Topic: Stop fuckin' around, fork the son-of-a-bitch already. - page 8. (Read 9367 times)

So you're pretending to answer a point that I didn't even make. That's called a strawman argument, remember?

One of the main reasons I am holding Bitcoin now is because I am interested in the cryptocurrencies that will be spawned from Bitcoin, the spin off chains or genesis chains. Or in the unlikely event that Core sees reason and increases the blocksize limit, but I suppose we can both now agree that this is unlikely to happen any time soon.

Diversifying our investments at such a time does seem wise to me. Maybe when enough people leave Bitcoin, the small blockists might then finally be able to reach consensus.

EDIT. I misread your message, I have rewritten it

Stagnant based on what, having the highest market capitulation since late 2013/early 2014, having the higher number of transactions per day than it ever did, having the by far(!) the best development team in the ecosystem? Please tell me what's the "stagnation here". Hint: Not being able to process a number of TXs that you want != stagnation.

I'd use a nice word that I use for people that usually say this, but then you'd cry out to ad hominem. 2 MB is not safe, not matter how you put it, no matter what you say, it doesn't change that since it's a fact. Obviously you can use 2 MB safely if you create normal transactions. However, it's just a matter of time until someone starts constructing TXs that will DOS the whole network as validation will take too long.

I couldn't care if it were a million TB blocks, that doesn't change the fact that they're inherently unsafe and carry a huge security risk (disregarding the fact that such blocks would kill decentralization very quickly).

Dash has a very shady history behind it, I know since I was an early adopter. ETH is neither a immutable, censorship resistant nor decentralized. Additionally, they've had very troubling security problems with the DAO and now with geth. Monero will likely end up being illegal if it picks up. Don't even get my started on the transaction volume on those chains. Anything else?

I actually got the information about backwards compatiblity from the github. It says it right there in the wiki:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0142.mediawiki

It started with leading questions, I obviously also do not consider what I say to be lies either. Which you seem to keep accusing me off.

What's wrong with selling all your Bitcoin (prove it IMO) for altcoins, Veritas? Why would you stick around on the ostensibly sinking Bitcoin ship, if you really believe what you're saying?

Of course it is possible but whether something is practically attainable within a reasonable time frame is a different question. I understand the difference between a consensus based hard fork and a controversial hard fork. My point is that is that this entire subject has become controversial and there are some very staunch defenders of the blocksize limit, even within the Core development team itself. It would only take one of these developers to veto the code in order to block the change. Since any code that does not come from core would be regarded as controversial? I could see this taking years if any change is even achieved at all, there is a good reason why large democracies vote by a simple majority and not consensus, consensus in the literal sense of the word is almost impossible to achieve among large groups of people.

I can see Bitcoin easily being overtaken during this period, this is one of the reasons I am also invested in the altcoins. Bitcoin truly seems stagnant in comparison to me, the alternatives are able to innovate much faster and already have much greater transactional capacity then Bitcoin.

I think it is ridiclous for you to say that 2MB is not safe. We have discussed the reosons for this extensivly already, for anyone intrested just look at our post histories.

I am presently mining 17MB blocks on the testnet using Bitcoin Unlimited.

So one year from the time that it is announced, and it has not even been announced yet and probably will not be any time soon. Great, lots of luck with that, I would advise you and everyone here to diversify their investments, this is the reason why Bitcoin has become stagnant.

Fortunately there are many alternatives to Bitcoin out there, I personally like Dash, and its solutions to governance, Ethereum and Monero are also both good cryptocurrencies, all of these cryptocurrencies do not have problems with scaling, Dash has a second tier, incentivized and collateralized voting full nodes that can handle a much greater load, because of the build in incentive. Ethereum already has far greater capacity then Bitcoin and it will have even more in following releases. Monero simply has an adaptive blocksize, with some very interesting incentive structures to keep the blocks from becoming to large.

I am pointing this out, because I think that you are underestimating the competition and overestimating the network effect of Bitcoin. Waiting several years for a simple capacity increase while the network is congested with all of its negative consequences is terrible for mass adoption, meanwhile the market share of Bitcoin is now 79.6%, there is a good reason for that and the trend will most likely continue as Bitcoin will continue to lose market cap to its competition.

This would take a lot more time, and wouldn't be "much more efficient" in it's current state. Deploying it with a hard fork isn't even a big change. There was a post by maaku on reddit stating that it's rather just a few lines of code.

A hard fork can pretty much change anything. However, the question is always "Should we change that?". The answer to your suggestion is a clear: Not likely going to happen.

Can they hardfork the ability for Node hosts to get a small reward? It would be nice to upgrade my Raspberry Pi.

You're just asserting all that without providing examples, and lying about what you said about Segwit transaction types in the expectation that no-one can be bothered to traverse your overcomplicated posts to find it.

Your objective is so incredibly obvious: falsehood trolling. That is, carefully constructed lies that sound very similar to what happened, but subtly (and sometimes nakedly) distort what actually happened. Bear in mind that this doesn't resemble Socratic dialogue technique at all as you claimed earlier (which involves a process of asking leading questions, not making statements).

I have not used any strawman arguments, you are saying that I am using fear because according to Hearn and Andresen, Bitcoin should have imploded by now. To be clear I did not say that at all, you are literally using a strawmen argument, this should be obvious to you and everyone here.


You are just attacking me here, you can not prove I am deceitful or that I am lying.

I did not realize that particular vulnerability has been fixed, this was less then a month ago, it does not exactly inspire confidence in the code so close to when it is supposed to be released on the Bitcoin network.

You are actually just confirming what I am saying here, I was correct in saying that the first version of segwit that will be rolled out on the Bitcoin network if Core gets its way will make transactions less efficient, I am also correct in saying that doing segwit as a hardfork makes it much more efficient. Since this P2WPKH and P2WSH will require a hard fork in order to implement as far as I understand it, since it is not backwards compatible.

If that was your objective you have failed, you have repeated many times that I am deceptive and manipulative supposedly,

I have not attacked you a single time and it seems like you are the one employing the Ad Hominem here continuously. Rather ironic really considering what you are accusing me of doing. Thanks for describing me as "honest and straightforward" I guess, I did not mind the other insult either of using a mixture of reason and "debating tactics".

Moot points, from Veritas, all of them. It doesn't want Bitcoin to scale, it wants Bitcoin taken over by banksters and run into the ground.

This is why it's trying so incredibly hard to twist the argument against the universally appraised experts on Bitcoin. Claiming it's a 50:50 split is entirely manipulative and has no basis in fact. If Veritas' argument made any sense, then miners, users and devs would have actually supported at least one of the 3 hard-forking clients that have already been attempted so far.

All failed, because of a lack of demonstrable support. Their camp were so desperate that they tried to fake demonstrable support using non-functional nodes, and now Classic, XT and BU are languishing at the bottom of the client league table. Meanwhile, versions 12, 12.1 and 13 of Bitcoin Core have attracted more users in a few days than the coup-clients managed in their entire life cycle.

Your coups failed, and this last ditch effort will fail too.

No, that's not what a controversial hard fork is. A consensus based upgrade (via a HF) of the block size limit is very possible. A controversial fork would be one trying to push only up to a certain percent of miners, which make up a 'majority' or even a minority, which is far different from upgrades based on consensus.

We have been down this path before, it is unsafe to do so. Just because you may not know or understand why that is, that doesn't make it any less true. There may even be security issues at 1 MB that are not publicly disclosed for the obvious purposes. Whoever you ask about such, I doubt that they would disclose them outside of their 'inner' circles due to safety reasons.

As soon as the quadratic validation time problem has been solved, I see a semi-near future in which it is possible to increase the block size to a total of ~3-4 MB (includes the base expected amount that Segwit should provide, which is around 180%, i.e. 1.8 MB). However, the parameters are certainly going to be much different that you guys are expecting them to be. Doing a HF, which requires ALL custom implementations to be upgraded (this takes time for big businesses) just for a block size limit upgrade is also inefficient. The next HF should be optimally carry desired changes that require a HF in addition to a capacity increase with a grace period of 6-12 months.

I think that are specifically wrong in saying that you are anti controversial hard forks, I think that increasing the blocksize will always be controversial because of the culture of believe that has now been build up in the Bitcoin community, according to that reasoning we should therefore never increase the blocksize limit? I think this is fundamentally flawed, especially considering how important a parameter this blocksize limit actually is. I think part of the difference in our opinion is that you are also not taking the competition into account.

I think that both sides suspect each other of being part of a psychological operation by a possible a government agency in order to disrupt the Bitcoin community, historically this does not even seem that unlikely. There is a long history of infiltration and disruption by government agencies in order to counter organizations and communities they see as threatening.

Though personally I would find it much more likely that their goal would be to restrict and disrupt the original plan of Bitcoin by restricting the blocksize limit. Since from their perspective an unrestricted Bitcoin would be more threatening, I could get into where the blockstream funding actually comes from. Then again maybe there are spyop agents on both sides of the debate, further inflaming and widening the gulf. Though I think it would be more productive to stick to the issues compared to pointlessly accuse each other of being double agents, that is just more ad hominen after all.

My argument stands on its own, if Core simply increased the blocksize limit to two megabytes it would reunite much of the community and Bitcoin would not be currently suffering from a congested network, which is currently causing transaction delays, increased fees and unreliability. This is not good for adoption, I understand that you think lighting network and sidechains should replace most Bitcoin transactions and that therefore we do not need to increase the blocksize limit. However I propose that we increase the blocksize limit now so that we do not need suffer from a congested network without actually having any layer two solutions ready, and then when the lighting network and sidechains are finally ready and deployed we can see whether people choose to move their activities off chain, or whether people prefer transacting on chain with all of the advantages and disadvantages that brings, or more likely something in between, then we will know whether we need to increase the blocksize limit again or not, instead of radically changing the fundamental design of Bitcoin now and betting the future of Bitcoin on what is essentially still vaporware.

I know you like to paint me as being an extremely unreasonable person, however what I am proposing here is very reasonable, most people outside of this field would recognize that the small blockist are taking an extreme and fundamentalist position. Most big blockist are applying pragmatic rationalism. Ideally I would just remove the blocksize limit completely or use an adaptive blocksize. However as a compromise we proposed the mechanism within Classic, for an increase to two megabytes, originally we went from 20MB to 8MB and finally to 2MB, and I could argue using Bitcoin Unlimited we could even agree to a 1.1MB blocksize limit. There has been zero compromise from the small block camp, after 18 months. There is not even a blocksize limit increase on the Core road map.

Which is why at this point we will just split Bitcoin, it is our right to maintain and continue the original Bitcoin blockchain as it was intended. We have the freedom and capability to do this, if the small blockist could just compromise a small amount this would not happen and they could avoid the split from happening at all, I know many of you fear the split. I have nothing to fear from it, at this point I see it as progress and an opportunity for further evolution. Bring on the intentional minority splits I say, let the chips fall and allow people to put their money where their mouth is, that way we will really see over the long term what people value more, at this point it could even be an alternative cryptocurrency that overtakes Bitcoin.

And this is what Veritas Sapere represents.

It's the most twisted debater I've happened upon for a while. Above, it falsely asserts I'm using strawman arguments, then goes on to unleash a panoply of strawman arguments using my recent replies.


Every single Veritas Sapere argument is couched in deceit. It always has to lie or manipulate to make a point, because it doesn't have any actual arguing points.

I've already debunked it's nonsense assertions that Peter Todd's malleability vuln has in fact been patched. And there's more.... it claims above that SegWit transactions are larger than standard transactions, but of course, this is only true if one is carefully selective with which facts one presents and which one does not (another classic Veritas Sapere strategy, it literally behaves as if inconvenient facts do not exist).

If Veritas wasn't being so self-servingly selective, it would report that SegWit transactions are being rolled out in 2 stages - to begin with, they're wrapped in ordinary Bitcoin P2PKH or P2SH formats, and this makes them larger than standard Bitcoin transactions today. But the 2nd stage involves invoking native P2WPKH and P2WSH, which will be more compact than regular transactions. Hence, Veirtas Sapere is lying by omission.

But of course, it will return fire without mentioning a word about it's deception and manipulation.

Interesting how the personality of this particular troll is "honest and straightforward", but you don't have to dig hard to discover that it is in fact the polar opposite: deceitful and tortuous. And I've demonstrated that as a fact. (not Ad Hominem when it's a fact, getting too used to the "tactics" already lol)

You've also factored in something that may likely be modified to a certain degree in the future. Even if the algorithm was only modified to SHA512, then even the current Bitcoin wouldn't fit into that description.

I think that, even if we disregard a lot of the misinformation in regards to the block size limit (e.g. idiotic posts like:"My computer could handle 100MB+ blocks"; "Scale now or doomsday"), there are some people with genuine concerns on each side. Such people would not be afraid of being wrong. The goal is to scale Bitcoin in the best possible approach. I'm primarily anti controversial hard forks. Additionally, I think that this debate is being abused by people who could be damaged by Bitcoin's success. They could easily abuse it by paying people to "infiltrate" each side and keep inciting war, flame and hatred on each other.

Great!

So according to you I use a mixture of reason and debating tactics, well thank you I guess, but that is not a complement from you as far as I understand it because you think this is a fundamental problem? Our beliefs certainly have drifted far.

Yet you are the one employing ad hominem.

It is accurate what you are saying about the "debating tactics" I deploy, however the objective is not to irritate. A Socratic dialogue has been known to irritate certain people however, this has happened throughout history.

This is part of what I think is part of the problem, you are not acknowledging and therefore not accounting for the human elements in this system. You say that there is no politics in code, there are multiple implementations of the Bitcoin code, ask the question what code, and who decides? According to Wikipedia the simple definition of politics is:

I have never claimed that was my objective and it is not. I think there should ideally be multiple viable competing development teams for Bitcoin, I am fine with Core contributing code to the protocol I just do not think they should be making all of the decisions, in this case I think they are wrong about restricting the blocksize limit.

I remember we have debated before who the "real" bitcoiners really are, since last time I checked Satoshi did support on chain scaling and this ideology of small blockism is actually a relatively new development. Not that I really care who you think the real Bitcoiners are, its just from my perspective it has a touch of irony.

The primary reason for my return has been to discuss and promote the idea of splitting the chain intentionally as a minority. I am certain that this will happen, it is one of the main reasons I am still holding the ratio of Bitcoin to altcoins that I am today, since I am very interested in the eventual genesis forks that will spawn from Bitcoin itself.

That's all you had to say.

You have always argued using a cleverly layed out mixture of reason... and every underhanded debating tactic in the book. This is the fundamental problem with your strategy; because you're attempting to convince people of something that has no merit, you have no choice but to use manipulative tactics, because genuine reason would lead readers to believe that you're wrong.

The above post is a classic example of your strategy: claiming that I'm misrepresenting your argument, then going on to agree with statements I make about your arguments (an attempt to irritate, presumably, so yeah, you're Mr. Reason on so many levels there). And then you try to conflate code with politics. The only politics in the Bitcoin source code is in the genesis block. So not one statement of yours above is founded in reason, entirely the opposite, and deliberately so. You might want to update the Carlton pscyh profile you've been referring to, lol

So, if you're willing to discuss why you want to depose the present coding team for one of your choice, go ahead. But I am, of course, expecting you to manipulate what I've said to derail back to your contrived scaling debate again. Newsflash: the actual innovators have better solutions, and nonsense arguments about unresolved malleation attacks are just desperate at this point. The person who discovered that attack is an XT/Classic bete noir, Peter Todd. And it's been squashed to the satisfaction of most Core developers, only really care and diligence in their testing methodology has prevented them closing the git issue. None of your preferred programming team either discovered or solved the bug, they simply carped about it from the sidelines like wolves trying to bully bigger stronger prey.

So go ahead, try and re-open that flank that closed up on you months ago. While the real Bitcoiners still have a pulse, you've got no chance

You are correct that under this extremely unlikely scenario this principle does not hold, a slightly modified statement would though: "I hold the position that the longest SHA256 chain that also contains the Bitcoin genesis block should be defined as Bitcoin". Another exception might be if the hashing algorithm is ever changed for legitimate reasons, thanks for pointing this out, you are keeping me sharp!

Good to hear that Lauda, the possibility exist that we might one day be in agreement then.

I could always be proven wrong in the future as well, and I would have to admit the fault and continue learning.

Point taken about consecutive posts, I will do my best to avoid that. I can lump them together now actually.

I have always argued using reason, so you are still building those strawmen I see Carlton. My predictions are holding true, just look at the chart I posted earlier on this thread. I have always said that this debate has primarily been about politics, to discuss the politics of the code we must also understand the code however.

I really just came back because I missed you guys.

I thought you said promoting fear was a hallmark of propaganda? And, hmmmmmm, isn't that exactly what the forkists have always argued with, fear based arguments? According to Hearn and Andresen, Bitcoin should have imploded by now. Yet the real Bitcoiners won the debate, and you're coming back for more. Ok.


And why are you still pretending that the fork is about technical issues and not politics? You're the propagandist here.