Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
Please stop spreading false and divisive rumors about what the Core team want. Everybody wants on-chain scaling and capacity improvements.
We know very well what they want: Full Blocks through a (fixed or flex) cap that constantly blocks the stream and enforce a 'fee market'.The opposite of what we enjoyed until now (a size limit far away from actual block sizes).
Ask the head of the dipshits.
[doublepost=1465114506,1465113535][/doublepost]
Mischarecterising the conflict is not helpful. The longer the attack persists the more the economic majority will rally behind the existing rules.
Indeed, not helpful. The longer the attack of The Kore Gang and its cheerleaders persists, the more the economic majority will fork to Altcoins. You are marching in fours with those employed altcoin pushers at Blockstream.
 
Last edited:

bluemoon

Active Member
Jan 15, 2016
215
966
then stop spreading false malicous rumours about Core's plans.
The longer the attack persists
It is always "false malicious rumours" and "attacks" with you, Jonny. Your way of giving yourself the higher moral ground, of making BS Core the victim, of justifying their censorship and manipulations, of ignoring their conflicts of interest, of casting everything in a political light, and of failing to engage in a rational two-way discussion, because for you everything is subordinate to maintaining control: winning your 'war'. And your lack of understanding of market dynamics means you don't understand what makes Bitcoin capable of adapting itself without BS Core's guiding hand to become a universal, winning, stable proposition. Rather your view of the real world is that seen through the prism of Blockstream and its investors: the world of manipulative monopolistic control by market financial cartels operating in a privileged state-backed legal and political environment, the antithesis of Bitcoin's peer-to-peer electronic cash concept.

Core does not have an "off-chain model".
Give us a break, Jonny. Blockstream's homepage is all about pegged sidechains. These are intended to support "real and/or virtual world currencies" among other things. The referenced white paper lists the main Core developers as authors.

Not so long ago it was all Lightning Network. Blockstream still funds development work on it.

Segwit is a pre-requisite for these off-chain developments. That is its principal purpose, not on-chain scaling. A hard fork blocksize increase is a quicker and simpler solution to on-chain scaling and everyone knows it.
Hardfork to 2MB or more
The HK agreement is worthless, Jonny. Haven't you seen Peter Todd's statement on reddit? Core do not intend to be held to a 2MB hardfork.
 

sickpig

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
926
2,541
  • - Fully delivered and live on the network
  • On chain Scaling - Non linear scaling of sighash operations - delivered
Quite peculiar definitions you've chosen here: delivered vs fully delivered. A feature is delivered or it is not.

Waiting for the significant attempts to do this without consensus to cease before moving forward, as this is a hardfork and requires consensus across the entire community and cannot be done during attack
A proposed hard fork it's just what it is: an hard fork. Words are important, and choosing the right ones is even more important.

Using "attack" to define Classic inititiative is not appropriate because node operators are not forced to adopt Classic code. We can't say the same for soft forks unfortunately.

This is why c88% of node operators support Core, because maybe they actually understand how nodes work.
Your last statement would be true if the last set of changes made to consensus rule didn't happen through soft forks.

Of all active nodes 45% are core nodes with version >= 0.12.0. Even if we want to count among the up to date client also 0.11.x we reach ~58%. As you can see we are quite far from your 88%.

The remaining 30% are 0.10, 0.9, 0.8 or lower core nodes. Do you really consider these fully validating nodes? operated by people that have a better understanding of the network?
 

jonny1000

Active Member
Nov 11, 2015
380
101
We know very well what they want: Full Blocks throug
Yes, I imagine the Core devs want full blocks. I also want full blocks. That does not mean they do not want on-chain scaling and on chain capacity improvements. Please stop conflating different issues and then making out they are the same.

The opposite of what we enjoyed until now (a size limit far away from actual block sizes)
That is because Bitcoin was a little niche experiment with no real demand. We need to grow up now and become a real economic good. In economics there is no concept of supply being permanently above demand. We have to change and have a real economic model where demand is a function of price. I would hope the price is low like 1 cent or something, but the idea of capacity always being above demand makes no economic sense. I favor a dymanic solution like BIP100, a market based solution to this problem.

Core do not intend to be held to a 2MB hardfork.
Yes that is correct, Core are not "held" to a HF. If I thought Core were being "held" to the HF I would reject the HF and consider it illegitimate. I do not want the HF to come about be force, it must come about in a calm, patient, collaborative and non aggressive environment. That is all I and most of the Core devs care about, do you really think I care if the limit if 750KB, 1MB, 2MB or 8MB?? I do not. It is the attitude of trying to force a change, that it what I care about. That must stop, or I will rally behind the existing rules.

Now its clear you do not agree with this. But if you think 2MB is urgent, you put let us have are way in this case, stop trying to force a move to 2MB and let it come about in a non aggressive way. Then once we have 2MB we can carry on arguing about how changes should be made. Nobody here has responded to this, why not just get 2MB now in a non aggressive way, then carry on the debate afterwards?
 

bluemoon

Active Member
Jan 15, 2016
215
966
Yes that is correct, Core are not "held" to a HF. If I thought Core were being "held" to the HF I would reject the HF and consider it illegitimate.
The point is Core do not intend to honour the HK agreement. Peter Todd now says it was merely a "statement of intent".

It is the attitude of trying to force a change, that it what I care about. That must stop, or I will rally behind the existing rules.
You and Core are trying to introduce a change to the meta rules, the rules about how changes are made. You appeal to fidelity to the "existing rules", while trying to engineer a political requirement to agree "strong consensus" before anyone implements a hard fork. Introducing a political requirement before change can be introduced undermines the market mechanisms which allow change to be brought about freely in a decentralised way, playing into the hands of the powers that be and Blockstream and its backers who wish to manipulate and control bitcoin's development.

stop trying to force a move to 2MB and let it come about in a non aggressive way
The aggressive party in this 'war' is Blockstream Core. They are trying to face down the users and potential users who wish to see Bitcoin allowed to grow freely. Blockstream Core are the ones who censor, ban, and troll. They are the side who employ DDoS attacks. They are the ones trying to control the terms of discussion. As an apologist for them you condone their aggression and are party to their manipulations.
 

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
Yes, I imagine the Core devs want full blocks. I also want full blocks. That does not mean they do not want on-chain scaling and on chain capacity improvements. Please stop conflating different issues and then making out they are the same.
(..)
That is because Bitcoin was a little niche experiment with no real demand. We need to grow up now and become a real economic good. In economics there is no concept of supply being permanently above demand. We have to change and have a real economic model where demand is a function of price. I would hope the price is low like 1 cent or something, but the idea of capacity always being above demand makes no economic sense. I favor a dymanic solution like BIP100, a market based solution to this problem.
We conflate nothing. Artificially slowing scaling is against free scaling. We favor a market solution. You favor a Politbüro solution. That's the difference.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
I've already given you a way out to this: merge a 2MBHF immediately and stop your attack on Bitcoin if you want to stay in power for a while longer.

Yes, I imagine the Core devs want full blocks. I also want full blocks. That does not mean they do not want on-chain scaling and on chain capacity improvements. Please stop conflating different issues and then making out they are the same.



That is because Bitcoin was a little niche experiment with no real demand. We need to grow up now and become a real economic good. In economics there is no concept of supply being permanently above demand. We have to change and have a real economic model where demand is a function of price. I would hope the price is low like 1 cent or something, but the idea of capacity always being above demand makes no economic sense. I favor a dymanic solution like BIP100, a market based solution to this problem.



Yes that is correct, Core are not "held" to a HF. If I thought Core were being "held" to the HF I would reject the HF and consider it illegitimate. I do not want the HF to come about be force, it must come about in a calm, patient, collaborative and non aggressive environment. That is all I and most of the Core devs care about, do you really think I care if the limit if 750KB, 1MB, 2MB or 8MB?? I do not. It is the attitude of trying to force a change, that it what I care about. That must stop, or I will rally behind the existing rules.

Now its clear you do not agree with this. But if you think 2MB is urgent, you put let us have are way in this case, stop trying to force a move to 2MB and let it come about in a non aggressive way. Then once we have 2MB we can carry on arguing about how changes should be made. Nobody here has responded to this, why not just get 2MB now in a non aggressive way, then carry on the debate afterwards?
 

priestc

Member
Nov 19, 2015
94
191
I am about as much of a "big blocker" as anyone else, but over the past few weeks I'm starting to think the best way to get a blocksize increase is to agree to a 95% miner vote instead of 75%.

Here is why: The #1 reason why the blocksize limit has not already been raised is because the Blockstream developers are against it. As much as I dislike those people, I have to admit that they have a lot of influence in the community. Even if the threshold is 100%, it will happen, as long as Blockstream OKs it. For every person who hates Greg Maxwell, there are another 2 or 3 people on IRC who still idolize him. I think a big part of the reason why these people have so much influence with the miners is because they all know each other in real life, and also on IRC. I used to be really into IRC when I was in high school. IRC is a lot different than forums. IRC friendships are much deeper than forums friendships. This is because IRC is a much more intimate setting. So many miners and major players in the bitcoin world are the kind of people who spend 10 hours a day on IRC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: freetrader

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
Note that by suggesting this, I forego a power grab despite believing that Bitcoin would be better off by replacing kore gang. And I'm sure most of us would agree with what I just said even though we believe there are real issues with the current governance. The reason we would compromise with that solution is that it would end your attack and provide a temporary solution to Bitcoin scaling that could carry is out another year; a kick the can approach. Not ideal, but at least a compromise that would conform for the most part to the Classic proposal.

The other option is a SWHF with a+b<=4MB.that would be really clever on your part: a variant of this was already proposed by Corallo of a+b<=3MB. You should take back to your kore hang this proposal. You'd get alot out of it.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
I actually believe what kore gang wants most is to prevent a loss of power as we've already heard Lombrozzo and Todd lament about. So @jonny1000, please take my suggestions back to your kore gang for consideration.
[doublepost=1465131568][/doublepost]I would also add that the Classic devs and supporters are clearly not power hungry people as "should" be obvious to @jonny1000 and kore gang from our proposals and arguments. We only want what's best for Bitcoin and it should be clear we have nothing to gain from our proposals that would represent a financial COI, except for our own coin appreciation. If you could even call that a COI (which I don't). @jonny1000, you need to look at us from that perspective if you want to survive.
[doublepost=1465132157,1465131121][/doublepost]@jonny1000

i also deeply believe that you are in the economic minority as much as you like to say otherwise. this is based on my continuous perusal of the space and the actors involved and what they say and don't say. you and kore gang's power is clearly waning as demonstrated by your persistence here on this forum (you're most welcome here and i won't censor you!) as well as /u/nullc's frantic raging over the last several days. i think there is turmoil within your camp personally. something was said somewhere most likely related to the "dipshit" comment.
[doublepost=1465132727][/doublepost]
I am about as much of a "big blocker" as anyone else, but over the past few weeks I'm starting to think the best way to get a blocksize increase is to agree to a 95% miner vote instead of 75%.

Here is why: The #1 reason why the blocksize limit has not already been raised is because the Blockstream developers are against it. As much as I dislike those people, I have to admit that they have a lot of influence in the community. Even if the threshold is 100%, it will happen, as long as Blockstream OKs it. For every person who hates Greg Maxwell, there are another 2 or 3 people on IRC who still idolize him. I think a big part of the reason why these people have so much influence with the miners is because they all know each other in real life, and also on IRC. I used to be really into IRC when I was in high school. IRC is a lot different than forums. IRC friendships are much deeper than forums friendships. This is because IRC is a much more intimate setting. So many miners and major players in the bitcoin world are the kind of people who spend 10 hours a day on IRC.
this is actually an insightful post re: IRC and "intimacy". and i can believe it. except i don't buy capitulating to 95% to be a solution that will get us anywhere. if anything, kore will use it to declare yet another Classic compromising victory and the stalling will get even worse. if anything, i've come to understand even better the advantage of a flag day or complete removal of these activation thresholds as Bitcoin itself is a Consensatron in that we can use the longest chain as evidence of what the consensus is w/o all the drama of debate, attacks, & censorship which swirl around trying to "pre-determine" consensus.