Topic: Stop fuckin' around, fork the son-of-a-bitch already. - page 6. (Read 9367 times)

This doesn't make sense at all. A HF proposed by Core would still make them retain "power and control" that you're preaching about . Note: I'm not saying I agree with what you're saying, just that it doesn't make sense).

As soon as the security issues of that are mitigated, then I don't see a (big) problem with it.

I'm actually quite curious and waiting for them to release a proposal and implementation. It's taking too long in any case.

You should look up the meaning of "consensual"....it relates to "consent". The "majority" as you say cannot "consent" for the minority. Consensual means every user agrees, not tyranny of the majority. Orphaning is irrelevant here---why would you even mention it? If a hard fork gains the majority of hash rate, the minority just stays on the weaker chain. They can't even see the "longer chain" because it's invalid according to their consensus rules. They just ignore it. Two separate blockchains. This is why there is no such thing as a "majority rule consensual hard fork".

And what makes you think a hard fork won't be controversial?


Nobody is going to stop Luke from submitting a pull request. Whether it's merged is another matter. And whether users support it is another matter.

...And now if we don't support some hard fork, we hate decentralization, right...

Interesting. Your last few one-line posts seem a lot more spammy than anything I've written. You haven't contributed a thing to this thread. And to be clear: Segwit contributes to on-chain scaling. For instance, it fixes perverse UTXO incentives which cause longterm UTXO bloat. It also increases capacity in a backward compatible way, to mitigate the externalities of increased throughput on nodes. This is what scaling is about: optimizing the protocol to mitigate the effects of throughput, maintaining the system's robustness. You are just talking about increasing throughput with zero scaling mechanisms. That's not scaling at all.

More than that, Segwit enables significant on-chain scaling mechanisms like aggregate signatures, which can cut down signature size by 30-40%. That's on-chain capacity gained. There's lots of little things I've read are in the works to improve verification and syncing times and mitigate bandwidth spikes and network latencies---all extremely important because scalability entails retaining node and miner decentralization in the context of increased growth. Lightning transactions (aside from the 2-of-2 multisig transactions that open/close channels) are indeed off-chain---what's the problem? Every transaction is  trustless and can be broadcast to the blockchain.

controversial forks (intentional splits) are not good.

that is why THE COMMUNITY wants a CONSENSUAL FORK meaning the majority continue on a single path, but have the upgraded features, higher capacity buffer, where the orphaning mechanism built into bitcoin take care of the minority.

again not an intentional split (EG ethereum '--oppose-dao-fork')
but a true consensual upgrade of features and buffer, based on majority consent

the problem is that core fanboys dont want a true consensual fork.. they have done all they can to give core power and control. to veto out any plan that involves a consensual fork..
segwit does not require consent(no nodes need to upgrade to consent to the change) and some people are mixing up the metaphors to think that the only options are controversial split or no consent.. by calling the no consent option, consensus..(facepalm)

i just wish the core fanboys dont REKT a core team release of 2mb
so then EVERYONE has the freedom of choosing, and that choice does not have to be a social choice of fanboys of certain groups.. but instead based on features they want the chain to continue on in one direction using.
because those in he core fanclub can remain with core because there is a core version of 2mb buffer

again by having a core version. it stops the social war and brings the debate back to basics of features.

wake up people. if your a core lover. by shouting hate about core releasing a true consensual fork version because you prefer the controlled no-consent path. you are truly revealing that you dont want decentralization. and it cant be hidden by "no i love core", because the code would be a core release.

but lets watch the replies from some who will shout hate speach of decentralization and show obvious bias to want core of no-consent changes. dominance and centralized control.
lets watch who REKTs people like luke JR who will release a core code implementation of 2mb buffer.

in short if you want decentralization and love core. let luke (as part of core) release the implementation.
in short if you want centralization and love cores no-consent corporate policy. reply with your hatred of decentralization

Gasp! Will you dump your pre-fork sig spam earnings on the on-chain scaling side of teh fork?! Pls, no!

It sounds like you are just hand-waving, repeating tired cliches and really saying nothing at all. This seems like a theme with the pro-fork crowd. "The market this, the market that..." But the market seems generally opposed to a hard fork---that's the overall sentiment on social media, the forum, slacks and mailing lists....backed by nodes and miners.

Perhaps it's more important to note that the market can't change the rules of the Bitcoin network---it can only switch to a new network with new tokens. In the process, you'll probably split the community into multiple blockchains.

A lot of people (like me) oppose hard forks on principle in the context of a consensus ledger. You're not going to convince us. You can push bandwagon propaganda about the inevitable victory of your chain if you want (that's the most common approach)....but you will split the network and people like me will make sure you won't have a clean hard fork.

Patience young padawan... the market will serve as the orchestra for this dance... follow its lead. Or don't... and dance to your own drummer. Freedom...

Then why don't you fork? Why do people like you just constantly talk about forking, rather than following through? Is it because most of the technical community isn't interested? Is it because you are waiting for miners to pressure opposing users with their hash rate?

I don't see why you guys can't just fork, if not for fear that no one would support your chain. Go ahead and fork; it's the open source way. I'm guessing you won't get very far.

And if Monero is going to be called illegal, who's going to label it "illegal"... the authorities?

They have a hard time accepting bitcoin as money not to talk of an altcoin.

Thank you for explaining that. What you've described is the 'cherry picking fallacy'.

That's why you're heavily biased. Just the fact that you aren't willing to admit this to yourself, makes most of your arguments plummet into water.

Not an argument. Stop crying out to "ad hominem" to defend flawed positioning and argumentation.

This is very well an argument as it describes the lies that the shitcoin was built upon, which later turned into a mutable chain.

I did claim it was going to be illegal. I didn't specify where. I didn't make any claims about insider knowledge, that's what you concluded out of my statement. "It's confidential" may mean a lot of things.

---

Objectively speaking, I can only put someone like that in one (or more) of the following groups:
1) Trolling.
2) Paid shill.
3) Idiot.
Hint: This isn't ad hominem, nor character assassination. This is an objective evaluating of a viewpoint which is not rational.

If you think that the split in Ethereum's chain was not a bad outcome then you are gravely mistaken. Who would want for it to split like that resulting with another chain that is now competing with your own. You also say that splitting the Bitcoin blockchain should be considered a positive thing? That is absurd. I do not know if you are serious or you are trolling.

There is more at stake here because the whole Bitcoin economy is relying on the stability of the network to keep it going. If they do a hard fork and then the network splits then they are risking destroying that economy and the value of the coin itself. I am certain a lot of people WILL look for someone to blame.

No one is to blame or should be. What has recently happened to Ethereum is not a bad outcome, splitting Bitcoin in the same way should be considered a positive thing. Like dumbfbrankings just said it represents freedom, the analogy of a couple breaking up and finding separate houses is indeed a good analogy.

It's called freedom, friendo. A fork, it's the open source way.

It's why little Johnny is better off if Mommy and Daddy (who hate and abuse each other, in front of the investors kids), find separate houses.

The price is besides the point here. The thing to learn from the Ethereum hard fork is that there were factors that they did not anticipate that would happen. Instead of doing only the hard fork, the original chain lived on and became a competing chain. The effect of it on Ethereum may be minimal because the network is quite young. So yes they have that luxury to make drastic measures. My question is how will this affect a more established blockchain like Bitcoin?

The horror, the horror.



Are we afraid of the wisdom and function of free market capitalism? You know... that thing that's supposed to underpin the incentives of Bitcoin?


Whoa... and here I was just thinking lauda was a petty sig spammer and paid toady... The ol' iCEBREAKER model to "early-adopter" profit. Sly as a fox Lauda, I'm legitimately impressed. 

You don't get out much do you?

That would be like suggesting you could only go into a shop and pay with Visa instead of MasterCard or Visa-versa and then saying to the customer "Well, even though you have the right card, your money isn't the right type of money.

Which fork would get to retain the right to call itself BitCoin?

If there is anyone to blame it is the proponents of the hard fork, because they initiated a network split. There is nothing to be done about it. Miners will mine any chain which it is rational to mine on; there's no way to stop miners from securing either chain. And whether it's rational for miners depends on users; there is no way to force users to use one client or the other.

So if users remain on the original chain, the network will likely split and we will permanently have multiple incompatible networks/blockchains. It doesn't matter which chain has more work (POW) because the two networks cannot communicate with one another.

I have a hypothetical question. Let us pretend that a hard fork indeed happened. For this example let us use BitcoinXT as the new version to be used in the fork. If the hard fork ended up like the one that happened to Ethereum, who is to blame and what should be done? Now we have two Bitcoin chains and both have die hard supporters unwilling to let go for each.

I was specifically responding to you saying that Bitcoin has the most "advanced and developed protocol". I responded by saying that some altcoins are more innovative then Bitcoin, this is a valid response and it is certainly not a straw man argument.

That was and still is an accurate statement, I said that the Bitcoin market share is at a historic low. If I wanted to say it was at an all time low I would have said so. Furthermore when you look at the chart you can clearly see that the points on the chart you are referring to are just short dips. The period we are in now has been categorized by having a consistently low Bitcoin market share. If we where to take a weighted average of the Bitcoin market share today over the last six months we would be at an all time low now.

If you can look at this chart and not see a downwards trend in Bitcoins market share then you are simply blind to the truth.
http://coinmarketcap.com/charts/#btc-percentage

I find it revealing you are not invested in Bitcoin, people can make their own judgement in that regard. For the record I have a bigger share in Bitcoin compared to any other altcoin, including Dash.

I understand now that most of what you are doing is just attacking my character at this point, it should be obvious to everyone here that I have remained civil, unlike yourself I do not engage in that type of ad hominen and other type of fallacious argumentation since it is not productive towards rational discussion.

Not an argument.

This is also not an argument, I find it ironic that are saying I do not understand fallacies considering you are accusing me of using a straw man argument over a statement in which I do not infer or imply your position at all. Furthermore for me to point towards the decentralization of mining in Ethereum due to an ASIC resistant algorithm in response to you saying Ethereum is not decentralized is a perfectly valid argument. As a matter of fact I am precisely refuting the argument you made to me directly, the very opposite of a straw man argument.

To be clear you claimed to know as a fact that Monero would be made illegal if there was greater adoption, you further went on to claim that you had insider knowledge that this was true, first of all your insider knowledge can not be considered as a fact by other people because it can not be publicly verified.

Secondly if I understood your argument correctly, you where saying that Monero can not be a viable alternative to Bitcoin because it will be made illegal, based on your insider knowledge of course. However as far as I understand it, something like Monero could only be stopped by having it made illegal in all jurisdictions, just like Bitcoin, which obviously makes Monero extremely resilient, just like Bitcoin. I did obviously assume that you meant in all jurisdictions since otherwise your reasoning for why Monero can not be a competitor to Bitcoin would be flawed. Since I was using Monero as a counter example to your argument that Bitcoin does not have any competition from the alternative cryptocurrencies.

The fact that you are now resorting to character attacks says it all. Meanwhile, your pal VeritasSapere has been pumping DASH, Monero and Ethereum throughout this thread.

It's pretty clear that none of your arguments stand on their own merit.