problem under the carpet.

atleast learn something and stop just being told crap scripts to read and repeat.

---

right now im still laughing that people think segwit solves the problem for the whole of bitcoin. when all it does is stop the few people who voluntarily choose to move their funds over to segwit keys from performing the problems, yet doesnt stop the malicious users who will just continue using native keys.

its such a laugh at how empty segwits promises are becoming even the fee discount only moves prices down to a level of a few weeks ago. which later is not a noticeable discount due to the average tx fee price rise over time

---

edit

your inability to read a few paragraphs is probably the most revealing thing about you

---

segwit is an empty gesture. end of

Before getting BTFO:


After getting BTFO:


So which is it?  Is your final answer "not aware" or "certainly aware?"  

You admit having no clue about the details (instantly characterized as "irrelevant" despite you not being previously aware of them) yet continue to assert the validity of your anointed vision despite lacking the background required for such a churlish degree of certainty.

I always reason from first principles, which is precisely why I don't omit inconvenient facts and messy empirical data, such as the quadratic hashing problem, when forming opinions and conclusions.  Take your fact-free crystal ball and shove it deep up your worthless Gypsy fortune teller ass, OK?

BTW, Gavin (not me) defined quadratic sigop validation time as a "problem."

So you need to convince Gavin (not me) that your But Muh Incentives And Logical Inturrpolayshun Thought Experimunt analysis are correct, and he needn't worry about the O(n^2) attack, because you've got it all figured out.

Yes, 1 minute has passed since 2013. This just confirms that you're a useless troll and that you should be banned.

Everything was debunked. You're wasting your time and ours.

Looks like someone still doesn't fully understand how Segwit works. It most certainly solves that aspect for relevant TXs.

Where are all the fancy gifs full of pseudo-science?  I'm disappointed and can't the old nickname that someone gave you in this context anymore (IIRC 'Peter R. Charlatan').

Nonsense. I am pointing out that incentives are already aligned to make this a non-problem.


Your problem seems to be an inability to reason from first principles.


I've certainly been aware of it, yet am not currently familiar with the (irrelevant) details. Thanks for the background.


Go fuck yourself. I'm not going anywhere.

And I am perfectly conversant with "the critical nuances involved in this complex area of non-linearly interacting multidisciplinary subjects." At least, you have provided nothing that rebuts my observation of the fact that mining incentives are already aligned to make the quadratic sig hash issue a non-problem.

How about, instead of hurling insults, and non-responsive drivel, you actually engage the topic with reasoning? Incapable?


Nothing in that invalidates my claim that mining incentives are aligned to render this a non-problem. Sure, somebody "can create a very expensive-to-validate block to try to gum up the network." But they can expect to find their solved block orphaned by another, quicker-to-validate solved block that extends the chain while laggards are still wasting time spinning cycles on trying to validate the aberrant block.


Umm, are you not a native english speaker? Do you not know what a 'belt and suspenders' fix is?


Well, no. Your Gavin quote does not even address my assertion. But nice try, junior.


Agan - it is not prediction, it is reasoning.

Bullshit. Itsw segwit we are talking about not LN. How is Segwit stealing from miners?

Yes, I understand what makes Bitcoin work is its (magnificent, sublime) alignment of incentives.

No, you can't simply assert ("waaaah, it's not a prediction") you have concrete knowledge of future events, because another way to describe your "perfectly rational scenario" is "anointed vision."

Quadratic sigop validation is an ISSUE.  You may try to furiously backpedal and retroactively substitute in less self-incriminating terms like "aspect" or "attribute" but the damage is done.  Everything you pile on top of your inadvertent admission are excuses at best and lies at worst.

Your problem is that you don't know what the fuck your talking about.

You aren't even familiar with Gavin's sigop/sighash patch and the situation/history surrounding it, yet feel perfectly comfortable telling those of us who are you know more about the situation.  That some nice Entitlement Syndrome you got there, Mr. Comical Ali.

GTFO and come back when you are less ignorant of the critical nuances involved in this complex area of non-linearly interacting multidisciplinary subjects.

Here, I'll even spoon feed you like a baby so you can't whine about how mean I'm being.  




See?  We don't need to ask Gavin anything.  He's already rubbished your entire position.  You'd be aware of that if you read more and played Nostradamus less.

Calling it a clone might be a tad contentious.

Just sayin.

You can read what we're doing with Bitcoin Unlimited here:

https://medium.com/@peter_r/what-were-doing-with-bitcoin-unlimited-simply-6f71072f9b94

Bitcoin unlimited has been disproved as a non viable solution by anyone with respectable technological backgrounds in the field, yet these guys insist in making the blocksize flexible being a good idea. They will never learn.

I have seen this BU being spewed on the forum lately in full force but can not find out what it is.
BitcoinCore devs or something else. At first I thought it was something like Butterfly labs but then thought that didn't make much sense with all the talk concerning what they do will effect the ETF to come in March.
I actually did a search typing in BU in the search field here but my efforts were for nothing but miner threads.

Ah ok Bitcoin unlimited.

I saw it on a torrent site and just saw the size of it and decided not to touch it.
Was just a clone of bitcoin core.

So in the case that multiple solution blocks to a block round are present, which one will be built atop? The valid block that validates promptly, the valid block that takes an inordinate amount of time to validate, or the invalid block that will never validate because it is counterfeit?

Spin? WTF? No spin here.

I could have used the word 'aspect' instead of 'issue'. Or 'attribute'. Or some other. Wouldn't have made much difference.


It is not a 'prediction', it is pointing out an essential element of the incentives already baked in to Bitcoin. I know you know that Bitcoin only works _at_all_ because the incentives are such that 'doing the right thing' is profitable. Right? Well, this is just one more instance of doing the right thing being profitable.

I'll admit that I don't know if any significant miners currently implement this policy. Then again, aberrant blocks -- in the sense that they take a huge time to validate -- are rare. Indeed, I am aware of only one ever being created. But if such blocks ever became A Thing, rational miners will implement the mode I describe above. Because orphaning such aberrant blocks by others guarantees increased profitability.

Sure, we might choke down several aberrant blocks in the meantime. But that won't bring the network down. It merely forestalls block completion time in the same manner that a variance outlier does. We've choked down at least one of these blocks before -- indeed one crafted intentionally to max out validation time -- to no ill effect.


Don't blame me for your being unable to game out this perfectly rational scenario. It is the only such scenario that makes sense in the case of such aberrant blocks.


Of course. A 51% attacker always gets to define the chain. What's your point?


Of course. These things are all probabilistic. But the incentives are aligned to render this (::ahem::!) attribute a non-problem.


Because Gavin is a pragmatist that endeavored to give the users what they wanted, as long as it did not cause any actual harm? I dunno - you'd need to ask him.

Incidentally, I'm not aware of any 'unforgivably klugy' such work by him. To which pull req are you referring?

lauda you have debunked nothing.
others have debunked nothing.

your only rebuttle is "he is wrong wave victim card"

segwit solves nothing because spammers and scammers will still use native keys so the 'problems' of quadratic spam, low tx count and malleability will continue.

you cannot denie that!

call me any insult you like to show your loyalty and defend blockstream.. but concentrate on bitcoin. you have to accept that segwit does not fix the problem.

---

your over use of umbrella terms and not understanding the context of the subcategories shows you still need to learn.
for months i have not said you should shut up. instead i have said you should learn something. its called constructive criticism.

learn consensus
part of that involves learning that soft and hard are umbrella terms and there are subcategories below BOTH

learn 'orphans' - part of that involves learning that orphan is an umbrella term.
a parent does not need to be killed off for a child to be an orphan. and there are many types of orphans.

i have even helped you direct your education in a direction that doesnt involve you 'spending years learning how to code c++' (your mindset last year). so you have no excuses to not learn basic concepts. because you can still learn alot about bitcoin without needing to learn how to code

---

i know you have not read lines of code. but it may be worth you atleast not having cabin fever of only listening to one narrative from the group you have pigeon holed yourself in. be open minded, think outside the box and wear the critical thinking cap. not the blockstream defense helmet.

separate yourself mentally from blockstream. and think about BITCOIN.

you will get further along in life if you realise bitcoin should not be reliant on your gods adam back, sipa and gmaxwell.

bitcoin is not about being controlled by a few guys. so stop defending the guys. otherwise when they leave you are going to be heart broken.
devote your attention and mindset to bitcoin. not blockstream employees who can come and go.

---

lastly logical and smart people are critical minded. not utopian dream salesmen. so when you see a dev sweep something under the carpet or try to sell you the empty benefits instead of addressing the problem. think critically about it. dont be fooled that they are a good person because of their sales pitch.

life lesson: dont be sold by a sales pitch or glossy image. read the small print and terms/conditions.

@Lauda

Question for you ,
How long does your opinion normally last, (I mean did someone pay you or  Were you brainwashed or did you get a concussion?)
1 minute you are supporting PoS over PoW and next Bam , you are a lover of LN & segwit (the ugly banker twins of the crypto world.)



 

FYI:
There is help for you , if they brainwashed you.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/cult7.htm

 

@Viscount
(Once you lose an argument, you sees Trolls everywhere like CB & Lauda.)  
(It is a side effect of the segwit & LN cult programming they put you thru.)



 

I'm tired of these Unlimited trolls, I've little doubt that they are paid for their bs, that they post everyday around the clock. They don't have any occupation and just trolls at Ver's behest

Not really.

Here we go again.

Hint: The garbage that you post is usually not worth reading.

I have no business affiliation with Blockstream.

Nonsense. I'm not going to hope for some optimal-case scenarios with open attack vectors out there.

A simple: No.

Just because you don't properly understand it, that doesn't mean it's ludicrous. Read again.

I think the frustration is getting to the head of many people nowadays. You know, if you read through this one more time [e.g. a few posts by franky (most have been debunked long ago) and kiklo] you will see where it is coming from. This is the same crap that had to be dealt with for months with just a different mixture of threads and usernames.

You should be able to find someone/convince someone to implement it somewhere.

I think that in plenty of cases, the word 'extremes' is very conservative.