Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
Difficulty is adjusting in about 9 hours. I guess we'll have 20k+ transactions in mempool in 30 hours.
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
This isn't what I want. I want a Bitcoin without an artificial 1MB block size limit.
Unlimited would be best, but I have seen how even very smart people can fail to grasp its concept for a long time, so I don't expect people to warm to it as rapidly as I'd like.
Waiter, my peer and I'll take two big blocks of adaptive size a la BitPay, one of them with POW sauce and one without. Both with extra DNS seeds, spiced to easy difficulty, and forks please, no chopsticks. Toot sweet.
Ok. I will leave then. To me This probably feels similar to the way you feel about the moderation policy on /r/bitcoin, which I never fully agreed with.
The only bit of advice I want to repeat again, is that I witnessed miners reject Classic by the narrowest of margins, whether you like it or not, the reason for the rejection was the fact Classic locks in 25% opposition at the time of activation. If you want 2MB in Bitcoin, change the activation methodology and you will win.
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
No, not even close. Try banning, shaddow-banning (even worse), abuse, vote-hiding and vote manipulation.
i'd bet that's just your interpretation of why they went along with Kore. it's probably much more complex than that and has to do with a "kickback" sentiment to a great extent.
I asked you twice: How are you measuring strong consensus? What better idea do you have than the current 1000 block moving window?
I'm glad to say I understand the strong-consensus view much better now, and also why it naturally pairs with
This is novel because before I had assumed these ideas go together mainly because of tribal affiliation and authority. "If you buy into the Core/BS sales pitch, you swallow it all." But in fact there seems to be a natural flow of one idea to the next, so that the pieces of the worldview are mutually reinforcing. There is also a special reason why authority from Core would hold undue sway.
As most of us here had expected, it seems to stem from a lack of understanding of markets/money/investing/economics/politics and hyperfocus on code (except the realities of open source). However, within its framework of missing those nuances, the logic makes sense. This is the new thing I have learned from @jonny1000. Let me sketch the story as I understand it (I know several of these don't reflect @jonny1000's views):
● a preference for small blocks ("settlement system," upper layer scaling)
● a desire to stick with Core
● the reason that any token decentralization of development is incongruously sought through governance within Core (rather than competition among implementations - and why small blockists are always emphasizing forkwise compatible implementations, the reverse giving them heart attacks)
● a lack of concern about things like RBF
● why the centrally capped blocksize cannot be regarded as a temporary kludge
● even why Theymos would suddenly switch to censorship in spite of his libertarian politics and normally casual, hands-off demeanor
● a desire to stick with Core
● the reason that any token decentralization of development is incongruously sought through governance within Core (rather than competition among implementations - and why small blockists are always emphasizing forkwise compatible implementations, the reverse giving them heart attacks)
● a lack of concern about things like RBF
● why the centrally capped blocksize cannot be regarded as a temporary kludge
● even why Theymos would suddenly switch to censorship in spite of his libertarian politics and normally casual, hands-off demeanor
This is novel because before I had assumed these ideas go together mainly because of tribal affiliation and authority. "If you buy into the Core/BS sales pitch, you swallow it all." But in fact there seems to be a natural flow of one idea to the next, so that the pieces of the worldview are mutually reinforcing. There is also a special reason why authority from Core would hold undue sway.
As most of us here had expected, it seems to stem from a lack of understanding of markets/money/investing/economics/politics and hyperfocus on code (except the realities of open source). However, within its framework of missing those nuances, the logic makes sense. This is the new thing I have learned from @jonny1000. Let me sketch the story as I understand it (I know several of these don't reflect @jonny1000's views):
Bitcoin was created. It attracted a bunch of people who thought, "This is awesome. Money that is democratically governed so that no central bankers can control it. We control it, through our consensus. We basically all have to agree for the rules to be changed. That is what makes it work."
"There is no need for governance besides just having a good neutral maintainer, which is just a clerical job, because the only things we need to change are block rules that we can - and have to anyway - all agree on, so we don't need competing implementations (except for robustness, and so "the code is the spec" is not a big deal). Decentralization of development is unimportant, because since we all have to be in agreement anyway, nothing silly can be forced on us; someone would veto it. Thus the maintainer's job is just a formality. This is what protects us from dangerous big blocks and changes to the 21M coin limit alike. Consensus is what makes Bitcoin tick. "
"Ah but there can be innovation and adaptiveness, too, because there are only some basic rules about block validity and everything else can be built on top. Large blocksize is pointless because it's just a settlement layer. It wouldn't even really help anything much in the long term, and there is potentially big decentralization risk. You can have your huge throughput, just use upper-layer solutions. It'll way outstrip any big block coin."
"The resulting artificial fee market driving people away to altcoins is no problem, because luckily LN and sidechains will soon be here to save the day. Plus any coin going the big-block route must fail eventually, even if it were to trump Bitcoin for a while among some fools."
"A stopgap measure in the meantime you say? Ethereum threatening to take over? Segwit will tide us over long enough. Plus we have the Bitcoin wizards. Their work can be forked, but we have the lead in network effect and the best crypto devs in the world, so no one can really ape us for long [and maybe we can obfuscate the code if necessary]."
"Fidelity effect? Delaying the next big rally? Patience, young Padawan. Even if there are big profits to be made in the short term by raising the cap, and even if an altcoin can take over, rushing ahead with kludgey on-chain scaling would be start down the path of doom. We could do it, but we should be disciplined and save it for an absolute last resort. If we lose a few investors in the meantime, we'll just buy up their cheap coins and they can buy them back at higher prices once they rush back in when LN is ready. In the end we have to just hope altcoins can't take over while we roll out the best tech in the business."
"Bitcoin Classic? It's an attack on Bitcoin and must be stopped at all costs! Because it would ruin strong consensus with its 75% threshold. Some of us can buy that 2MB would get us a little more breathing room as we wait for LN, but not at the cost of completely destroying Bitcoin, you dummies!"
"And XT? Horrifying! A sure death for Bitcoin as it locks in the path to 8GB. You say we can just fork again if we decide that's too big? No! Don't you realize that even if we somehow tragically got strong consensus for this because it was somehow pushed through by the unthinking Free Shit Army, what if we couldn't get strong consensus to stop it?? We'd be putting Bitcoin on a nearly irreversible course of doom. Anyway, hard forks need to be absolutely minimized, because each hard fork loses us precious credibility if we lose or piss off 5% of bitcoiners at a time even with 95% consensus. We definitely cannot be hardforking routinely and getting 'practice' at it like we practice our golf swing. Every hard fork is almost akin to mild genocide or triage."
"So you guys are fools to think you'll ever get this to slide by in the first place, but we'll censor you anyway because allowing anyone to trick the masses into this move, which sounds so reasonable but is really poison, would destroy the great protector of Bitcoin: rational strong consensus. Theymos hates censorship, but it's better than seeing Bitcoin die. He has declared a state of emergency, with special prohibitions on altcoin discussion and also any criticism of Core devs, because we need guidance from the experts during these dark times... all because of that traitor Mike Hearn and his populist protégé Gavin. This too shall pass." (The goalposts on "consensus" constantly shift because it was a subjective, probably partly subconscious assumption of people who were moved by this "democratic" approach.)
"Remember, all forks that change the block validation are altcoins. Sure they don't wipe the ledger clean like most altcoins, but they might as well do so because if people think of them as Bitcoin they threaten to destroy strong consensus, the very bedrock on which Bitcoin rests! But actually, if these altcoins gain enough support that a strong consensus of users want them, they become Bitcoin because essentially, strong consensus is Bitcoin." (This is exactly what Theymos said when he started his censoring campaign. He said without consensus XT is an altcoin, but if it gets consensus it becomes the new Bitcoin whether he or other small blockists like it or not. It wasn't a rejection of XT so much as a rejection of its method, coupled with a sort of resigned disapproval of the scaling schedule itself. Had XT required 95% I don't think Theymos would have wanted to censor it, at least as long as it still wasn't that popular. He was against the method, because it destroys "Strongius Consensius, the god of Bitcoin.")
ForkiusMaximus is of course diametrically opposed to Strongius Consensius, but now he understands the internal logic of the worldview, how and why it holds together and mutually reinforces. His priors for "bad faith" and deliberate chicanery on the part of Core/BS/Theymos are now lower. The path to convince these people may be clearer. Strongius Consensius must be shown to be a false idol. The real story is much more fluid and robust, thankfully. (Gosh, this narrative even explains why many of the Strongius Consensius adherents are not very bullish. If I thought Bitcoin was that rigid and fragile, I wouldn't buy much BTC either.)"There is no need for governance besides just having a good neutral maintainer, which is just a clerical job, because the only things we need to change are block rules that we can - and have to anyway - all agree on, so we don't need competing implementations (except for robustness, and so "the code is the spec" is not a big deal). Decentralization of development is unimportant, because since we all have to be in agreement anyway, nothing silly can be forced on us; someone would veto it. Thus the maintainer's job is just a formality. This is what protects us from dangerous big blocks and changes to the 21M coin limit alike. Consensus is what makes Bitcoin tick. "
"Ah but there can be innovation and adaptiveness, too, because there are only some basic rules about block validity and everything else can be built on top. Large blocksize is pointless because it's just a settlement layer. It wouldn't even really help anything much in the long term, and there is potentially big decentralization risk. You can have your huge throughput, just use upper-layer solutions. It'll way outstrip any big block coin."
"The resulting artificial fee market driving people away to altcoins is no problem, because luckily LN and sidechains will soon be here to save the day. Plus any coin going the big-block route must fail eventually, even if it were to trump Bitcoin for a while among some fools."
"A stopgap measure in the meantime you say? Ethereum threatening to take over? Segwit will tide us over long enough. Plus we have the Bitcoin wizards. Their work can be forked, but we have the lead in network effect and the best crypto devs in the world, so no one can really ape us for long [and maybe we can obfuscate the code if necessary]."
"Fidelity effect? Delaying the next big rally? Patience, young Padawan. Even if there are big profits to be made in the short term by raising the cap, and even if an altcoin can take over, rushing ahead with kludgey on-chain scaling would be start down the path of doom. We could do it, but we should be disciplined and save it for an absolute last resort. If we lose a few investors in the meantime, we'll just buy up their cheap coins and they can buy them back at higher prices once they rush back in when LN is ready. In the end we have to just hope altcoins can't take over while we roll out the best tech in the business."
"Bitcoin Classic? It's an attack on Bitcoin and must be stopped at all costs! Because it would ruin strong consensus with its 75% threshold. Some of us can buy that 2MB would get us a little more breathing room as we wait for LN, but not at the cost of completely destroying Bitcoin, you dummies!"
"And XT? Horrifying! A sure death for Bitcoin as it locks in the path to 8GB. You say we can just fork again if we decide that's too big? No! Don't you realize that even if we somehow tragically got strong consensus for this because it was somehow pushed through by the unthinking Free Shit Army, what if we couldn't get strong consensus to stop it?? We'd be putting Bitcoin on a nearly irreversible course of doom. Anyway, hard forks need to be absolutely minimized, because each hard fork loses us precious credibility if we lose or piss off 5% of bitcoiners at a time even with 95% consensus. We definitely cannot be hardforking routinely and getting 'practice' at it like we practice our golf swing. Every hard fork is almost akin to mild genocide or triage."
"So you guys are fools to think you'll ever get this to slide by in the first place, but we'll censor you anyway because allowing anyone to trick the masses into this move, which sounds so reasonable but is really poison, would destroy the great protector of Bitcoin: rational strong consensus. Theymos hates censorship, but it's better than seeing Bitcoin die. He has declared a state of emergency, with special prohibitions on altcoin discussion and also any criticism of Core devs, because we need guidance from the experts during these dark times... all because of that traitor Mike Hearn and his populist protégé Gavin. This too shall pass." (The goalposts on "consensus" constantly shift because it was a subjective, probably partly subconscious assumption of people who were moved by this "democratic" approach.)
"Remember, all forks that change the block validation are altcoins. Sure they don't wipe the ledger clean like most altcoins, but they might as well do so because if people think of them as Bitcoin they threaten to destroy strong consensus, the very bedrock on which Bitcoin rests! But actually, if these altcoins gain enough support that a strong consensus of users want them, they become Bitcoin because essentially, strong consensus is Bitcoin." (This is exactly what Theymos said when he started his censoring campaign. He said without consensus XT is an altcoin, but if it gets consensus it becomes the new Bitcoin whether he or other small blockists like it or not. It wasn't a rejection of XT so much as a rejection of its method, coupled with a sort of resigned disapproval of the scaling schedule itself. Had XT required 95% I don't think Theymos would have wanted to censor it, at least as long as it still wasn't that popular. He was against the method, because it destroys "Strongius Consensius, the god of Bitcoin.")
Last edited:
"make it more difficult for yourselves to win, and you will win".
no, all Kore has to do is code up 2MBHF @95% activation and they will win, according to @jonny1000's logic. which really is the whole point here; maintaining governance. it would be so simple. yet they can't get themselves to concede on one simple parameter to end this whole thing even if it means them retaining power.
they will run themselves into the ground along with the rest of us if we let them.
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
What also ensures the dialogue continues is refraining from petty squabbles and focusing on the discussion at hand.
Note: I believe he would agree with that and is also frustrated with Core (though I assume that is somewhat modulated by the Strongius Consensius considerations above).
[doublepost=1464101352][/doublepost]
I'm sure some would like you to leave (you had to expect this), but I'd really prefer you stay or drop by again sometimes. The forum as it stands is dangerously one-sided. Dangerous not because we are wrong, but because even though we are largely right we can miss nuance, at least the nuance of what other people are failing to understand about our points. At these levels of rarification, any exposure even to a low-quality contrasting view is helpful, and yours was not low quality - not saying it's right or that you argued it perfectly, but better than most would.
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
He also conflates support with block count. As I mentioned. even 100% Classic use would still have to go through the 75% trigger since it's a historical count.
Actually real solutions have already been deployed they just need to be adopted and implemented.
Last edited:
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
This is because this is the wrong way to look at blocks. They are not containers to be filled but a list to be appended to. There is only any limit due to artificial or technical limitations.
A 500k block does not have excess space, it is simply a 500k block.
The mempool may or may not be empty but that is for miners to decide based on the fees they wish to accept for inclusion in blocks.
[doublepost=1464106063][/doublepost]
You assume (see what I did there) that we are assuming. I would wager here that most of us started out with assumptions of good faith and have slowly had it shown to us that bad faith is in operation. There's a fine line between assuming good faith and being taken for a chump.
Last edited:
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
You absolutely misunderstood. Bitcoin runs on people acting in their own self interest and that is the reason things like the the 21million limit are believed to be inviolate. It is the belief that it would damage the economic interests of all actors if that were changed.
Bitcoin works from the longest valid chain (with some potentially circular definitions of valid). That means it is subject to 51% rule (and potentially even less in a three-or-greater race). The only way the minority could be protected would be by a centralized power. Bitcoin is supposed to be decentralized. So your erroneous understanding violates at least two of the main concepts of Bitcoin
- Decentralized, peer-to-peer
- People act in their own self-interest
Indeed, this is how a voluntary system should work. If you do not agree with the way things are going, you are free to leave. As many are currently doing with Bitcoin.
Last edited:
Yeah that's bullshit. If you believed that, you might be better off with some communist consensus group at your local university. This was definitely not a part of Bitcoins design.
"Consensus" appears exactly once in the whitepaper:
They vote. I know, Adam Back doesn't like voting and democracy, but sadly for you that's the design. Where do you read "strong consensus" or "protection of minorities" there?
Bitcoin is a majority voting system with no minority protection.
Yeah some more variety in viewpoints would be nice but people are tired after more than a year of debate and maybe even more tired by the fact that it seems to be no where near conclusion.
I don't think there should be any threshold, it should just be a flagday. At 95% it can easily be vetoed. Classic has 6% or so, one can imagine 6% of miners may wish to stay on 1mb forever.
I think Bitcoin Core has two concerns which may be valid, but is frustrating they don't actually argue them, instead arguing emotional points of "attack" and using divisive rhetorics such as we are rocket engineers etc.
I think one concern is growing the chain too quickly to the point where users can't run a node. Ethereum's solution, which I think Gavin mentioned in 2013 in a thread I came across yesterday is sharding which, to my understanding, changes validation from all nodes validate all transactions to some nodes validate some transactions.
If there are 5k nodes, arguably there is no reason for all of them to validate exactly the same transaction. 100 or 500 nodes can validate x txs, 100 other nodes y, etc. I haven't really looked much into this, not sure how it would work exactly, but it has been mentioned only in passing a few times and haven't seen it discussed in detail so thought to point it out.
Gmax's and Todd's solution however, all the way back in 2013 and that's where they still stand, is to batch transactions so that all nodes continue to verify 1 transaction which within it contains 100 transactions or whatever, rather than 100 nodes verifying 100 transactions.
I'm not sure the difference is so great as to have all this vitriol - hence the second concern I think plays a greater role.
I think Bitcoin Core is against any hardforks at all - unless, you know, some bug. Philosophically, I think they consider a hardfork to be opening the door to rule by the mob or whatever and, in a slippery slope argument, if you can hardfork then the 21m limit may be hardforked etc.
So they want the rules to be set in stone so to speak and never change. That's perhaps why Gmax called the HK guys dipshits. I don't think he'd ever agree to a hardfork.
Again, maybe his viewpoint is right, but it isn't argued or discussed. Instead, it is only briefly mentioned as @jonny1000 did that Bitcoin is not a democracy. Well, that's correct. In my view, bitcoin is not communism either as "strong consensus" implies. It is, instead, pure free market.
Anyone can hardfork. Bitcoin Core, for example, stated that if miners go to classic they will pow hardfork. They, of course, have such right. It is bitcoin's inbuilt mechanism to ensure that no one can force anyone to follow any rule. You just fork if you don't agree with the mob or with communism because bitcoin doesn't follow either political theory, being instead individualistic in a free market sense as in anyone is free to choose whatever they wish.
Now, of course, there are network effects etc, but those apply regardless. If users are not happy, they can easily leave to another coin. If a sufficient number of them does do so, then the end effect is no different than a hardfork. As far as the users that left are concerned, the rules have now changed. Those who remained maintained their rules, but the cost was at expense of becoming, perhaps, irrelevant. If, therefore, the rules are so dogmatic as to make a coin useless and despite doing so still remain unchanged, then in the coin becoming useless the rules have changed because previously everyone wanted it and now no one does.
Now, of course, one can argue whether that would be the case, but since this is now philosophy, we can try and assume that scenario to establish that the idea of no hard-fork ever can not possibly operate in practice because if the majority leaves then that is a hard-fork no different than if pow was changed.
You can not dictate in a free market. One can not say that these are the rules written in stone and must never change because to change the rules for each individual is as easy as going to Shapeshift and sending your bitcoins. If, lets say, 51% of them do so, isn't that a hard-fork which changed the rules?
Now, you can say, but my bitcoins remain my bitcoins with no rule changed. They do, but if price declines by 51%, with your bitcoin now becoming number two, and this new coin getting all the attention, of what use are your rules?
Again, you can say that's not going to happen, but I am addressing gmax's statement back in 2013 and I paraphrase - hardforks: there be philosophical dragons. So let's assume it does happen.
If it does, I think from any practical or even technical point of view, the rules have changed, at least for the vast majority, just as they fully changed from when most were using myspace to when most were using facebook.
I do not think any system can operate if rules can not change. Not to mention the contradiction in the statement that hardforks have dragons but softforks which increase the limit to 4mb max and bypass node's consent have no such philosophical questions. The difference between the two is non-existent as far as rule change is concerned and it is not the case that your node simply can just not upgrade in a soft-fork. Miner's enforce the rules and your non upgraded node is irrelevant.
However, ultimately, this entire debate itself may be irrelevant. It seems obvious now that 2mb or 4mb or whatever, we will have a batched txs system, at least in the near future. On the other hand, we will also have Ethereum, with its own culture and very able developers, which is focused on onchain scaling and sharded validation. So, the digital currency space offers both options.
I guess we'll find out which is correct, one or the other, both, or neither.
If I am correct, then there is a great lesson. If there was an attack, the attack has been futile. The free market, arguably the first decentralized system which has withstood the test of time and given us prosperity, in giving each the free choice and by that process alone organizing individuals, has loudly spoken in giving choices and options, thus proving any such attack, if there was one, utterly futile.
So chill out, relax, calm down the rhetorics, and make your own individual choices.
I don't think there should be any threshold, it should just be a flagday. At 95% it can easily be vetoed. Classic has 6% or so, one can imagine 6% of miners may wish to stay on 1mb forever.
I think Bitcoin Core has two concerns which may be valid, but is frustrating they don't actually argue them, instead arguing emotional points of "attack" and using divisive rhetorics such as we are rocket engineers etc.
I think one concern is growing the chain too quickly to the point where users can't run a node. Ethereum's solution, which I think Gavin mentioned in 2013 in a thread I came across yesterday is sharding which, to my understanding, changes validation from all nodes validate all transactions to some nodes validate some transactions.
If there are 5k nodes, arguably there is no reason for all of them to validate exactly the same transaction. 100 or 500 nodes can validate x txs, 100 other nodes y, etc. I haven't really looked much into this, not sure how it would work exactly, but it has been mentioned only in passing a few times and haven't seen it discussed in detail so thought to point it out.
Gmax's and Todd's solution however, all the way back in 2013 and that's where they still stand, is to batch transactions so that all nodes continue to verify 1 transaction which within it contains 100 transactions or whatever, rather than 100 nodes verifying 100 transactions.
I'm not sure the difference is so great as to have all this vitriol - hence the second concern I think plays a greater role.
I think Bitcoin Core is against any hardforks at all - unless, you know, some bug. Philosophically, I think they consider a hardfork to be opening the door to rule by the mob or whatever and, in a slippery slope argument, if you can hardfork then the 21m limit may be hardforked etc.
So they want the rules to be set in stone so to speak and never change. That's perhaps why Gmax called the HK guys dipshits. I don't think he'd ever agree to a hardfork.
Again, maybe his viewpoint is right, but it isn't argued or discussed. Instead, it is only briefly mentioned as @jonny1000 did that Bitcoin is not a democracy. Well, that's correct. In my view, bitcoin is not communism either as "strong consensus" implies. It is, instead, pure free market.
Anyone can hardfork. Bitcoin Core, for example, stated that if miners go to classic they will pow hardfork. They, of course, have such right. It is bitcoin's inbuilt mechanism to ensure that no one can force anyone to follow any rule. You just fork if you don't agree with the mob or with communism because bitcoin doesn't follow either political theory, being instead individualistic in a free market sense as in anyone is free to choose whatever they wish.
Now, of course, there are network effects etc, but those apply regardless. If users are not happy, they can easily leave to another coin. If a sufficient number of them does do so, then the end effect is no different than a hardfork. As far as the users that left are concerned, the rules have now changed. Those who remained maintained their rules, but the cost was at expense of becoming, perhaps, irrelevant. If, therefore, the rules are so dogmatic as to make a coin useless and despite doing so still remain unchanged, then in the coin becoming useless the rules have changed because previously everyone wanted it and now no one does.
Now, of course, one can argue whether that would be the case, but since this is now philosophy, we can try and assume that scenario to establish that the idea of no hard-fork ever can not possibly operate in practice because if the majority leaves then that is a hard-fork no different than if pow was changed.
You can not dictate in a free market. One can not say that these are the rules written in stone and must never change because to change the rules for each individual is as easy as going to Shapeshift and sending your bitcoins. If, lets say, 51% of them do so, isn't that a hard-fork which changed the rules?
Now, you can say, but my bitcoins remain my bitcoins with no rule changed. They do, but if price declines by 51%, with your bitcoin now becoming number two, and this new coin getting all the attention, of what use are your rules?
Again, you can say that's not going to happen, but I am addressing gmax's statement back in 2013 and I paraphrase - hardforks: there be philosophical dragons. So let's assume it does happen.
If it does, I think from any practical or even technical point of view, the rules have changed, at least for the vast majority, just as they fully changed from when most were using myspace to when most were using facebook.
I do not think any system can operate if rules can not change. Not to mention the contradiction in the statement that hardforks have dragons but softforks which increase the limit to 4mb max and bypass node's consent have no such philosophical questions. The difference between the two is non-existent as far as rule change is concerned and it is not the case that your node simply can just not upgrade in a soft-fork. Miner's enforce the rules and your non upgraded node is irrelevant.
However, ultimately, this entire debate itself may be irrelevant. It seems obvious now that 2mb or 4mb or whatever, we will have a batched txs system, at least in the near future. On the other hand, we will also have Ethereum, with its own culture and very able developers, which is focused on onchain scaling and sharded validation. So, the digital currency space offers both options.
I guess we'll find out which is correct, one or the other, both, or neither.
If I am correct, then there is a great lesson. If there was an attack, the attack has been futile. The free market, arguably the first decentralized system which has withstood the test of time and given us prosperity, in giving each the free choice and by that process alone organizing individuals, has loudly spoken in giving choices and options, thus proving any such attack, if there was one, utterly futile.
So chill out, relax, calm down the rhetorics, and make your own individual choices.
i think this viewpoint lacks perspective and is not how Bitcoin is supposed to work.
anyone familiar with the legacy financial system understands that the problem today relates to a minority controlling the majority, ie, the Fed and Wall St (the minority) controlling the entire financial system that the rest of us (the majority) depends and relies upon. it's been perverted to make it extremely unfair to anyone relying on fairness. this whole fallacy is being recreated by @jonny1000 and Kore dev with them determining according to their own ideology and mistaken beliefs that quotas (1MB cap) and a mythical "fee mkt" is how Bitcoin should work. nevermind that they've constructed a for-profit corporate entity called Blockstream to take advantage of crippling Bitcoin. numerous other Kore devs also have their own companies which may or may not depend on this strategy as well.
again, i don't think it's a matter of HF or SF at this stage of the game. everyone and their mother's know about what's happening right now. let's look at the merits of the proposed strategies and try to determine which proposal gets the job done most fairly and efficiently for the community as a whole according to Satoshi's Original Vision which is what most of us early adopters invested in.
i would also disagree that Kore and @jonny1000 are the economic majority as they claim.
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
Consensus is an emergent property of Bitcoin, not something to be managed.
lol, with Carl Force IV and now the National Guard, you gotta wonder just how high up the ladder this sort of thing will go:
http://www.coindesk.com/5-members-us-army-national-guard-arrested-alleged-bitcoin-scam/
http://www.coindesk.com/5-members-us-army-national-guard-arrested-alleged-bitcoin-scam/
