@Roger_Murdock : Could be as simple as a briefcase full of cash.
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
Roger_Murdock
Active Member
- Dec 17, 2015
- 223
- 1,453
@Richy_T If so, all the more reason to proceed as I've outlined and threaten the miners with a PoW change of our own.
@chriswilmer Here again, if the miners have been "completely compromised" via the proverbial briefcase full of cash, all the more reason to proceed with my plan.
@Zarathustra Maybe that's the story Core has tried to sell them, but it's hard to believe the miners would be dumb enough to actually buy it.
@chriswilmer Here again, if the miners have been "completely compromised" via the proverbial briefcase full of cash, all the more reason to proceed with my plan.
@Zarathustra Maybe that's the story Core has tried to sell them, but it's hard to believe the miners would be dumb enough to actually buy it.
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
Ref your quote: So disingenuous it almost makes me choke. Either LN will lighten the load on the blockchain so much that blocks aren't full and miners will be pulling in chump change at levels of around a year ago or blocks will still be so full that LN will be fucking up all the time and people will be driven away from Bitcoin/LN. Either way, the intention of the lightning network is to eat miners' lunch. I too am somewhat dumbfounded at their acquiescence in this.
[doublepost=1470089870][/doublepost]
Why threaten? I think both a PoW change fork and a non-PoW change fork should be created. Let's see how it all shakes out. Potentially it could all be done pseudonoymously so no one ties their reputation to it.
The miners need to know they need to shit or the pot will be taken from them. They owe us nothing, we owe them nothing. We just want to pay them to put transactions in blocks and they are failing to do so. If a plumber could not get to my plumbing issue and told me he was going to charge me extra because he was so busy, I would find a different plumber. That kind of shit only works in a monopoly position and I have little doubt there are plenty of people who want our money.
It might be a good time to have a discussion about tipping points.
Last edited:
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
xhiggy
Active Member
- Mar 29, 2016
- 124
- 277
It's ridiculous that you think the only solution to this contrived example, which assumes that core holders are willing to take on huge risk, is to only have a fork with 95% consensus. Surely you can't actually believe that this opinion of yours is based on all the facts available. Remember bitcoin is an experiment, with new ideas coming about it every day. If core wasn't being so hostile, a well meaning hard fork could happen and we could learn from it and no one would lose their money. Because of Core's hostile tactics, we need to fear a minority of actors sabotaging the whole thing. Core wants to make bitcoin into something that suits the school of thought of those who lead blockstream TODAY. The only thing bitcoin has done well is on-chain transactions, many off chain movements of bitcoin have failed catastrophically, let's keep that trend going, it's literally the least we can do to help grow bitcoin.
[doublepost=1470098770][/doublepost]
Yes, you have summarized his actions very well.
[doublepost=1470099242][/doublepost]
Because of what Core has publicly done to individuals who go against them. It would make no sense for someone as credible, and with such a stable career, as Gavin to go back to work with Maxwell, and Adam Back. Got dammit you are something else.
[doublepost=1470099516,1470098683][/doublepost]
But jonny boy, you talk about all hard forks as if they're exactly like classic now. Your default argument/point, is always the 95% consensus. It's not about classic, stop acting like it is. If you're not being paid to do this, I'm worried about you.
No, I do not think the only solution to the above problem is 95% consensus. However, luckily, since there is very strong consensus across the community for capacity increases, we can easily obtain over 95% consensus anyway.xhiggy said:
To repeat again, 95% consensus is required to ensure victory, only for a tiny narrow subset of the potential ways of increasing capacity by forking. For example Classic, an asymmetric hardfork, which gives a gigantic advantage to the Core side, due to its asymmetric nature, probably does require 95% consensus to ensure victory. If Classic does not have 95% consensus it is likely to be defeated, possibly after a period with a chain split where people lose funds.
Other methods of forking to increase capacity, which may require less consensus include:
- A softfork to increase capacity (e.g. Segwit)
- A Soft-Hardfork, which would be safer
- A symmetric hardfork
Core and many in the community have been hostile to Classic/XT. This is because these are dangerous attempts at a hardfork without consensus which will cause a chain split. They also lock in 25% miner opposition at the the time of activation, ensuring the Core side of the chain survives. These proposals do not even give more miner consensus a chance.xhiggy said:
Yes I have repeated the "locking in" 25% miner opposition again and again. Perhaps in the light of the ETC/ETH issue, it may be easier for some of you to appreciate how inappropriate this 25% policy is. Please can you guys review the Classic idea again and please try to be open minded. Then we can finally discuss a safe sensible hardfork, while respecting each other, in a calm, patient and collaborative way.
Agreed, that is why I strongly support the Core team and the excellent progress they have made and plans they have for ON-CHAIN scaling and capacity increases.xhiggy said:
For example:
- Speeding up signature verification times by c7x
- Segregated witness - On Chain capacity increase
- Schnorr signatures - On Chain capacity increase
- Aggregated Signatures - On Chain capacity increase
- Hardfork to around 2MB of non witness data (If there is strong consensus across the community and once the attempts to do this without consensus become insignificant) - On Chain capacity increase
- MAST
- Compact Blocks
Last edited:
xhiggy
Active Member
- Mar 29, 2016
- 124
- 277
Thanks for replying jonny boy, you are very skilled at misunderstanding things in your favor, it's a privilege to behold. Although, and I'm serious here, the way you type makes me worried you might be going a bit manic, please take care of yourself.
For your first section of misunderstanding, you list some alternatives to your consensus. These alternatives seem fine, but Core is unwilling to do them despite pressure to do so, this is a reason to ditch them and fork away, orphaning their hard work if you will. Remember this hard fork is more about getting away from toxic people,working with these people won't solve this problem, and it's a very big one that needs addressing. You recognize that they are villains, you assume they will act like it post fork for god sakes. Is your point that we should abandon Core later?
Second section, you conveniently crop my post in a way that favors you. Core has been hostile to individuals for a long time, Gavin spoke out about how these people at Core/blockstream are toxic, high-iq, people who don't get along well with others. If you have ever heard Greg talk, it's clear he has ego problems. It's about people exerting inappropriate control over bitcoin, and removing those people from power. You're also rehashing the tired 'locks in 25% of opposition' argument, which I replied to long ago but you never replied back, maybe you'll remember to now?
Third section, this one takes the cake. Core supports on chain scaling, as long as it`s 100% what they want, and 0% what they don't, they need both to act. You`re ignoring the idea of a fork as a way to remove those individuals from power, to show them that bitcoin isn`t their academic conceptual playground, but an open source project that exists in the real world. Their roadmap, blatantly focuses effort on side chain innovation at the expense of on-chain innovation (they only have so many developers after all). it`s clear that this is their goal, which is fine, but it`s fair to notice that it`s not a commitment to on-chain scaling.
In my experience, promises made by a young company about time horizons beyond 6 months or so are meaningless. What are they doing now to address these concerns? Well they have Greg-O arguing on reddit that he's right, and are making promises to miners about fees given through software that doesn't exist and will take decades to come to fruition, I can't believe how gullible the miners are, and how stupid Core thinks everyone else is. It's clear the people behind core need to go, they're brilliant, but incompetent.
It is my personal opinion, that the people behind core are actually acting in good faith, they're just huge nerds. In academia it's normal to cater to people with big brains, but who are otherwise driven by their ego only. It's kind of a requirement to make great discoveries, an unfortunate paradox. Back and Maxwell are the epitome of this, they believe themselves to be privileged and expect everyone else to think so too. When people disagree with them, they throw hissy fits as their privilege is challenged. It happens all the damn time with genius types, and it's happening here, Maxwell and Back look, to me, like spoiled children who need to get their way to be productive. I'll bet against their initiatives every time.
I want to issue a challenge to you jonny-boy-o-boy, if someone says something you agree with, but posts it as an argument against you/core, just let it go. Are you in control of your ego? I'm not sure, let's find out.
For your first section of misunderstanding, you list some alternatives to your consensus. These alternatives seem fine, but Core is unwilling to do them despite pressure to do so, this is a reason to ditch them and fork away, orphaning their hard work if you will. Remember this hard fork is more about getting away from toxic people,working with these people won't solve this problem, and it's a very big one that needs addressing. You recognize that they are villains, you assume they will act like it post fork for god sakes. Is your point that we should abandon Core later?
Second section, you conveniently crop my post in a way that favors you. Core has been hostile to individuals for a long time, Gavin spoke out about how these people at Core/blockstream are toxic, high-iq, people who don't get along well with others. If you have ever heard Greg talk, it's clear he has ego problems. It's about people exerting inappropriate control over bitcoin, and removing those people from power. You're also rehashing the tired 'locks in 25% of opposition' argument, which I replied to long ago but you never replied back, maybe you'll remember to now?
Third section, this one takes the cake. Core supports on chain scaling, as long as it`s 100% what they want, and 0% what they don't, they need both to act. You`re ignoring the idea of a fork as a way to remove those individuals from power, to show them that bitcoin isn`t their academic conceptual playground, but an open source project that exists in the real world. Their roadmap, blatantly focuses effort on side chain innovation at the expense of on-chain innovation (they only have so many developers after all). it`s clear that this is their goal, which is fine, but it`s fair to notice that it`s not a commitment to on-chain scaling.
In my experience, promises made by a young company about time horizons beyond 6 months or so are meaningless. What are they doing now to address these concerns? Well they have Greg-O arguing on reddit that he's right, and are making promises to miners about fees given through software that doesn't exist and will take decades to come to fruition, I can't believe how gullible the miners are, and how stupid Core thinks everyone else is. It's clear the people behind core need to go, they're brilliant, but incompetent.
It is my personal opinion, that the people behind core are actually acting in good faith, they're just huge nerds. In academia it's normal to cater to people with big brains, but who are otherwise driven by their ego only. It's kind of a requirement to make great discoveries, an unfortunate paradox. Back and Maxwell are the epitome of this, they believe themselves to be privileged and expect everyone else to think so too. When people disagree with them, they throw hissy fits as their privilege is challenged. It happens all the damn time with genius types, and it's happening here, Maxwell and Back look, to me, like spoiled children who need to get their way to be productive. I'll bet against their initiatives every time.
I want to issue a challenge to you jonny-boy-o-boy, if someone says something you agree with, but posts it as an argument against you/core, just let it go. Are you in control of your ego? I'm not sure, let's find out.
I cannot speak about anyone else. I highly respect Gavin, Jeff and Sergio (who might now prefer SegWit than Classic). As for Jeff I strongly support his very clever BIP100 idea. As for Gavin, I greatly admire him and think he is very intelligent and smart. I think he made an honest mistake on the CWS incident and everyone makes mistakes. Scaling Bitcoin and hardforks are a very complicated issue, with many subtle nuances and it should be seen as normal and reasonable to disagree on the best way forward.
Please try to be nice and respectful. In contrast to your comments, I respect you and believe you are being genuine and authentic. The reason I am here is because I am a Bitcoin holder and want a hardfork to increase the limit of non witness data to around 2MB. The sooner we come together, stop this fighting and start discussing the hardfork in a calm way, the faster it can happen.
[doublepost=1470102314][/doublepost]
- Core regards blocks over 1MB as invalid
- Classic regards Core blocks less than 1MB as valid
Core is doing Segwit right now. There is also work on a Soft-Hardfork going on. In addition to this Core does not want to risk splitting the network into three. Therefore first Classic/XT need to be resoundingly defeated, then we can move on to a safe hardfork.
If you want to move away from "toxic" people that is fine. Please stop incorrectly conflating the issue of the people in the team of a client and the Bitcoin protocol rules. If you want to run software written by a different group of people, run an alternative compatible implementation. Then if that gains enough market share, the development team you dislike will be insignificant. The team you dislike will then lose veto power with respect to hardforks.
If you run a deliberately incompatible implementation (Classic/XT), without getting the necessary consensus, you could help split the chain and become a destructive influence on Bitcoin. This is entirely orthogonal to who the development team of any one client is.
Last edited:
- Aug 19, 2015
- 511
- 803
I am actually impressed by jonny1000's sheer energy to be able to argue/troll against so many people at once.
@jonny1000 If you invite your Core buddies here, you guys can have your own subforum and advocate whatever views you want.
@jonny1000 If you invite your Core buddies here, you guys can have your own subforum and advocate whatever views you want.
xhiggy
Active Member
- Mar 29, 2016
- 124
- 277
Thanks for the reply @jonny1000 I gotta give it to you, you stick to your guns.
The whole point of Classic is because it has Gavin. He has been a proven steward of the code before, Satoshi chose him for a reason. Can we get consensus around that? As a first step towards a larger block hardfork.
The whole point of Classic is because it has Gavin. He has been a proven steward of the code before, Satoshi chose him for a reason. Can we get consensus around that? As a first step towards a larger block hardfork.
"Bitcoin Collapsing. Ethereum Classic UP."
It seems the longer Bitcoin exists the more surprising it becomes, which itself is surprising.
It seems the longer Bitcoin exists the more surprising it becomes, which itself is surprising.
cliff
Active Member
- Dec 15, 2015
- 345
- 854
priestc
Member
- Nov 19, 2015
- 94
- 191
Its not really impressive when you consider his post rarely have any coherence. The real impressive feats are the people who are able to stick with it long enough to make any sense of his dreck.
Roger_Murdock
Active Member
- Dec 17, 2015
- 223
- 1,453
Oh FFS, dude. Yes, you certainly have repeated that particular bit of nonsense "again and again." And it's still every bit as absurd as it was when you first trotted it out. To review, no, Classic does not "lock in 25% miner opposition at the time of activation" because:
- it's entirely possible that, at the time of (initial) activation (i.e., when the 750 blocks trigger is met), more than 75% of the network's hash power is mining Classic (it's even possible that 100% of the network could be running Classic at the moment of activation);
- to the extent that there is hash power mining something other than Classic at the time of initial activation, that hash power does not necessarily represent "opposition." As I previously explained:
- Finally, to the extent that, at the time of initial activation, there is hash power mining something other than Classic and that does represent actual opposition, that opposition is not, in any way, "locked in." Nothing prevents that hash power from switching to Classic during the grace period or at any time thereafter (and there may be strong incentives to switch to the extent that the rump chain is not likely to be viable or heavily valued following the fork).
But to address your more fundamental point that a Classic-style hard fork with a 75% trigger might result in a persistent (or semi-persistent) chain split -- sure, it might. But so what? If enough people feel strongly enough about itty-bitty blocks to maintain the rump chain in some kind of meaningful capacity following a fork, then I for one won't stand in their way. Once again: "The systemic risk of forking is one that is inherent in free software crypto, it's not something that can be prevented by declaring 'contentious hard forks cannot happen'." So sure, a minority of the network might decide to stay on a 1MB4EVA chain following a hard fork to bigger blocks (as is their right). But that "risk" is no different in principle than the risk that a disgruntled minority of big-blockers might, at any time, fork to a new chain that allows for meaningful on-chain scaling. (And again, the "strong consensus" position would seem to amplify the latter risk.) There are costs associated with chain splits (which is why we should expect them to be somewhat uncommon) but there are also benefits (e.g., more people get to satisfy their preferences with respect to the protocol).
I agree Gavin is a great Bitcoin developer and an intelligent and good person. This is why a really important step to larger blocks is when Gavin withdraws his support for Classic and gets back around the negotiating table. It looks like we are close.
