they will code it in, or else.
or else what?
we don't code for terrorists.
mutiny
Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 18. (Read 157147 times)
or else what?
we don't code for terrorists.
mutiny
At about this time I gave up on the community and sold my coins. If the people driving the decision were functional and worked together, or even if they had been discussing the problem in good faith, I would still be a believer even if block size didn't immediately increase.
You are not taking into consideration the idea that there are actors who actually are trying to destroy Bitcoin. Consider that possibility, and then reevaluate everything, is what I would suggest you do.
Well these actors have left the project. (Mike Hearn & Co)
gavin is still around. so is all the whining XT/classic wannabes.
Yep... exactamente... .. there are a lot of those folks participating in these kinds of threads, spinning facts and acting as if their arguments are completely still alive.. kind of a selective memory and stubborn repetition (in spite of evidence to the contrary)
they will code it in, or else.
or else what?
we don't code for terrorists.
Well i hope antpool stick to its guns and doesn't run segwit code until core makes good on their promise. Core knows 2MB would gain >75% hashing power pretty fast, but they choose to undermine the will of the majority... satoshi would be proud....
The promise was made by a couple of devs at the conference. They weren't there with official Core decision making powers. Even if they do code the hard fork 2mb blocksize increase, there's no guarantee it will obtain "consensus" to be included in Core. Unlikely to reach consensus, making it a rather hollow promise.
they will code it in, or else.
The promise was made by a couple of devs at the conference. They weren't there with official Core decision making powers. Even if they do code the hard fork 2mb blocksize increase, there's no guarantee it will obtain "consensus" to be included in Core. Unlikely to reach consensus, making it a rather hollow promise.
bull crap..
luke JR did not sign the roundtable as Luke JR - 'eligius inventor and general programmer'.. he signed it as a 'bitcoin core contributor'.
Matt Corallo did not sign it as general programmer and bitcoin hobbyist.. he signed it as a 'bitcoin core contributor'.
PEter Todd did not sign it as general programmer and bitcoin hobbyist.. he signed it as a 'bitcoin core contributor'.
Quote
Luke Dashjr
Bitcoin Core Contributor
Matt Corallo
Bitcoin Core Contributor
Peter Todd
Bitcoin Core Contributor
Bitcoin Core Contributor
Matt Corallo
Bitcoin Core Contributor
Peter Todd
Bitcoin Core Contributor
you cant claim to be part of core in the meeting and then weeks later pretend that your decision was based on bitcoin the hobby you do in spare time
Well i hope antpool stick to its guns and doesn't run segwit code until core makes good on their promise. Core knows 2MB would gain >75% hashing power pretty fast, but they choose to undermine the will of the majority... satoshi would be proud....
The promise was made by a couple of devs at the conference. They weren't there with official Core decision making powers. Even if they do code the hard fork 2mb blocksize increase, there's no guarantee it will obtain "consensus" to be included in Core. Unlikely to reach consensus, making it a rather hollow promise.
Well i hope antpool stick to its guns and doesn't run segwit code until core makes good on their promise. Core knows 2MB would gain >75% hashing power pretty fast, but they choose to undermine the will of the majority... satoshi would be proud....
2MBHF Vs SegWit
FIGHT!
FIGHT!
If you don't like what Bitcoin's socioeconomic majority decides then take a cue from Cryddit. IE, stop whining, man up, and go use another socioeconomic majority's alternative Nakamoto Consensus associated coin/token.
It isn't that I don't like what Bitcoin's socioeconomic majority decides.
What I don't like is that they are refusing to even attempt to decide.
If people aren't even willing to work together, this will fail.
Bitcoin no gives fuck. Sorry.
Perfect response to yet more passive-aggressive, bossy, poutraged "Bitcoin and Bitcoiners *MUST* do what *I* prefer RIGHT MEOW, or they are SHIRLEY DOOMED" ragequitters.
Impatiently threatening Honey Badger with "fail" is hilarious, as it shows the extortionist has no clue what antifragility is all about. IE, if Bitcoin can fail due to asinine Process Concern Trolling then it doesn't deserve to exist.
Deciding not to decide is still a decision. After-the-fact quibbling about Process Concerns, just because you don't like the outcome of the process, is pathetic.
Whatever our social ties to and great esteem for Cryddit, the Satoshi's Holy Protocol is Blessedly immune to such sentimental appeals.
Honey Badger is in no way obligated to consider every motion for hard forking put before him.
The SEM can't exceed its legitimate authority with hard fork popularity contests, or else moral hazard ensues.
"I REALLY REALLY want to" isn't a good enough reasons to risk consensus failure in a controversial hard fork.
As Satoshi foretold, the block size will be increased "eventually" but Sorry, Not Tonight Dear.
Quote
It isn't that I don't like what Honey Badger does.
What I don't like is that Honey Badger is refusing to even attempt to give a shit.
If Honey Badger and the cobra/bees/zebra aren't even willing to work together, this will fail.
What I don't like is that Honey Badger is refusing to even attempt to give a shit.
If Honey Badger and the cobra/bees/zebra aren't even willing to work together, this will fail.
Perhaps the fun-loving Dogecoin community is a better fit for Cryddit. Shibes emphasize friendliness and going along to get along, which appears to be his primary Process Concern.
I hope Lou Reed got paid for that. 
I hope not. That would be worse than trading blood diamonds. Willful ignorance is the only right course of action in such matters.
He's an American icon. You're a godless monster. True story.
I hope Lou Reed got paid for that.
I hope not. That would be worse than trading blood diamonds. Willful ignorance is the only right course of action in such matters.
I hope Lou Reed got paid for that.
Wait, I think I found some mistakes in the calculations!
It now seems we can raise the blocksize to 20MB immediately!!
Furthermore, we can double the blocksize every two years!! 8 GigaByte blocks are now the roadmap!!
It's the only answer to saving the community from itself.
It now seems we can raise the blocksize to 20MB immediately!!
Furthermore, we can double the blocksize every two years!! 8 GigaByte blocks are now the roadmap!!
It's the only answer to saving the community from itself.
What an incredibly moronic, toxic community this place has become. All over a disagreement on how bitcoin should scale.
The level of ignorance, vitriol and fanaticism being displayed here is rather disheartening to say the least.
Those who support bigger blocks should not be treated with disrespect merely for supporting Satoshi's original vision for on-chain scaling procedures.
The level of ignorance, vitriol and fanaticism being displayed here is rather disheartening to say the least.
Those who support bigger blocks should not be treated with disrespect merely for supporting Satoshi's original vision for on-chain scaling procedures.
Good for you, Marky Mark!
Glad to have you onboard!
Finally some progress!
Edit: Welcome to the Wildside!
Wait, I think I found some mistakes in the calculations!
It now seems we can raise the blocksize to 20MB immediately!!
Furthermore, we can double the blocksize every two years!! 8 GigaByte blocks are now the roadmap!!
It's the only answer to saving the community from itself.
It now seems we can raise the blocksize to 20MB immediately!!
Furthermore, we can double the blocksize every two years!! 8 GigaByte blocks are now the roadmap!!
It's the only answer to saving the community from itself.
What an incredibly moronic, toxic community this place has become. All over a disagreement on how bitcoin should scale.
The level of ignorance, vitriol and fanaticism being displayed here is rather disheartening to say the least.
Those who support bigger blocks should not be treated with disrespect merely for supporting Satoshi's original vision for on-chain scaling procedures.
The level of ignorance, vitriol and fanaticism being displayed here is rather disheartening to say the least.
Those who support bigger blocks should not be treated with disrespect merely for supporting Satoshi's original vision for on-chain scaling procedures.
If you don't like what Bitcoin's socioeconomic majority decides then take a cue from Cryddit. IE, stop whining, man up, and go use another socioeconomic majority's alternative Nakamoto Consensus associated coin/token.
It isn't that I don't like what Bitcoin's socioeconomic majority decides.
What I don't like is that they are refusing to even attempt to decide.
If people aren't even willing to work together, this will fail.
The way I see it:
If people had to be willing to work together for this thing to work it would already have failed. I agree if this was a political party I probably wouldn't eat the cake. But it isn't that. It's more like fungus. I think.
If you don't like what Bitcoin's socioeconomic majority decides then take a cue from Cryddit. IE, stop whining, man up, and go use another socioeconomic majority's alternative Nakamoto Consensus associated coin/token.
It isn't that I don't like what Bitcoin's socioeconomic majority decides.
What I don't like is that they are refusing to even attempt to decide.
If people aren't even willing to work together, this will fail.
Bitcoin no gives fuck. Sorry.
to the classic HF shills: must be tiring to be shunned and dismissed for so long.
Yes. It has been. But the ordeal has not so far exceeded our stamina.
Cheers!
If you don't like what Bitcoin's socioeconomic majority decides then take a cue from Cryddit. IE, stop whining, man up, and go use another socioeconomic majority's alternative Nakamoto Consensus associated coin/token.
It isn't that I don't like what Bitcoin's socioeconomic majority decides.
What I don't like is that they are refusing to even attempt to decide.
If people aren't even willing to work together, this will fail.
What an incredibly moronic, toxic community this place has become. All over a disagreement on how bitcoin should scale.
There is no reason to tell someone who disagrees with you to go use another coin. That is incredibly immature and divisive... I can only conclude that this community is made up of a mixture of zealots who want to prove themselves right at all costs and asinine morons. Or so it seems from the last 20 pages of this thread or so.
The level of ignorance, vitriol and fanaticism being displayed here is rather disheartening to say the least.
Those who support bigger blocks should not be treated with disrespect merely for supporting Satoshi's original vision for on-chain scaling procedures.
There is no reason to tell someone who disagrees with you to go use another coin. That is incredibly immature and divisive... I can only conclude that this community is made up of a mixture of zealots who want to prove themselves right at all costs and asinine morons. Or so it seems from the last 20 pages of this thread or so.
The level of ignorance, vitriol and fanaticism being displayed here is rather disheartening to say the least.
Those who support bigger blocks should not be treated with disrespect merely for supporting Satoshi's original vision for on-chain scaling procedures.
Yeah.... that.
Jump to: