@Peter R cute idea it'll relieve some of the tension, people could clean up all that dust Adam keeps talking about that's going to destroy the network. Then again, if bitcoin ever moves to the LN you won't be able to track the BTC on the blockchain, ;-) that gives an advantage to big block proponents.
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
@Erdogan: I really don't think the CMA has any of those powers. I'm pretty sure they don't even employ anyone with powers of arrest.
@Tomothy: Antitrust law is criminal law - there's no need to show damages, just that an offence has been committed. [EDIT: As I said, though, it's hypothetical; the FTC is never going to prosecute the parties to the agreement.] And AIUI an agreement to form a cartel (for example) can be illegal despite not being a legally-enforceable contract between the co-conspirators. EDIT: Indeed, I suspect that almost all such illegal agreements are not framed as legal contracts (notwithstanding the fact that their illegality would void them anyway).
@Tomothy: Antitrust law is criminal law - there's no need to show damages, just that an offence has been committed. [EDIT: As I said, though, it's hypothetical; the FTC is never going to prosecute the parties to the agreement.] And AIUI an agreement to form a cartel (for example) can be illegal despite not being a legally-enforceable contract between the co-conspirators. EDIT: Indeed, I suspect that almost all such illegal agreements are not framed as legal contracts (notwithstanding the fact that their illegality would void them anyway).
@AdrianX: Pretty sure the CMA doesn't have the authority to declare war on another country, as interesting as that scenario might be 
EDIT: If it did have such authority (and decided the block size was within its millitary remit) which country would it be most effective for the CMA to declare war on in order to resolve the blocksize empasse? China? America?
EDIT: If it did have such authority (and decided the block size was within its millitary remit) which country would it be most effective for the CMA to declare war on in order to resolve the blocksize empasse? China? America?
sure the CMA probably never will but someone collects at some level, I'm referring to imbalances in international markets and the accumulating hostilities, in general laws aren't voluntary there is an escalating level of coercion that ultimately results in force.
Edit: LOL'ed at your edit ;-) "The Blockchain wars".
free markets are funny in SA growing up taxi buses got into a war* over who could pick up commuters it escalated until all taxi's became members of 2 gangs hundreds upon hundreds of passengers got shot over decades of fighting. taxis had more collective firepower than law enforcement.
*scroll down for death toll you would think it would be bad for business to shoot your potential customers but no. ( on a side note, uber is booming over there now a friend has a personal driver who earns his keep moonlighting for uber when he isn't needed)
Edit: LOL'ed at your edit ;-) "The Blockchain wars".
free markets are funny in SA growing up taxi buses got into a war* over who could pick up commuters it escalated until all taxi's became members of 2 gangs hundreds upon hundreds of passengers got shot over decades of fighting. taxis had more collective firepower than law enforcement.
*scroll down for death toll you would think it would be bad for business to shoot your potential customers but no. ( on a side note, uber is booming over there now a friend has a personal driver who earns his keep moonlighting for uber when he isn't needed)
Last edited:
weirdness abounds. /u/nullc suddenly becoming conciliatory.
@Peter R @solex @Peter Tschipper @theZerg , you might want to look at this:
@Peter R @solex @Peter Tschipper @theZerg , you might want to look at this:
@cypherdoc:
We haven't presented our results on the number of bytes required the propagate an Xthin block, so I don't understand what Greg is talking about. We will present these results in Part 4 of 5 (as it clearly says in the article).
But we did measure the bloom filter sizes. In fact, we made a picture to illustrate this fact partly because we thought it could become a FUD vector:
Regarding his comment about being confused by the article and thinking that you paid me to write it, this is what it says:
"By Andrew Clifford, Peter R. Rizun, @sickpig, Andrew Stone and Peter Tschipper. With special thanks to Jihan Wu from AntPool for the block source and to @cypherdoc for the funding."
Let me know if you'd like me to specify that the funding specifically helped to offset the cost of the Chinese nodes.
We haven't presented our results on the number of bytes required the propagate an Xthin block, so I don't understand what Greg is talking about. We will present these results in Part 4 of 5 (as it clearly says in the article).
But we did measure the bloom filter sizes. In fact, we made a picture to illustrate this fact partly because we thought it could become a FUD vector:
Regarding his comment about being confused by the article and thinking that you paid me to write it, this is what it says:
"By Andrew Clifford, Peter R. Rizun, @sickpig, Andrew Stone and Peter Tschipper. With special thanks to Jihan Wu from AntPool for the block source and to @cypherdoc for the funding."
Let me know if you'd like me to specify that the funding specifically helped to offset the cost of the Chinese nodes.
Last edited:
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
My guess is it occurred to him that when an admin imminently goes and looks at his post history while evaluating the doxxing complaint, it won't do him favors that everything he has to say for a long time has been bickering.
@Peter R yeah, it's probably better to be more specific. Not that there's anything wrong with the way you put it but we don't want those guys going berserk about trivialities. Who knows what goes on in their whacked heads.
@cypherdoc: I've made the changes and they should be live now. It now reads:
"By Andrew Clifford, Peter R. Rizun, @sickpig, Andrew Stone and Peter Tschipper. With special thanks to Jihan Wu from AntPool for the block source and to @cypherdoc and our other generous donors for the funds to pay for our nodes in Mainland China."
I also apologize to @sandakersmann and @AdrianX for not mentioning their donations.
"By Andrew Clifford, Peter R. Rizun, @sickpig, Andrew Stone and Peter Tschipper. With special thanks to Jihan Wu from AntPool for the block source and to @cypherdoc and our other generous donors for the funds to pay for our nodes in Mainland China."
I also apologize to @sandakersmann and @AdrianX for not mentioning their donations.
@Peter R no offence taken, the though of me funding the "resistance" with a tiny donation is hilarious, (it's nothing like Greg's team being funded $76 million by the very people bitcoin, "with bigger blocks", is poised to disenfranchise)
I think the mention of my name, even cypherdoc probably does more harm than good at the moment. I applaud the openness and think making the sources of funding public is important, but I don't see any benefit in mentioning it in the credits, after all I seem to have amassed quite a contrarian reputation, I'm quite positive many Core supporters think I'm a threat to the very survival of bitcoin with a 365 day ban from r/bitcoin and all, not to mention a resent hacking attempt using my bitcointalk.org identity.
I think the mention of my name, even cypherdoc probably does more harm than good at the moment. I applaud the openness and think making the sources of funding public is important, but I don't see any benefit in mentioning it in the credits, after all I seem to have amassed quite a contrarian reputation, I'm quite positive many Core supporters think I'm a threat to the very survival of bitcoin with a 365 day ban from r/bitcoin and all, not to mention a resent hacking attempt using my bitcointalk.org identity.
Last edited:
79b79aa8
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2015
- 1,031
- 3,440
speaking about jurisdiction . . . .
CFTC Fines HK Bitcoin Exchange Bitfinex $75,000 Over Trading Violations
http://www.coindesk.com/cftc-bitcoin-exchange-bitfinex-trading-violations/
CFTC Fines HK Bitcoin Exchange Bitfinex $75,000 Over Trading Violations
http://www.coindesk.com/cftc-bitcoin-exchange-bitfinex-trading-violations/
I do not need it to totally go away, nor do I expect it to. The attack just needs to be insignificant. Currently c12% of nodes, c5% of miners, some large VC backed companies and Gavin support Classic. Once this moves down to insignificant levels this will clear the path to a hardfrok to 2MB. Once Classic support among miners is around 2%, I think this should be sufficient to push ahead with a 2MB HF, and I will begin to put more pressure on the Core devs to do implement the 2MB HF then.
People are free to offer a safe HF to 2MB, however the incentive right now is to rally behind the existing rules.
If Classic is resoundingly defeated then I will be far more optimistic about the future, it demonstrates how resilient and robust the system is and I will be more confident the 21m cap is safe.
If there is significant doubt as to which chain is "Bitcoin", then Bitcoin is a failed experiment
Well, firstly, do you not think it as reasonable that a Bitcoin forum wants to focus on one chain and not be used as a tool to split into two and then be a forum for both sides of the chain? People who want the other chain/alt to be Bitcoin can start their own forum. If this is your view then why are you so annoyed about the "censorship"?
The reason another chain also called Bitcoin may be a problem is that it creates mass confusion, if the new chain is regarded as bitcoin by a significant number of people. Hopefully it will be insignificant and not cause problems. But why call it Bitcoin, if not to attack the network?
sheesh, this is an all day battle against /u/nullc:
[doublepost=1464923632][/doublepost]lol. >60 comments and counting on a forum he says he despises:
[doublepost=1464923632][/doublepost]lol. >60 comments and counting on a forum he says he despises:
Check it out. There will be no HF coded by the dipshits. This according to head dipshit /u/nullc:
I guess that's the community roadmap that involves the community that's been censored and banned for commenting on the most established forums for discussing Bitcoin related developments.
That u/nullc admission that there isn't a Hard Fork on the roadmap should be a wake up for miners, who's to say Core won't continue to block any increase after SegWit deployment.
That u/nullc admission that there isn't a Hard Fork on the roadmap should be a wake up for miners, who's to say Core won't continue to block any increase after SegWit deployment.
paging @Jihan: do you have a comment on this?
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
If the terrorists@blockstreamcore win, Bitcoin will lose and the hardfork into Ethereum and other cryptocurrencies will gain traction.
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
It is getting confirmed again and again and again, since 10'000 years:
Market = Organized Violence = Society = Collectivism = Feudalism = Tribute = Patriarchy
Absence of a market = Selfsufficiency = Community = Anarchy
Market = Organized Violence = Society = Collectivism = Feudalism = Tribute = Patriarchy
Absence of a market = Selfsufficiency = Community = Anarchy
GMax doesn't see any reason not to support a hardfork to 2MB of non-witness data, after SegWit, as long as it is done appropriately. It now looks like Core may have this done in a few months, is this sufficient for you guys now, or do you still insist on complaining and attacking?
