Topic: Stop fuckin' around, fork the son-of-a-bitch already. - page 11. (Read 9352 times)

ridiculous blocksizes??

sorry but segwit is 4mb.. i proven that in a different topic and even supplied you a link.
so how is 2mb ridiculous??

i actually agree with lauda's sentiment..

submit a bip to.............. ?
go on.. say it
CORE
well there already has been logical bips submitted, and the decision against implementing it was not vetoed out due to code, or logic or real reason. but due to false doomsdays and fake stats.. mainly illogical scare stories

which from reading your little awakening in another topic, you are beginning to see

I am going to walk on the safe path, and go with the direction these Core guys are going. Why do we need to change anything if it is working? The big blockers were creating Apocalyptic scenarios since this debate has started many moons ago, and guess what, nothing happened.

We have seen strange stress tests being done, to make people believe that bigger blocks are necessary, but the network came through with flying colors and these people lost money. Let's just take hands, smoke some weed and sing Bitcoin songs. ^smile^ After all, people are saying we are a bunch of perverted drug heads, so just make the best of it.    

Nonsense. The people who are primarily pushing for ridiculous block sizes are the ones crying out that we need more users. It's obviously about money. If it wasn't about money, you'd be taking a safe path with scaling as there is zero need to risk anything. As I've previously stated, I'm not anti-HF as in consensual upgrades, not controversial splits.

Just by saying that splitting up the userbase, infrastructure and network as a whole is a "beautiful thing" makes me question the sanity of some people. Nothing good can nor will come out of that. Just confusion that will generally have negative side-effects.

No, Core isn't prevent anything. You're free to write a HF proposal as a BIP and see whether it gains attraction.

again your only seeing a hard fork through the eyes of controversial.

EG if core released
0.14A(just segwit)
0.14B(segwit+ hardfork)

and other implementations also done the same
bitcoin knots, airbitz, BU, classix, XT, and all the others
XA traditional
XB hardfork

then there is a fully open choice. even the core fanboys dont have to defect away from their religion(core) if they secretly want more real onchain capacity growth because every version in existance has a agreed consensus change, including core.
making EVERYONE on the same level playing field

but by core not even trying to make it (lets hope luke releases it before getting thrown out) then there will never be a healthy majority, due to
the loyal flock wanting core to dominate(even if the flock dont understand the route core prefers) and make decisions for them (centrally)

so yea bitcoin knots, airbitz and others can have perfect code.. but core fanboys will doomsday call anything not core.. purely because core doesnt want a consensual fork(real onchain capacity).. they want to lead and control decisions. not allow an open decentralized free choice.

the funny thing is. core can easily release 0.14B(segwit+ hardfork) and then just see if people download A or B.
and if 95% have not downloaded version B of their favourite. then it will not activate and nothing is lost.
but by core vetoing any chance of a core version B. they are not even allowing users a free choice, even amungst their own flock

its like having 12 jurers where it requires unanimous favour of one decision to get a perfect conviction.
core are telling just 1 jurers to not vote at all, neither innocent or guilty.. purely to cause controversy and not have a consensual judgement.

I entirely agree.

This is a good point, we can always say that we have alternatives, like Classic and Unlimited for example but you are right in that this is what causes the controversy in the first place.

I agree entirely, if only Core actually did such a thing, I might even support it. Chances are that this will not happen, which is why splitting the chain might be the next best solution, it does not actually matter what we think about it, I am confident it will happen regardless there are already enough motivated people working on it. The only way I see this not happening would be if Core compromises in their position and includes a hard fork for increasing the blocksize limit in one of their following releases.

The beautiful thing is that nobody has to follow, as a holder of Bitcoin you will have the same share of Bitcoins in both chains. You can just sell the "big block" coins and ignore that chain and just continue as if nothing has changed. I would advise holding coins on both chains after a split, better to hedge our bets.

You asked for promotion: https://www.reddit.com/r/btcfork/

This is how I learned to stop worrying and love the fork.

Propaganda?

By definition a hard fork creates a new network. This a matter of fact, not opinion.

What I said didn't contemplate whether a hard fork is controversial. What I said was, why don't you fork the code? Why do you need miners to pressure users to switch clients?

It seems the answer you buried in your long-winded posts was "nobody would support my fork." Okay then. There's your answer.

look at the propaganda
to change networks
migrate to your fork

seems you have not understood the difference of consensual and controversial. and you think that a hard fork is only controversial.
trying to scare everyone by saying a fork is not bitcoin by using propaganda buzzwords like "changing networks" or "migrating"

please learn consensual vs controversial

You completely avoided what I asked. "Why don't you fork the code and promote it? See if users actually support your fork? Why do people insist on leveraging hash rate to provoke users to change networks?"

Instead you troll these forums day in, day out, talking shit about Core. What's the point? If people support the rule changes you propose, they will migrate to your fork. Endlessly insulting Core doesn't give merit to your fork.

the code of a 2mb block is not the problem.. even core agree 4mb is fine..

but there is drama and doomsday scenarios that stop a consensual fork.. not related to code.
but related to actually making implementations have the same rules so that no one has control and freedom of choice to use different implementations.

core want to take bitcoin offchain and away from the original idea, and they will do this without nodes needing to vote. they want full control
there have already been 6 attempts to offer an onchain solution. but the debate has not been about code logic. but social illogics.

even now.. Luke JR is starting to receive the R3kt campaign experience of social illogics, because luke wants to release a consensual hardfork using cores code.(meaning a safe option)

again its not about code. but they want to attack the social illogics because the code allows true capacity growth safely. the activation parameters offers hassle free rule changes.. but because it puts a dent into the plan of moving users offchain and into sidechains, the social debate begins trying to kill off freedom of choice by using false doomsdays and personality attacks.

in short core want to be the sole decision makers. and even if one of their own wants freedom of choice, they will throw them under the bus

to answer your question directly..
anyone can make the most majestic code ever that does exactly as expected. but it would get wrecked in the social drama of going against cores corporate plan of offchain middlemen controls

Anyone is free to choose. Why don't you fork the code and promote it? See if users actually support your fork? Why do people insist on leveraging hash rate to provoke users to change networks?

Just leave miners out of it. If forkers had support, they would fork, and the community would follow. That they refuse to fork and instead lobby miners to pressure the rest of us to fork is very telling.

they way you see a fork is an intentional split.(controversial). and keeping both side alive..

to me i would call that a controversial fork where a clear defined single direction cannot be established and so extra code is added so the 2 decisions do not rule each other out(blacklisting opposing user agents/flags), which allows both decisions to survive.

a consensual fork is when there is adequate demand and utility that the rules can change without causing a second chain, where the natural consensus mechanism of orphans that would kill off a minority and everyone continues in a single direction of new rules..

in the last year of debate.. the conclusion is that all software implementations should have released a fork code with a consensual activation mechanism. meaning if a high majority desire shows, it activates and then orphans take care of the minority until the minority move over. leading to a single chain.
emphasis high majority desire to move in a single direction

i do not favour controversial forks that add code to force the minority chain to survive. (clams), but that said i also do not favour a certain dev team to veto even releasing code out of fear that everyone would actually show a high desire for it. so abusing the consensus mechanism by not allow users to choose, thus not even giving any new rules a chance.

core fans scream doomsdays of controversial hard forks. but dont realise that core is preventing consensual forks by vetoing a release to ensure the community never get to a healthy majority. thus causing the controversy

so here is the thing.
if cores only worry is a healthy majority.
how about include the hardfork in their softfork code as both require high majority activation parameters. thus when it activates there is no harm because of the consensus mechanism is there to resolve it.

Fact check, Ethereum is doing just fine, it has not even lost value for investors, especially if you take the value of ETC into account as well. It even still has a decent amount of volume, so these claims about ETH and ETC are false.

I disagree, I do not think anything went terribly wrong with the ETH hard fork. I even think that it sets a positive precedent. It gives people more freedom of choice, I can not see anything wrong with that.

These type of splits do in effect enable the core principles of volunteerism within Bitcoin. Everyone can have the Ethereum they want, whether they agreed with the fork or not. I think the same solution is actually ideal for Bitcoin right now, that way these split communities and ideologies can go their own way in freedom.

I think that Bitcoin will split multiple times, within the next six months. Nobody can really stop it, that is a beautiful thing. I suppose somebody could create a "genesis fork" with a six month grace period, it would most likely not be the first chain to split off the Bitcoin network and gain a significant market share.

This is exactly why a hard fork is the best way to resolve such a dispute, since after the split and over the next few years we will see exactly how much demand there really is for such an alternative chain.

seems lauda has closed his eyes and put on his blockstream nightcap again..
its not about a bigger market capitalization..
its not about more money.

its about increasing the usability.
EG reducing the fee war
EG increasing ability to spend within ~20 minutes without having to fight for priority
EG not treating third world currency weekly wages as 'spam'
EG not treating a transaction fee as 'cheap', when it amounts to more than an hours labour in third world countries
EG not tweaking bitcoin to be reliant on third party management
EG not tweaking bitcoin to not be transparent and independently checkable
EG not scaring people into false doomsdays purely to push users offchain
EG no 2mb doomsdays, then suddenly say 4mb ok.
EG no 4mb is ok but only 1.8x capacity.. because 4x capacity needs to be ignored

You have it backwards. Forking is fine -- but only if there is organic support for a fork. What the XT and Classic camps promoted was collusion by miners to force users to migrate. That's the opposite of how Bitcoin's incentives work. If you want to fork the protocol, go ahead and fork it. If users support it, they can migrate to the forked network. Then -- out of Bitcoin's rational mining incentive -- miners will follow, should there be sufficient user support to justify mining expenditure. Using miners to leverage hash rate against Bitcoin users is very unethical. I would oppose any fork (like XT or Classic) on those grounds.


How do you quantify those people? I can just as easily say a "very large number of people don't want large blocks." Including me. You can opt of the Bitcoin network and fork at any time. If users agree, they can follow. But don't try to leverage miners against us. That's a variant of a 51% attack.

Actually, satoshi said that after version 0.1 or so, the software would start becoming solidified and any alternatives to the "official software" would be a disaster, so it means that if satoshi was around he would be working on Core and rejecting hard fork attempts such as XT, Classic or whatever else is there.

Core is doing a good job, staying conservative is key. The 2MB block size will eventually come when it's the right time.

Moron.  Unmitigated, complete moron.  

False. I'm very open to ideas, this one is just idiotic. It is you who's the ignorant fool trying to push through a catastrophic ideology.

So breaking the whole network infrastructure is good? Sure, let's all vote today and fork it in 28 days. If you can't update your custom implementations in that time-frame, you shouldn't even be a part of the ecosystem. All praise the amazing fork!

Again, there are several proposals. The problem is that nobody sane wants them.

This is just pure bullshit. Nobody will be forced to pay "sidechain fees".

---

Isn't it interesting how people would sacrifice the intrinsic blockchain values inherent to Bitcoin, just in an attempt to gain a wider user-base, i.e. bigger market capitalization, i.e. more money?

Go ahead, bury your head in the sand.  That is the normal response from morons who don't want to see anything other than their own stupid ideas on matters.

Fork is not dangerous.  Fork is good.

Fork is an opportunity for everyone to vote.  

Preventing a fork is Greg Maxwell's way to assure Blockstream will soon be forcing everyone to pay 'sidechain fees'.  Preventing a fork assures that Greg Maxwell can continue making all decisions as he likes without regard for the opinions of others.

Don't feed the troll. It's obvious, just look at his avatar, it's the angry "Bitcoin scam" guy. Find him by Googling "Bald guy mad about Bitcoin", that's how I found him

It seems that it may be the right time to ignore this user before someone starts accepting some of this obviously misleading and false information. Nobody is preventing anything, nor is this bullshit true:

There are several HF proposals, the problem is that nobody wants that crap. Forks are very dangerous for a widely developed system if not properly planned and deployed.