Pfft. I'm not going to mislead people by failing to call it what it is-- going to have some secret meeting where you are massively outnumbered with no strong negotiator on your side where you let yourself get compelled to commit to random things which are either largely meaningless or violate other people's trust and confidence in you (or, in fact, commitments you made to others before leaving) is a truly foolish move, if not quite "publicly endorsing scammer-wright" grade.
It's not the end of the world, people screw up, shit happens, goes on on-- but someone here asked the question as to why Luke was going around polling segments of the community what kind of hardforks they'd find acceptable, and that is why. It is a disappointment because its likely to exacerbate and prolong some drama which could otherwise be largely over now.
Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 36. (Read 157147 times)
but they are 'well meaning' too y know.. like if it could bring you any confort in such a meanie weeny world.
Gregory calling Adam, Luke, and Peter dipshits...
Link? Hadn't seen this one. That's too bad, if so. All people I hold in very high regard. I suspect he was more civil than you're making it out to be, though.
For the scrolling impaired:
It's just that a couple of well meaning dipshits went to China a few months back to learn and educate about the issues and managed to let themselves get locked in a room until 3-4 am until they would personally agree to propose some hardfork after segwit. They're now struggling to accomplish the seemingly impossible task of upholding their agreement (even though it was made under duress and even though f2pool immediately violated it) while obeying their personal convictions and without losing the respect of the technical community. All this struggle is based on the mistaken idea that anyone external to the project cares what they personally committed to work on...
I think it's a shame, since with Wright's fraud behind us, I think the biggest behind the scenes driver of this drama is likely gone. But one should never under-estimate the bitcoin community's ability to keep cutting itself even after the external assaults tone down.
I think it's a shame, since with Wright's fraud behind us, I think the biggest behind the scenes driver of this drama is likely gone. But one should never under-estimate the bitcoin community's ability to keep cutting itself even after the external assaults tone down.
He's right you know, played right into the hands of those pesky miners...
Gregory calling Adam, Luke, and Peter dipshits...
Link? Hadn't seen this one. That's too bad, if so. All people I hold in very high regard. I suspect he was more civil than you're making it out to be, though.
Next drama in sight... because bitcoin isnt funny without fud and division.
So to be precise, the hard fork plan is only to reassure "the-throwing-VC-money-and-bossing-around-industry" control freaks that they can manage it.
Code:
asciilifeform: $up luke-jr
deedbot: luke-jr voiced for 30 minutes.
asciilifeform: what brings you here luke-jr ?
luke-jr: so we're discussing whether we can get consensus for a hardfork with the community here
luke-jr: is there any possibility of that, or is it just impossible?
asciilifeform: luke-jr: what's in your hardfork ?
luke-jr: asciilifeform: not sure yet; ideally, only things that everyone thinks are acceptable (including people here)
asciilifeform: well nobody can answer this mega-question until the concretes are given, neh ?
luke-jr: (unreasonable people demand we support 2 MB old transactions)
asciilifeform: normally folks going hard-forking have some specific idea of why...
[b]luke-jr: asciilifeform: to show the industry that a hardfork and consensus is a possible thing[/b]
mircea_popescu: luke-jr do your reading.
mircea_popescu: also, please don't refer to tmsr as "a community". it is not "a community", it is your liege.
shinohai makes popcorn
luke-jr: asciilifeform: things I'd like to see in it would be merged mining, additional inputs to the generation transaction, and maybe fix block withholding
mircea_popescu: $down luke-jr
mircea_popescu: as the romanian expression goes, prostu' parca nu-i destul daca nu e si fudul.
http://btcbase.org/log/2016-05-12deedbot: luke-jr voiced for 30 minutes.
asciilifeform: what brings you here luke-jr ?
luke-jr: so we're discussing whether we can get consensus for a hardfork with the community here
luke-jr: is there any possibility of that, or is it just impossible?
asciilifeform: luke-jr: what's in your hardfork ?
luke-jr: asciilifeform: not sure yet; ideally, only things that everyone thinks are acceptable (including people here)
asciilifeform: well nobody can answer this mega-question until the concretes are given, neh ?
luke-jr: (unreasonable people demand we support 2 MB old transactions)
asciilifeform: normally folks going hard-forking have some specific idea of why...
[b]luke-jr: asciilifeform: to show the industry that a hardfork and consensus is a possible thing[/b]
mircea_popescu: luke-jr do your reading.
mircea_popescu: also, please don't refer to tmsr as "a community". it is not "a community", it is your liege.
shinohai makes popcorn
luke-jr: asciilifeform: things I'd like to see in it would be merged mining, additional inputs to the generation transaction, and maybe fix block withholding
mircea_popescu: $down luke-jr
mircea_popescu: as the romanian expression goes, prostu' parca nu-i destul daca nu e si fudul.
So to be precise, the hard fork plan is only to reassure "the-throwing-VC-money-and-bossing-around-industry" control freaks that they can manage it.
That's disappointing to hear. I'm getting tired of people giving a shit about the industry. Companies are born, they adapt, most die. I don't give a fuck about them. Their interests are NOT our interests. Do what is best for bitcoin. Fuck pandering to companies like Coinbase or Circle or Bitpay.
Because he’s Canadian. They’re instigators. 
Don't hate on Canadians. Gregory calling Adam, Luke, and Peter dipshits...
Well, you do realize that they played right into some peoples hand? Maxwell just strongly disagrees with that agreement I assume (actually not with the agreed details, but actually the agreement itself).You forgot to mention:
As soon as the news about CW, inside the speculation section:"Satoshi dump 1 million bitcoin". - Bankster Trolls hit new lows in attempting to control the narrative, such as they're incapable of affecting Bitcoin in any other way
The last thing I saw that puzzled me a bit is theymos saying that the best solution to solve the potential quantum attack against the old addresses in the future might be destroying said bitcoins. I think this is a mistake and may be used by classic camp to re-ignite the already stagnating fire
He probably said something to the effect of allowing a very lengthy duration (several-years long) of owners to move the coins to QC-protected addresses or something, and IF that hasn't happened in said time then the coins might become unspendable.
Edit: found it
So if we somehow learn that people will be able to start breaking ECDSA-protected addresses in 5 years (for example), two softforks should be rolled out now:
One softfork, which would activate ASAP, would assign an OP_NOP to OP_LAMPORT (or whatever QC-resistant crypto will be used). Everyone would be urged to send all of their bitcoins to new OP_LAMPORT-protected addresses.
One softfork set to trigger in 5 years would convert OP_CHECKSIG to OP_RETURN, destroying all coins protected by OP_CHECKSIG. People would have until then to move their BTC to secure addresses. Anyone who fails to do so would almost certainly have lost their money due to the ECDSA failure anyway -- the number of people who lose additional BTC would be very low. (There might be a whitelist of UTXOs protected by one-time-use addresses, which would remain secure for a long time.)
...the fact that it was presented in a totally different way is not very surprising really.
You forgot to mention:
But you were right about one thing, today is a great day in light of how Bitcoin is developing
- Bankster Trolls hit new lows in attempting to control the narrative, such as they're incapable of affecting Bitcoin in any other way
But you were right about one thing, today is a great day in light of how Bitcoin is developing
Next drama in sight... because bitcoin isnt funny without fud and division.
So to be precise, the hard fork plan is only to reassure "the-throwing-VC-money-and-bossing-around-industry" control freaks that they can manage it.
Code:
asciilifeform: $up luke-jr
deedbot: luke-jr voiced for 30 minutes.
asciilifeform: what brings you here luke-jr ?
luke-jr: so we're discussing whether we can get consensus for a hardfork with the community here
luke-jr: is there any possibility of that, or is it just impossible?
asciilifeform: luke-jr: what's in your hardfork ?
luke-jr: asciilifeform: not sure yet; ideally, only things that everyone thinks are acceptable (including people here)
asciilifeform: well nobody can answer this mega-question until the concretes are given, neh ?
luke-jr: (unreasonable people demand we support 2 MB old transactions)
asciilifeform: normally folks going hard-forking have some specific idea of why...
luke-jr: asciilifeform: to show the industry that a hardfork and consensus is a possible thing
mircea_popescu: luke-jr do your reading.
mircea_popescu: also, please don't refer to tmsr as "a community". it is not "a community", it is your liege.
shinohai makes popcorn
luke-jr: asciilifeform: things I'd like to see in it would be merged mining, additional inputs to the generation transaction, and maybe fix block withholding
mircea_popescu: $down luke-jr
mircea_popescu: as the romanian expression goes, prostu' parca nu-i destul daca nu e si fudul.
http://btcbase.org/log/2016-05-12deedbot: luke-jr voiced for 30 minutes.
asciilifeform: what brings you here luke-jr ?
luke-jr: so we're discussing whether we can get consensus for a hardfork with the community here
luke-jr: is there any possibility of that, or is it just impossible?
asciilifeform: luke-jr: what's in your hardfork ?
luke-jr: asciilifeform: not sure yet; ideally, only things that everyone thinks are acceptable (including people here)
asciilifeform: well nobody can answer this mega-question until the concretes are given, neh ?
luke-jr: (unreasonable people demand we support 2 MB old transactions)
asciilifeform: normally folks going hard-forking have some specific idea of why...
luke-jr: asciilifeform: to show the industry that a hardfork and consensus is a possible thing
mircea_popescu: luke-jr do your reading.
mircea_popescu: also, please don't refer to tmsr as "a community". it is not "a community", it is your liege.
shinohai makes popcorn
luke-jr: asciilifeform: things I'd like to see in it would be merged mining, additional inputs to the generation transaction, and maybe fix block withholding
mircea_popescu: $down luke-jr
mircea_popescu: as the romanian expression goes, prostu' parca nu-i destul daca nu e si fudul.
So to be precise, the hard fork plan is only to reassure "the-throwing-VC-money-and-bossing-around-industry" control freaks that they can manage it.
Seeing Luke grovel like a fool in front of Mircea and his handful of irc lackeys...
Gregory calling Adam, Luke, and Peter dipshits...
The JJG infection spreading and metastasizing in iCE's very own treehouse...
*Advocates of Bitcoin's Great Purge unfazed as their arguments are reduced to hurling accusations of "Bankster Trolls!"
Does this day get any more perversely satisfying?
inb4 classic dramaqueers be like: "hard fork was the plan all along but it didnt happen because core devs lied and so bitcoin will fail. dooooom!"
In essence, neither a hard fork nor a 2 mg size limit needs to happen at this time, and really the hong kong agreement seemed to be pretty good to generally address the issue and to keep the framework generally vague enough in order to allow for flexibility and assessment.
Technically, bitcoin has been working fine, and really it is likely going to take a while to see how the implementation of seg wit plays out and accordingly whether an actual hard increase to the blocksize limit is necessary... in spite of all the shouting asserting that such a limit increase is absolutely necessary.
It seems that the passage of time has shown that the blocksize limit situation is not as bad as the naysayer big blockers have been asserting, and the Wright shenanigans has also played out as kind of a big blocker alliance and some discrediting of some big blockers to show their bad judgement, including Gavin.
I think Peter Todd would likely agree that he's a dipshit. But well meaning?
Why is that?Because he’s Canadian. They’re instigators.
I think Peter Todd would likely agree that he's a dipshit. But well meaning?
Why is that?He vows to write the code by july 2016, whether the community accepts his proposal or not is a completely different matter.
Some users seemed to think (or still think) that what the agreed to meant that the proposal would be accepted instantly by Core and/or the community. Neither one is true and I have been trying to correct anyone who states that ever since the agreement was signed. There is no guarantee for any kind of consensus for that proposal. It's just that a couple of well meaning dipshits went to China a few months back to learn and educate about the issues and managed to let themselves get locked in a room until 3-4 am until they would personally agree to propose some hardfork after segwit.
-snip-
Isn't the wording used here a bit too harsh? I do wonder how their proposal is going to look like though.-snip-
Harsh , but form some of lukes recent comments he is probably calling himself that as he regrets the honest effort he made to bring consensus to the community. He vows to write the code by july 2016, whether the community accepts his proposal or not is a completely different matter.
inb4 classic dramaqueers be like: "hard fork was the plan all along but it didnt happen because core devs lied and so bitcoin will fail. dooooom!"
I think things are going slowly back to normal or at least to more healthy environment. When I open reddit I don't see the frontpage being flooded with block size threads anymore, and not even Craig Wright stories which is a very recent event. I think things are looking great and core dev continue making a good job. The last thing I saw that puzzled me a bit is theymos saying that the best solution to solve the potential quantum attack against the old addresses in the future might be destroying said bitcoins. I think this is a mistake and may be used by classic camp to re-ignite the already stagnating fire. Then again I dont know the details and feel like im missing something so I would like some sort of explanation. If there is a way to change the algorithm and make those old addresses safe why would he say this?
It would be interesting to know gmax view on this thing.
It would be interesting to know gmax view on this thing.
Dunno Lauda re: drama, having stepped away for a short while, more 2MB2MB2MB chatter is becoming less coherent by the day. I heard someone say the other day, "oh, are they still beating that dead horse?".
I wasn't really talking specifically about '2MB block size drama'. I was talking more in the lines of general drama,nof which I'm sure that we will see more.It's just that a couple of well meaning dipshits went to China a few months back to learn and educate about the issues and managed to let themselves get locked in a room until 3-4 am until they would personally agree to propose some hardfork after segwit.
-snip-
Isn't the wording used here a bit too harsh? I do wonder how their proposal is going to look like though.-snip-
But one should never under-estimate the bitcoin community's ability to keep cutting itself even after the external assaults tone down.
Nor the people behind the shill campaigns.I think Peter Todd would likely agree that he's a dipshit. But well meaning?
Dunno Lauda re: drama, having stepped away for a short while, more 2MB2MB2MB chatter is becoming less coherent by the day. I heard someone say the other day, "oh, are they still beating that dead horse?".
I wasn't really talking specifically about '2MB block size drama'. I was talking more in the lines of general drama,nof which I'm sure that we will see more.It's just that a couple of well meaning dipshits went to China a few months back to learn and educate about the issues and managed to let themselves get locked in a room until 3-4 am until they would personally agree to propose some hardfork after segwit.
-snip-
Isn't the wording used here a bit too harsh? I do wonder how their proposal is going to look like though.-snip-
But one should never under-estimate the bitcoin community's ability to keep cutting itself even after the external assaults tone down.
Nor the people behind the shill campaigns.
It's just that a couple of well meaning dipshits went to China a few months back to learn and educate about the issues and managed to let themselves get locked in a room until 3-4 am until they would personally agree to propose some hardfork after segwit. They're now struggling to accomplish the seemingly impossible task of upholding their agreement (even though it was made under duress and even though f2pool immediately violated it) while obeying their personal convictions and without losing the respect of the technical community. All this struggle is based on the mistaken idea that anyone external to the project cares what they personally committed to work on...
I think it's a shame, since with Wright's fraud behind us, I think the biggest behind the scenes driver of this drama is likely gone. But one should never under-estimate the bitcoin community's ability to keep cutting itself even after the external assaults tone down.
I think it's a shame, since with Wright's fraud behind us, I think the biggest behind the scenes driver of this drama is likely gone. But one should never under-estimate the bitcoin community's ability to keep cutting itself even after the external assaults tone down.
As luke admits it, the fork only aims at showing "the industry that a hardfork and consensus is a possible thing".
It has never been about blocksize or anything but governance.
If only it was for some security reason, surely a HF would have naturally be adopted, yet here the situation is different and only serves the marketing purpose of parasitic corporations interests.
It has never been about blocksize or anything but governance.
If only it was for some security reason, surely a HF would have naturally be adopted, yet here the situation is different and only serves the marketing purpose of parasitic corporations interests.
Dunno Lauda re: drama, having stepped away for a short while, more 2MB2MB2MB chatter is becoming less coherent by the day. I heard someone say the other day, "oh, are they still beating that dead horse?". Desperation begets desperation, sadly. It's a little embarrassing to watch, which is why I've begun to mostly ignore it. Suffering is undignified, either displaying it or watching it happen. Let it die in peace.
Jump to: