the real Bitcoin debate and why the market always wins - page 3.

Idrisu

sr. member

Activity: 924

Merit: 260

Quote from: Holliday on March 21, 2017, 11:51:18 AM

Impossible to read. Too much propaganda. Thanks for nothing OP.

The market will obviously decide and if BU had the market they would have forked long ago. You don't need to ask when you have the economic majority backing you.

The current upward trend is a proves market will always wins. Btu which try to bring disharmony to bitcoin community and centralized bitcoin is enemy of this community. What we the traders want is increase in the value of bitcoin and I am praying for bitcoin to remains decentralized.

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Oznog on March 21, 2017, 11:57:11 AM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on March 21, 2017, 11:35:22 AM

Miners play by the Rules they are told to follow by the Nodes.
A forked protocol change, changes the Node Rules.

The block chain is not decided by proof-of-ip or proof-of-developers, it is decided by proof-of-work.
Therefore, the chain with more computing power will always prevail.
Therefore, the decision is of the miners and they are influenced directly to the market price.
This is the consensus of Nakamoto as I understand it.

What you just stated is incorrect in response to my statement.

You are talking about signaling for proposed protocol changes and then
after that change, how that "new protocol" chain is built upon.

What you have failed to address, which is my statement, is that in order for
miners to get a new protocol change, they need a node network that supports
their protocol change. Miners without a decentralized validator node network is
not a blockchain nor a cryptocurrency. What you described is like a OneCoin scam.

Nakamoto Consensus as it was envisioned in the Whitepaper stopped being true
when ASICs forced the separation between Mining and Validating. Today, Miners
if they wanted to, do not need to validate to mine. The Validator Node network
currently holds them to some semi-validation. Without them, miners can build
invalid blocks without recourse.

Nakamoto Consensus was based on 1 CPU = 1 Vote. When 1 CPU = 1 Vote stopped
being applicable, Nakamoto Consensus either ended, or morphed into what I am
saying, depending on your viewpoint. Today, we call it simply "Consensus" (since
"Nakamoto Consensus" essentially failed).

vnvizow

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: Holliday on March 21, 2017, 12:02:15 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 21, 2017, 11:59:14 AM

Quote from: Holliday on March 21, 2017, 11:51:18 AM

Impossible to read. Too much propaganda. Thanks for nothing OP.

The market will obviously decide and if BU had the market they would have forked long ago. You don't need to ask when you have the economic majority backing you.

Sorry you didn't like it -- I guess I was preaching to the choir here bud.

I agree, the market will decide. You have yourself a nice day. Grin

It not that "I didn't like it". It's that whoever wrote it started throwing shit about two sentences in. If you can't make an argument without calling someone names, then you are just wasting my time.

1. it's reddit (basically SFW 4chan) 2. IMO it's reflective of the atmosphere in the community right now...can't get your point across unless you're capslocking everything with swears and names

Holliday

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1012

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 21, 2017, 11:59:14 AM

Quote from: Holliday on March 21, 2017, 11:51:18 AM

Impossible to read. Too much propaganda. Thanks for nothing OP.

The market will obviously decide and if BU had the market they would have forked long ago. You don't need to ask when you have the economic majority backing you.

Sorry you didn't like it -- I guess I was preaching to the choir here bud.

I agree, the market will decide. You have yourself a nice day. Grin

It not that "I didn't like it". It's that whoever wrote it started throwing shit about two sentences in. If you can't make an argument without calling someone names, then you are just wasting my time.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: Holliday on March 21, 2017, 11:51:18 AM

Impossible to read. Too much propaganda. Thanks for nothing OP.

The market will obviously decide and if BU had the market they would have forked long ago. You don't need to ask when you have the economic majority backing you.

Sorry you didn't like it -- I guess I was preaching to the choir here bud.

I agree, the market will decide. You have yourself a nice day. Grin

Oznog

member

Activity: 65

Merit: 10

Quote from: AgentofCoin on March 21, 2017, 11:35:22 AM

Miners play by the Rules they are told to follow by the Nodes.
A forked protocol change, changes the Node Rules.

The block chain is not decided by proof-of-ip or proof-of-developers, it is decided by proof-of-work.
Therefore, the chain with more computing power will always prevail.
Therefore, the decision is of the miners and they are influenced directly to the market price.
This is the consensus of Nakamoto as I understand it.

Holliday

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1012

Impossible to read. Too much propaganda. Thanks for nothing OP.

The market will obviously decide and if BU had the market they would have forked long ago. You don't need to ask when you have the economic majority backing you.

Oznog

member

Activity: 65

Merit: 10

Quote from: Vaccinus on March 21, 2017, 11:25:34 AM

Quote from: Oznog on March 21, 2017, 10:45:22 AM

The small blockers have already failed.

If they were right, the community would not be divided or talk serious about a hard fork.

the small blockers never said that they like small blocks man, they are saying that they don't like big block, but prefer to go another route, well in the end only miners and exchange decide, nothing a average user can do for this

That another route is called SegWit and has a conflict of interests in favor of small blocks.
Unlimited implementation makes SegWit unnecessary.

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Vaccinus on March 21, 2017, 11:25:34 AM

Quote from: vnvizow on March 21, 2017, 11:21:42 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Why talk about it? It's not about what we in the crypto slums think, it's about what the big colluding Chinamen miners think. If they want 100mb block sizes, go ahead. All 99% of those who come in this forum care about is the price of their precious. So go ahead, centralize the shit out of it.

That doesn't even make sense, the nodes matter just as much as miners and even then China doesn't hold >50% of the current hashrate.

no nodes doesn't matter like miners man, what you are talking about? node count nithing, only miners and exchange have a word here, because if exchange do not listen the new for miners can't sell, they are both with the same importance

You are incorrect.
Good exchanges usually have their own Validator Nodes, they do not defer to Miners.

Validator Nodes maintain and enforce the protocol, not miners.
Miners build blocks based on the node enforced protocol.

Miners play by the Rules they are told to follow by the Nodes.
A forked protocol change, changes the Node Rules.

Where is all this misinfo about Nodes being worthless coming from lately? Pretty sad.
This is a fundamental Bitcoin understanding. If it wasn't true, then Miners have
absolute free will and that has not occurred in the past nor currently.

vnvizow

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: Vaccinus on March 21, 2017, 11:25:34 AM

Quote from: vnvizow on March 21, 2017, 11:21:42 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Why talk about it? It's not about what we in the crypto slums think, it's about what the big colluding Chinamen miners think. If they want 100mb block sizes, go ahead. All 99% of those who come in this forum care about is the price of their precious. So go ahead, centralize the shit out of it.

That doesn't even make sense, the nodes matter just as much as miners and even then China doesn't hold >50% of the current hashrate.

no nodes doesn't matter like miners man, what you are talking about? node count nithing, only miners and exchange have a word here, because if exchange do not listen the new for miners can't sell, they are both with the same importance

Try running a coin with just miners and no nodes then. Nodes represent the community, and it's not like if exchanges disappeared no more trades would occur (member back when there were no exchanges? Did the coin die without them? exactly)

Vaccinus

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

Quote from: Oznog on March 21, 2017, 10:45:22 AM

The small blockers have already failed.

If they were right, the community would not be divided or talk serious about a hard fork.

the small blockers never said that they like small blocks man, they are saying that they don't like big block, but prefer to go another route, well in the end only miners and exchange decide, nothing a average user can do for this

Quote from: vnvizow on March 21, 2017, 11:21:42 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Why talk about it? It's not about what we in the crypto slums think, it's about what the big colluding Chinamen miners think. If they want 100mb block sizes, go ahead. All 99% of those who come in this forum care about is the price of their precious. So go ahead, centralize the shit out of it.

That doesn't even make sense, the nodes matter just as much as miners and even then China doesn't hold >50% of the current hashrate.

no nodes doesn't matter like miners man, what you are talking about? node count nithing, only miners and exchange have a word here, because if exchange do not listen the new for miners can't sell, they are both with the same importance

vnvizow

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: ?? on ??

Why talk about it? It's not about what we in the crypto slums think, it's about what the big colluding Chinamen miners think. If they want 100mb block sizes, go ahead. All 99% of those who come in this forum care about is the price of their precious. So go ahead, centralize the shit out of it.

That doesn't even make sense, the nodes matter just as much as miners and even then China doesn't hold >50% of the current hashrate.

thepo1m

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

One thing I know is that because it is big doesn't mean is better, I think the problem with some miners is fear of the unknown. I still believe for now SegWit is the best available solution on the table

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: Oznog on March 21, 2017, 10:45:22 AM

The small blockers have already failed.

If they were right, the community would not be divided or talk serious about a hard fork.

segwit = core(blockstream) job security of their Tier network they want. and able to slide in trojans more easily(going "soft will be easier") without node/pool votes due to use of bribes(fee discount) and blackmails(PoW algo changes) to try getting them to that point.

where as dynamics, with simple lines of code changes which many implementations (bar core hesitant group) have already got, allows diverse peers to work with consensus so that they are all on the same playing field where both node and pools have to come to an agreement else it wont change.

Oznog

member

Activity: 65

Merit: 10

The small blockers have already failed.

If they were right, the community would not be divided or talk serious about a hard fork.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

This post really inspired me.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5pcpec/the_debate_is_not_should_the_blocksize_be_1mb/

Let's talk about it.

Topic: the real Bitcoin debate and why the market always wins - page 3. (Read 2069 times)