Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 87. (Read 157137 times)

You conveniently forget all 1054 "ToominCoin-aka-"Bitcoin_Classic"-#R3KT" nodes

XT is history, but BU is about to have a new release with Xtreme Thinblocks and
broadcast block acceptance settings.
We'll probably see an update in the metrics then.

Behold! Here sits your inside-man. Insidious, flip-flopping, a poison to the community. Shun him. Notice the lean and hungry look, the squinty eyes, the cheap shirt. Learn the signs. Such men are dangerous.

Bitcoin Unlimited is an even smashier trainwreck than XT or Classic by any metric which matters; node count, adoption, user or developer support. This is not some Disney movie where supporting the plucky underdog leads to some heartwarming ending. Bitcoin is a crucible in which bad ideas are quickly revealed and rejected. By supporting demonstrably failed ideas, you become a hindrance and timewaster. Present fresh alternative ideas if you're so determined to play devil's advocate.


So only a hardfork can save us from inevitable doom, comparative risks and rewards be damned? And you base this assertion on nothing but your own certainty? Misguided zealotry.


Well if falling node counts are what you call progress, then no wonder you support datacentre-only gigablox. By this measure, XT and Unlimited are leading the field, down to about 100 and 54 nodes respectively.


Endless and increasingly heated talk gets us nowhere. Miners and developers have reached consensus on the way forward and the market clearly approves. What you might think of this situation is of little interest to anyone else.


I believe Lauda already requested that you stop quoting Satoshi out of context and I would echo this. Nothing said there supports your position, in fact you just shot yourself in the foot. Satoshi correctly predicted that mining would go to big server farms (albeit with ASIC hardware) but with advancements like SegWit, pruning and sidechains on the horizon, there's still space for validating nodes between light wallet users and miners. But more germane is Satoshi's envisioned solution for fast microtransactions, which he links to:

"I believe it'll be possible for a payment processing company to provide as a service the rapid distribution of transactions with good-enough checking in something like 10 seconds or less."

Surely Satoshi would be happy with the faster, cheaper, safer and more decentalised version of this, ie. the Lightning Network. His quote demonstrates that it was known since at least 2010 that, rather than blocksize increases, additional layers were the best solution to processing many small, quick transactions.

Doubling the block creation rate would appear to be a simpler option than doubling the blocksize. It also addresses the issue of underpopulated blocks, and that a delay of 20 minutes can occur if a selfish miner decides to publish an unpopulated block. The 20 minute delay also applies if two blocks have  less than 50% population.

If we can agree that we do not know this we have progress, that is good, even if we have different theories on technological progress it is irrelevant as long as we can agree to scale according to the technological limits that exist today.

I can explain my position better, first of all I think it might be good to recognize in our discussions that we have a difference of vision, which means we often have opposite perspectives on some things, this both visions can live together narrative I think does rely on this acknowledgement and understanding.

First of all because of the complexity of Segwit agreement will be difficult to find, in principle I do actually like SegWit I would like to see it implemented. It is just some of the specifics that I disagree with, like the way that it discounts certain transaction types, not a discussion I think we should get into here but my point being is that a simple blocksize increase is much easier for everyone to agree with. I also would like to see much more review and critique of the segwit code before it is implemented which would require a much longer time period, I would also want it to be implemented as a hard fork. As you can see there are numerous differences of opinion on segwit whereas most people should be able to agree with a two megabyte blocksize increase in its entirety. Because there are less variables and less controversy at play.

There is also the timing that is involved, our differences of vision is important to consider here. I think it is damaging to adoption to have this uncertainty around scaling. Furthermore I think that the blocksize limit should be significantly above avarage transaction volume, we are already far passed that point, I would have liked to have seen a blocksize increase earlier, so any further delays are obviously in conflict with this perspective. Whether you agree with it or not the big blockist consider the current situation to be hurting adoption and dire if there is a sudden spike in transaction volume, keep in mind that some small blocksist want the blocks to be full in general and the big blockists consider this to be undesirable, try and appreciate the other sides perspective that way it will be more likely that we will be able to reach a good compromise.

Segwit also just does not achieve enough of a throughput to be a satisfactory compromise, considering there is also much disagreement over how much of a throughput benefit Segwit will give has also been debated, since it also relies on the speed of adoption of those transaction types. This is just another example why a blocksize increase to two megabytes is a much simpler solution that everyone can agree with and be happy with for now.

Another point, which I think is not relevant right now to constructing a viable narrative for both visions living together in peace and cooperation. Is that it is important that we both agree to scale Bitcoin directly according to the technological limitations that exists today, however we might disagree on what the technological limitations of today are, since this still involves value judgements in terms of what we consider to be the lower threshold. However for now we can at least both agree that two megabytes is possible, it is something that both sides can agree with. Which means we can continue without a split. This is important, I do not think it is worth endangering this possible peace because of the preference of deploying segwit first by the small blockist camp.

Like I said, I suppose it is not enough of a compromise, Segwit now is controversial and contested for the reasons that I have already explained. Which does not make it ideal for building consensus. I also do not think it should be rushed, which most big blockists now consider necessary, I am sure Core is also feeling the pressure to release Segwit in time, I do not think that this is conductive to the production of quality code. Blocksize increase first would immediately gain consensus across most camps and it would achieve a higher throughput, I do not see any reason why not to do this since it would relieve a lot of pressure on this entire situation.

I agree the second layer does not damage these principles at all which is why I think these visions can live side by side for now, until most likely time teaches us both the best path. However not increasing the blocksize in favor of the second layer does damage these principles in the first layer. Specifically cost and I would argue censorship resistance and decentralization, however I know you would disagree on these last two points, which we can with this narrative of both visions existing together.

I think adoption is important for increasing the node count which relates back to the blocksize, I realize this is a push and pull relationship but this is how I perceive it and why I think increasing the blocksize is what is best for decentralization.

Its funny I suspect most sincere people on both sides suspect the other side of being a government conspiracy.

This is better, I agree, I am pleased we are at least finding some common ground here. This is how real compromises can be build and come to be understood. May I dare say it we are actually having a more civil discussion here.

I think I might take that as a compliment, there are certain people here that I just choose not to respond to anymore, that I bother to discuss this with you in the first place you can take as a compliment as well.

People are being overly concerned and paranoid about "too many" chinese mining operations. In 5-10 years concentrated mining in china will be a distant memory, another interesting quirk from bitcoin's mining development history like the video gamers and their GPUS of 2011.

alpaca sock puppets as far as the eye can see.

Sorry, now you've lost me.

As, according to the game, there is only one correct solution, I will assume you mean that my analogies are the only correct solutions to the questions posed. 

Your analogies are akin to a grid of 81 squares. The grid is divided into nine blocks, each containing nine squares. The rules of the game are simple: each of the nine blocks has to contain all the numbers 1-9 within its squares. Each number can only appear once in a row, column or box.

And ain't nobody got time for that.

That's akin to saying the US government and Fed can't force the dollar on the citizens. It is true, US citizens can trade in whatever they want. However, that doesn't mitigate the fact that the dollar is centrally controlled by the US government and Fed.

Similarly, bitcoin is controlled by a small group of Chinese miners and core devs, as the recent meeting where a complete fork of the blockchain was determined clearly shows. A small group of people centrally control the entire thing.

The fact that bitcoin is centrally controlled is actually a good thing for bitcoin. There exists a group that can determine what changes to make going forward. If a hard limit on the number of bitcoins isn't workable because it doesn't make enough for the miners, the cap could be lifted. If mining inflation is too low, it could be increased, etc. Any changes to the spec that needs to be made can be made, regardless of user consensus.

The fact that the vast majority of mining power is comprised of Chinese companies and the fact that China's government is completely corrupt is not a good thing. Tomorrow, each of those Chinese bitcoin miners could disappear and a state controlled operator could silently appear in their place. It happens all the time.

Let's stay on topic.

Here, I'll help:



https://twitter.com/olivierjanss/status/701840455873519617

Olivier Janssens is such an asshat.

Not only does he put up an opt-out list of fake Classic support, his bigotry feeds the asinine Marxist SJW "LibertAryans" meme.

LOL

I'll attempt to increase the entertainment quotient in future posts.

I read the article and it seemed to prove my point. Now everybody thinks everybody else is a sock pushing an agenda.

For the sake of truth, I have quoted your post.

All POVs are welcome here.  Shitposting is not^*.

^*You may act the fool if it provides sufficient entertainment value.   

You are welcome to post here precisely because you offered to leave if asked (classy!) and do an excellent job representing Team Gavinista.

It is instructive for lurkers to see Lauda, etc. dismantling and debunking your skewed analysis and fevered imaginings.  

I am deleting franky's shit posts (Camus refs notwithstanding).  I warned him not to say "community" again, and already asked him to leave this thread and never return.

If you are of the historian persuasion, please make some topical submissions to our scholarly efforts over at the Great Schism Compendium thread.

Don't worry about my sensor ships, it is there to document both (all?) sides' perspectives on events, as they unfold and in their precipitating causal/analytical/philosophic linkages.

Should we rename the thread to "Franky1 #R3KT"?

That's one of the tactics used by whoever is doing this. I've made a thread about a good article.

No, I don't think so. They deleted my posts because I think this whole topic is silly and I was acting a fool and they deleted your posts because you are a fool and everyone thinks you're full of shit.

There are a lot of corporations on the honey bagder teet now (too many for my liking). No matter what side of the debate you're on or what way you're bent, you'll find yourself called a shill at some point. I went from being considered a Coinbase shill to a Blockstream shill to a CBGB agent provocateur all in one week.

I don't know when exactly we all turned into a bunch of paranoid loons. But it isn't helping.

its funny that you delete posts.. because what i was saying was right and you dont want others to read it