Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

awemany

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
1,387
5,054
Ok, so here's another thing I am pondering about:

I feel that I like to use my time more efficiently contributing to BU/Classic. However, I also feel that an important part of working against the Corium melting through everything was and is to stem the tide of trolling, misinformation and bullshit on reddit.

I just wonder how effective that is though, in the end. If nullc starts blaring on /r/btc, and I counter him, lets say convincingly and effectively, how many readers does that convince?

I have to say, I pretty much only write for the wider audience now, in the slight hope that someone without a clue might read it, get a grip and investigate further. And eventually arrive at his/her own conclusions about the state of affairs.

All the guys on this forum, all the familiar nicks on /r/btc, all those folks know 100% of the shenanigans, and thus writing on /r/btc feels a lot like preaching to the choir.

It definitely is politicking, it wears one down mentally, I feel like I am getting dragged down to troll level when I am doing it too much, and I hate it and would very much like to avoid it.

It somehow still feels necessary, though.

So, finally here's my point:
For those who know more about online advertising among the crowd here - is there meaningful data that could be extracted from e.g. reddit ads, showing how many new users /r/btc gets daily? How much attention a post gets from the outside when it is upvoted, or even a correlation to keywords? Could such data be gathered by someone knowledgeable?
 

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
Yes, it is not mentioned in the whitepaper. I do realize that. As I said many times, the 1MB rule may be:
  • stupid
  • temporary
  • evil
  • not mentioned in the whitepaper
  • crippling the network
  • put there for nefarious reasons
  • causing a change to system economics
  • more negative comments about it that I am sure you have
However, even if its all of the above, it is still an actual rule. Deal with it.
I'm dealing with it just fine thank you @jonny1000 :). It's all those who rely on ignorance and censorship to make there point that are having a problem with the facts.

You're still supporting all those "stupid", "evil", "network crippling" "dipshits" "nefariously" trying to change the Bitcoin "economic protocol" and using distorted reasoning to justify it, now that's an oxymoron. Deal with it.

The biggest Irony is you are overlooking that the 1MB block size limit was not actually part of the consensus code at all. It was actually introduced as a hard fork it's adoption is empirical data, it shows how this type of change is accepted by the network. It didn't need 95% consensus nor was there a 25% opposition who carried on with a competing fork. Just the other 99.9%* of miners and nodes who weren't actually attacking anything by failing to support it. All the network did was just chose to stay connected to the network and use bitcoin, and by choosing the code they ran, thus they stayed congruent with the majority once it had become the standard.

It worked in a very similar way to Bitcoin Unlimited but with block size in reverse, and removing it will be just as benign as introducing it. (but for Maxwell's ego, and the political opposition.)

Of all the positions I've read on this topic, your opinion is consistent with all those that put a disproportionate risk in favor of catastrophic collapse as a result of failing to scale.

I admire you actually agree that we need bigger blocks, it's sad to see you argue that we need to keep the centralised authority in power and give them a 95% consensus before we actually plan to change it.

I'm disappointed that you also fail to address the relevant arguments in your rebuttals. Notably this being your first reply to me, thanks I'm honored. But still the facts I've given you that support the rationale for making a motion to support removing the chain scaling limit have not been addressed. Rather you've chosen to focus on obscur side angles as opposed to working on a positive solution to allowing more network participants access to the bitcoin blockchain.

(*whatever the percent who didn't initially accept the fork, it was irelavant they all accepted it in the end)
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
@awemany

The aren't too many posts where I feel an urgent need to respond to like this one.

Imo, you have been highly highly instrumental and effective in countering the technical FUD coming from Greg & Adam. Examples include the On^2 debate, general coding, mempool construction, and UTXO set commitments to mention just a few. There are precious few who can stand toe to toe with those guys in technical areas . I do my best but it's not my training.

So please don't give up. We ARE winning the war.
[doublepost=1465242254][/doublepost]Hint: if kore thought r/btc wasnt important to post in, they wouldn't be flooding it like they are.
 

awemany

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
1,387
5,054
@awemany

The aren't too many posts where I feel an urgent need to respond to like this one.
Thanks, I feel like it is all quite bit pointless lately myself, so I should probably find something better to do. Like help @Tom Zander with the Wiki rework, or in general, documentation. For example, in @Peter R.'s latest post on /r/Bitcoin, Greg brought forward a somewhat valid point that xthin is not documented in full detail, mixed with, of course, his usual corrosive but effective attack strategies. That is of course, not meant as denigrating to @Peter Tschipper 's work - but we are simply a small team still.

Imo, you have been highly highly instrumental and effective in countering the technical FUD coming from Greg & Adam.

Examples include the On^2 debate, general coding, mempool construction, and UTXO set commitments to mention just a few. There are precious few who can stand toe to toe with those guys in technical areas . I do my best but it's not my training.
Thanks a lot, it does mean a lot that you think so! I do feel I have maybe just above a 00.1% impact on the blocksize debate, however it still feels very tiny :/

The point where I really felt that there is really major psychological manipulation going on was with the mempool bullshit. I mean, everyone on reddit was basically convinced and even bigblockers were parroting the 'yeah, yeah, bigger block probably means more network load' bullshit.

I do not fault anyone here, as I have been convinced of that bullshit for myself at first, when I reentered reddit from a bit of a hiatus. It felt so obvious, and everyone so convinced. Mass psychology. Only one of those 'stress tests' woke me up.

I am certain nullc and folks were aware of this and psycho-engineered the discussion accordingly, in the meantime. This woke me up and told me that one has to counter their bullshit as much as possible. There are other STEM people, also additionally some not represented here (like I believe /u/ferretinjapan, who's arguments I value) with a similar state of mind and urge to fight the bullshit, I think.

But, I do not read the code daily. I do not have the financial means (yet?) to stay on top of every little change, confusion and complexity Core adds to the code.

I feel I do grasp all the basic concepts as well as nullc or Adam does or any other of those band-members. I feel many do, in the end.

But I also feel I cannot keep up with the latest shenanigans and changes they do to Core. They have $70e6 in paper money to fight us, after all. All day long. With many turrets and lots of firepower.

Greg knows this, obviously, and thus tries to (unfortunately, often successfully) pull people into highly technical but in the end quite off-topic discussions, to prove his point of superiority. I am usually able to avoid that trap, but it does repeatedly make bigblock-aligned people (or are those sometimes false-flag trolls?) look bad.

This is all still very much an uphill battle, I feel.

So please don't give up. We ARE winning the war.
I have no intent of doing that, even though I have recurring bouts of pessimism. (I guess optimism as well). Ignorant, divisive miners like Samson Mow dancing the mickey mouse dance is everything else than encouraging though, to further explain my pessimism a little bit.

Jihan studied psychology (I think I saw that on his twitter) so I hope he's able to have some insight that dividing and trampling on a large, maybe largest fraction of the community isn't helpful for his cause of an appreciating Bitcoin price and a healthy community further driving that.

[doublepost=1465242254][/doublepost]Hint: if kore thought r/btc wasnt important to post in, they wouldn't be flooding it like they are.
This I think is very true. However, they are also limited and thus motivated for further action and consensification by a fog of war as well . I feel either side is not really up to speed what is going on in the minds of the miners - and even core seems to have a bit of a noisy connection to them, given the recent rise of a more self-assertive Jihan Wu.
[doublepost=1465245440][/doublepost]
that's an interesting correlation i'd never thought of.
[doublepost=1465244692,1465243948][/doublepost]here we go!:

Along those lines: They guy you were arguing with today on reddit (forgot the nick right now), he had a strange fixation with doxxing people.
 

satoshis_sockpuppet

Active Member
Feb 22, 2016
776
3,312
His current streak imho is certainly an effect of the XThin-Blocks series. It just can't be that other teams are able to have an impact.
And he seems to be obsessed with Peter R. It's a bit creepy how much of an influence Peters appearances seem to have on Greg. . So in this light: Another reason for Peter to write. ;)

But honestly, this part of him makes his character even more disturbing. It seems to be such a weird combination of envy and hate. A bit like Peter Todd and Gavin.


Hm and really, nobody knows a source for Ethereum transaction statistics?
I'm not sure if such an effect is visible but I think there might be a spill from Bitcoin to altcoins not just in market cap but in use as well and maybe the blocksize limit is a visible factor in forcing transactions/use to other coins.
 
Nov 27, 2015
80
370
Hey guys, I had a chance to join @Justus Ranvier in the Crypto Show studio last night for a discussion on a brilliant essay by Daniel Krawisz called Reciprocal Altruism in the Theory of Money.

The Crypto Show - Yoshi Goto of Bitmain Justus Ranvier of StashCrypto and Jon Vaage


(The first segment of the show is an interview with Yoshi Goto of Bitmain - our discussion begins at 42:22)

You can read the essay over at the Satoshi Nakamoto Institute or wait for the release of the audio narration I've begun working on. I can't recommend it highly enough!
 
Last edited: