Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[freetrader]

However, of course I cant really support it right now, as during the time when there is a significant number of Classic proponents, I will always rally behind the existing rules, as a defense mechanism.

Oh, there I was thinking that you always rally behind this rule ("to rally behind the rules") when the ice your argument is skating on gets thin.

 

[jonny1000]

Now when we analyse how the block size limit is removed with Bitcoin Unlimited, no activation threshold is needed. Is there anything you oppose there.

I would be happy with BU, as long at the default value of n is infinity and the default blocksize you are willing to accept is 1MB.

I oppose n=4, as it opens the system up to double spend attacks.

and I presume you'll like it as it is deployed as a soft fork according to your understanding

No idea what you mean here.

not to mention it lets you vote for a 10MB block limit independent of what the rest of the network thinks

No it does not. BU does not allow me to vote in a non binding way for 10MB.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Well no, there could be a voting window where Classic needs at least 75% support, for example.

Explain how exactly you want to measure that or STFU.

I asked you that multiple times and you never answer. Come up with your preferred solutions and don't waste everybody's time, including your own, by repeating the same statements over and over.

edit: quote was wrong.

 

[jonny1000]

"Explain how exactly you want to measure that or STFU."

It would be very simple, have a pre determined 10,000 block window, and if 7,500 or more blocks support Classic it activates, for example.

Not that I advocate this, I like 95%, but this would be much better than having exactly 25% opposition.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

Finally, thank you.
So you want Classic to have one shot.
I would say: Give strong consensus a chance at any time!

 

[jonny1000]

"So you want Classic to have one shot. "

Even rolling windows, without overlaps, would be better.

 

[8up]

You are trying to capture the majority of the hashrate on your side, therefore there is only one winner and its a war in that sense. I am trying to make sure your attempt is defeated. I am prepared to take all necessary measures to ensure you are defeated, even if it means the price falls to zero.

1. There is no winner who will prevail forever.
2. No war ever produces winners.
   
3. Consensus is fluid. It is merely a snapshot in time.
   
4. There is an equilibrium in the current state (and there will be in a future state).
   
5. A new state of equilibrium will emerge through inside as well as outside forces.

BTW- Funny to see former libertarians (Bitcoiners) turn into warloards and authoritarians over time.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

However, of course I cant really support it right now, as during the time when there is a significant number of Classic proponents, I will always rally behind the existing rules, as a defense mechanism.

We could always HF to this later, once Classic support becomes insignificant. I would judge this to be at around the 2% to 3% miner support level. That is why I am commenting so much at the moment, if we can just push Classic support down a bit more, perhaps below around 3% for a few months, we may be able to HF to 2MB. I think we are getting close.

To be clear, you're saying that while Classic support is at 5%, Core agreeing to hardfork to 2MB (@95%) would pose a danger of splitting the network? Or that the current 5% Classic supporters are going to veto it because "fuck Core"??

 

[pekatete]

Exactly, so the new 1MB rule was a soft fork, since the 1MB rule was compatible with the old clients at the time. Agreed?

The premise on which you rely to define what amounts to a soft fork (with regard to block size adjustment) is corrupt as it assumes that the old nodes are NOT mining clients / nodes. In-fact, a reduction in block size requires all mining nodes to upgrade their clients, but on the other hand an increase does not require all mining nodes to upgrade their client.

 

[pekatete]

Welcome to this labyrinthine discussion @pekatete

Thank you. A labyrinthine discussion it certainly is.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

"So you want Classic to have one shot. "

Even rolling windows, without overlaps, would be better.

How do you mean "without overlaps" ?

 

[freetrader]

Just wanted to point out that @Tom Zander has renamed the Bitcoin Wiki:
Given that it's on a github and everyone can contribute, I think this will make an excellent place of reference where facts about Bitcoin's history and evolution can be deposited.

 

[cypherdoc]

I get it. You actually want Classic to increase its activation threshold to 95% not because you want it to win,and win big ,but instead to see it "lose" support down to 2-3% so that kore gang can be the heroes to release a 95% 2MBHF. Thus, as we have all suspected, this is really about a matter of maintaining the current power structure as you sense that Classic does indeed have some significant support.

I would also like this.

However, of course I cant really support it right now, as during the time when there is a significant number of Classic proponents, I will always rally behind the existing rules, as a defense mechanism.

We could always HF to this later, once Classic support becomes insignificant. I would judge this to be at around the 2% to 3% miner support level. That is why I am commenting so much at the moment, if we can just push Classic support down a bit more, perhaps below around 3% for a few months, we may be able to HF to 2MB. I think we are getting close.

="jonny1000, post: 21913, member: 316"]I would also like this.

However, of course I cant really support it right now, as during the time when there is a significant number of Classic proponents, I will always rally behind the existing rules, as a defense mechanism.

We could always HF to this later, once Classic support becomes insignificant. I would judge this to be at around the 2% to 3% miner support level. That is why I am commenting so much at the moment, if we can just push Classic support down a bit more, perhaps below around 3% for a few months, we may be able to HF to 2MB. I think we are getting close.

[doublepost=1465386077,1465385261][/doublepost]it's really not that funny.

1. There is no winner who will prevail forever.
2. No war ever produces winners.
   
3. Consensus is fluid. It is merely a snapshot in time.
   
4. There is an equilibrium in the current state (and there will be in a future state).
   
5. A new state of equilibrium will emerge through inside as well as outside forces.

BTW- Funny to see former libertarians (Bitcoiners) turn into warloards and authoritarians over time.

[doublepost=1465386334][/doublepost]All these pages and I finally understand @jonny1000's motives. I'm losing my mojo

Reminds me of brg444 and the extra 200-300 pages he created in the old thread. Well, I guess you gotta have trolls to keep the thread popular.

 

[Tsontar]

If a simple economic majority can impose arbitrary changes on the system, I consider Bitcoin totally useless.

If any arbitrarily small minority small can prevent changes on the system, I consider Bitcoin totally useless.

The whitepaper presents us with the assumption that 51% of hashpower must be "honest mining" therefore seeking to increase coin value.

Your argument is that even 6% of dishonest hashpower should be able to thwart even 94% of "honest miners" from making a change that benefits coin value.

 

[cypherdoc]

Hey @Tsontar ! Welcome!

 

[albin]

No it does not. BU does not allow me to vote in a non binding way for 10MB.

This is a very instructive example of a concern-troll's general MO.

Intuitively we all know at face value this statement is totally bogus, because you simply set your acceptance limit to 10MB, and when a block appears that actually has the weight of proof-of-work behind it, your client will automatically go with the program.

The skill here is throwing in the term "non binding way", which is tremendously ambiguous. You spring the troll trap one of two ways:

1) You reply immediately with the obvious intuitive rebuttal, in which case now he pivots "non binding way" to mean whatever it needs to mean to patronize you and label you an idiot, and launch into another fillibuster that creates a handful more of these traps; or

2) You take a more tactful approach and attempt to interrogate what "non binding way" actually means. This elicits a much less superficially antagonistic exchange, but it basically throws a softball at the concern troll to show the trappings of prestige and erudition, again by lecturing you on the basis of concepts that the troll completely made up.

These techniques are very effective for influencing casual lurkers who do not necessarily follow the broad context of any given protracted conversation.

 

[cypherdoc]

The Web’s Creator Looks to Reinvent It

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/technology/the-webs-creator-looks-to-reinvent-it.html?_r=0

we do need more anonymity and security on the net.

 

[Tomothy]

Hey Guys, I was wondering if anyone had looked at this "falcon" stuff. I understand the thin blocks helps speed everything up. I also understand that after thin blocks was developed, core came out with 'compressed blocks.'

Is the "Falcon" stuff similar or substantially the same? It sounds promising. If anything, it also seems like institutional development outside of core is moving along... Just wondering.

http://www.falcon-net.org/
http://www.falcon-net.org/papers/falcon-retreat-2016-05-17.pdf

 

[albin]

@Justus Ranvier

I just listened to the Crypto Show appearance about Daniel Krawicz's paper, after having read it in detail a few days ago.

Admittedly I might be going too far generalizing the concept, but do you consciously think that there might be some connection here with those ideas and your reddit post advocating for members of the community to call out bad faith behavior?

Demanding ethical standards without making excuses seems like a pretty strong example of "monetary behavior" or at least in general a strategy to minimize cheating in the reciprocal-altruistic case of protecting the good faith participant in community discourse.

 

[sickpig]

@Tomothy

Falcon is more like Corallo's Relay network (*) rather than Xthin/Xval/eXpedited. The latter are enhancements embedded into the p2p bitcoin network, the formers are layers located above the bitcoin full nodes network.

In my opinion such initiatives are somewhat a "centralized" approach to cut blocks propagation time.

(*) http://bitcoinrelaynetwork.org/