Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[jonny1000]

@jonny1000 so for which confreres were your travel expenses paid/reimbursed, and which ones did you attend? I understood you just happened to be in HK on the day of this recording is that correct?
--- Double Post Merged, Yesterday at 7:18 PM --- Can someone point out to me the people who Greg Maxwell is calling Dipshits. I also though @jonny1000 said he was there, maybe he's behind the camera.

Travel reimbured for scaling 2 only. I attended scaling 1 and 2 and also the HK agreement. I found out about the HK agreement on /r/btc that day, that is correct.

Yes I was behind the camera, I was just an observer who randomly turned up.

 

[albin]

All we need is a period of clam, no pressure, no threats, no force and we can get a 2MB HF. I really hope it happens soon.

To me this statement evokes the image of a child grabbing the hand of another child and striking him with it, while asking the other child the entire time "why are you hitting yourself?"

 

[AdrianX]

I agree with this. Not that I personally matter at all, however if you read my comments on /r/btc and Bitcointalk and am trying to encourage the Core team to support the hardfork to around 2MB of non-witness data. (See below)...

However what is important is getting other Core developers to agree.

Why? Just for the record the Core team have no say in that 95% Hard Fork consensus you're advocating. It's only up to the miners so you're wasting your time trying to convince Core, you should be convincing the miners to get 95% consensus among themselves to HF to move the limit.
[doublepost=1465952538][/doublepost]

In my view there are basically two large groups of people:

1. People who want a 2MB HF
2. People who want a 2MB HF, but above that they want to ensure that a HF occurs without pressure, force and in a calm way

still very ignorant of the issue being discussed.

I don't fit into your polarized view, both those supporting 2MB are supporting limiting blockchain scaling, I'm in support of removing the limit altogether and above that want to ensure that a HF occurs without pressure, force and in a calm way. (you can help by stopping the FUD and censorship - lets get on with it.)

I think it's acceptable to compromise with both those groups, they both better than the incumbent group that's no active plan to move the block limit.

 

[dwaltrip]

C'mon folks.

If you can't respond civilly to jonny1000 (or anyone else), then don't bother responding. As best as I can tell, s/he is here with good-natured intentions.

Insults (even subtle, clever ones) are not productive or beneficial.

 

[theZerg]

yes. Again, its not how the world works. For example, give me an instance of 20th century social progress where people decided to STOP protesting and somehow that was the trigger for change. And look at Occupy wall street. They stopped protesting and .... and ... lol.

theZerg said: ↑
The world doesn't follow your consensus fantasy

Yes I know, but Bitcoin does, with respect to removing the rules. That is why Bitcoin is unique.
[doublepost=1465899970,1465899346][/doublepost]

"This time its different"(TM). #4 (inability to reassess in the face of massive evidence to the contrary).

I'm done here. There actually are reasonable but fallacious arguments for small blocks, but this guy doesn't have them.

 

[AdrianX]

To me this statement evokes the image of a child grabbing the hand of another child and striking him with it, while asking the other child the entire time "why are you hitting yourself?"

and to add, he says: "stop crying, and I'll let your hand go".

lets reflect...

Before we can fork

However what is important is getting other Core developers to agree

then

and now

However, in my view the point at which nodes make an irrevocable decision to accept 2MB blocks, there should be 95% miner support.

All that one need to do to win the limited blockchain argument is create decent in the community.

@jonny1000 what is it 95% agreement with the Core experts, or 95% mining consensus, or overwhelming community support as agreed between you and an expert.

 

[Epilido]

Nope

Get the Opera browser for Android. It auto fits txt if you want. This makes zooming for comfortable reddit reading a breeze on Android phones or tablets

I use it for all reading and can long press and view all of the reddit linked comment here

 

[xhiggy]

So far, I've been making short term gains based on the block size being too small... When mempool get's crazy full, alts go up and I profit. It's just a matter of being prepared and waiting patiently. It was obvious this was going to happen if you were realistic (not optimistic) about how the direction of the debate was going several years ago. Despite my clever (or not) strategy, I still want the block size raised to help realize all the good that bitcoin can do for the world. I think bitcoin is a world changing invention, that's being hindered by narrow minded Maxwells into a much simpler version of what it can be. Bitcoin is so much more than gold, it's freedom itself and sidechains do not deliver this.

@dwaltrip It's tough to remain civil sometimes when it's so important, and we each only have one lifetime to make it happen. It's like arguing with a creationist, oh wait, we are... It's taking up too much space on this thread to be honest, and he's just spinning round and round. Sure, maybe he can be convinced, but why not just agree to disagree and let the lurkers decide for themselves.

The fact that I can grow my bitcoin off of this impasse is evidence of something, not exactly sure what.

 

[jbreher]

I am trying to help you get to larger blocks. That cannot happen with a 75% rolling threshold, the miners will not have it. Please listen to my advice.

I'm having a hard time evaluating the veracity of your statement. On the one hand, we have Jihan, who seems to be saying that The SegWit Omnibus Changeset will be blocked from activating unless an accompanying 2MB hard fork is in place. He controls enough mining power to perform this blockading.

On the other hand, we have you making assertions that not only will it be rebuffed by the miners with the current activation threshold, but that it would conversely [unbelievably] would be adopted with a higher threshold. How much hashpower to definitively speak for again?
[doublepost=1465959727][/doublepost]

Agreed, however please can you help find more mistakes by pointing them out.

Let us start with "these miners never reduce production". I'm certainly aware of cases where they have. But I'm willing to not hold you to an absolute. And I've never done a thorough analysis if this assertion. How about you show your work?

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

@jonny1000

You still haven't properly justified the idea of "stop resisting, it'll go easier that way." You just keep repeating it like a mantra. Now that we see that Luke has the same exact stance in similar wording, it's really starting to sound like parroted Core dogma. (An all too common phenomenon in this debate.)

There's no reason to ever expect the "attacks" to stop anyway, but rather to increase as Core and its supporters "rally around the existing rules" as the rest of the world passes them by. Market processes aren't always calm and orderly.

Please elaborate rather than just repeating. I'd like to really understand this mindset.

 

[cypherdoc]

@sickpig is right. The long press works for me now

Get the Opera browser for Android. It auto fits txt if you want. This makes zooming for comfortable reddit reading a breeze on Android phones or tablets

I use it for all reading and can long press and view all of the reddit linked comment here

 

[freetrader]

Newsflash: Market research at Blockstream has now been replaced by Rusty Russell "running some quick numbers" over the last retargeting period and claiming that

"users still don't care" [about transaction fees]

I wish I was making this up.

 

[bluemoon]

@freetrader

When there are 30MB / 25k+ transactions waiting to be processed, most are going to wait a long long time whatever fees they're paying.

But don't say anything about bad user experience or how it might be improved simply and quickly, because there are too many fragile egos involved who simply can't take the pressure or bear the cognitive dissonance.

 

[freetrader]

@bluemoon

I honestly don't believe that there are that many "fragile egos" upholding this farce [1].

More like a bunch of thick-skinned scammers who are stringing along some otherwise decent developers who've been persuaded that as long as they get paid handsomely, twisting Bitcoin to some corporate agenda and destroying their reputations isn't that big of a deal.

[1] Exhibit A:

 

[Dusty]

All we need is a period of clam, no pressure, no threats, no force and we can get a 2MB HF. I really hope it happens soon.

Lol, you are claiming that if nobody asks for a 2mb HF then an HF can be scheduled, while if the HF is actively requested from the community then it must be ignored.

That's worse than usual doublespeak, the brainwashing you were submitted to is really powerful!

 

[bluemoon]

@freetrader

I tend to agree, but @jonny1000 keeps going on about the need for calm and no pressure: whether he's stringer or strung.

 

[Zarathustra]

Lol, you are claiming that if nobody asks for a 2mb HF then an HF can be scheduled, while if the HF is actively requested from the community then it must be ignored.

That's worse than usual doublespeak, the brainwashing you were submitted to is really powerful!

Yes, unbelievable. I think there is superstrong consensus here that he should be allowed to post in this thread, but not to flood and capture it. But we all know his perverted consensus theory; that's why he is flooding this thread with perverted North Korean truths that are upvoted on censored playgrounds only.

 

[freetrader]

Wow, it's amazing how a post about an on-chain scaling conference gets buried in /r/Bitcoin, with no-one commenting, not even @jonny1000 .

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4o2kks/june_24th_26th_free_online_scaling_conference/

Has everyone who cares about on-chain scaling moved out of there already?

P.S. if you follow that link please note that it's non-participation - I don't want to get anyone banned.

 

[Zarathustra]

C'mon folks.

If you can't respond civilly to jonny1000 (or anyone else), then don't bother responding. As best as I can tell, s/he is here with good-natured intentions.

Insults (even subtle, clever ones) are not productive or beneficial.

Good-natured intention? Perverting the reality is either very bad intention or it is blindness:

I think many XT/Classic people view this situation from a very biased angle. Each side does the same thing and yet one is totaliteriansim and the other is legitimate. The difference in my view is that Core are defending the exisiting actual rules while Classic is trying to impose changes. However, the tactics are almost identicle. Can't you guys see this?

Oh disgust, disgust, disgust!

 

[lunar]

Great analogy