Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[adamstgbit]

core believes its job is to control miners through software updates, they believe their role is "benevolent dictator of consensus". to them miners are there simply to enforce their consensus. core logic "if the network does not upgrade to 13.2 there somthing wrong with the network"

all the things they do and say, prove this point. they add in things to the code like sig discounts, and they enforce a static block size limit, because they believe they are here to dictate consensus. they call BU an alt coin because they do not believe in letting the network define itself, core logic: "without us telling miners what software to run bitcoin would be doomed."

poeple liked this so i'll expand on it a little. lol

when it comes to bitcoin's future, if the spectrum between conservative Vs progressive is:
from:
bitcoin should remain as is for all time.
to:
bitcoin should be whatever the F nodes / miners can be made to agree it is.

core is off the spectrum with a non-legitimate position, described above.

 

[lunar]

​

 

[awemany]

Given the repeated and blatant Orwellian attempts at rewriting history, I think it would be great if we had a (timestamped) ZIP of all the stuff that Satoshi ever wrote.

@DanielKrawisz : You have an excellent extraction of what looks like all of Satoshi's postings on your site. Do you have a ZIP of all the stuff available? If not, could you provide one for the Satoshi content your site?

 

[Norway]

Bloomfilter for every transaction, not just blocks


I got this idea yesterday to optimize normal transaction traffic on a node. It will most likely not work for some fundamental reason that I haven’t understood or a premise I got wrong. It might have been proposed by somebody else before, but I’m not aware of that.


I know the normal traffic on a node is not considered to be a bottle neck issue, but it would still be nice to reduce it.


It’s 100% inspired by Xthin, and I hope @Peter Tschipper would take a look at it and give a comment, but you can all join in to kill the idea. The sooner it’s killed, the less time wasted on a useless idea.


I am/was a programmer, but I have never looked at the bitcoin code. I have never worked on an open source project, and I will not be able to write the code for this idea.


These are two important premises for the idea to work. One or two of them are probably wrong

1) A node sends the same transaction to several nodes that allready have received it.

2) A node receives the same transaction several times from different nodes.


The idea is this:

A node first send a part of a hash of the transaction (That’s what’s done in Bloomfilters, right? The length of the part of the hash is long enough to make it statistically pretty unique. I havent thought about collisions yet.)


If the receiving node hasn’t seen this transaction yet, it asks for the full transaction and gets it.


And that’s pretty much it.


Please kill the idea, not me guys

 

[adamstgbit]

@Norway

your premises is true, but probably not to the degree you would expect. there has been some optimization to this problem early on (i believe) the nodes use a "gossip network" to help alleviate traffic forTX propagation.
its unclear to me if this gossip network is efficient or can't be improved
and your idea of using Bloomfilters might actually prove useful in futher optimizations for this gossip network

 

[Mengerian]

@Norway, I think @deadalnix's proposal for efficient mempool synchronization is what you are looking for.

http://www.deadalnix.me/2016/10/09/efficient-mempool-synchronization-using-bloom-filters-and-entropy-coding/

 

[Norway]

The single point of failure, the guy who controls the "Publish" button of Core code looks like this (Wladimir van der Laan):

 

[freetrader]

I really don't think we need more personal attacks in Bitcoin.

It's immaterial to the debate what the maintainer in charge of Core's repo looks like.

All this does is discourage more people from personally participating.

If your point was: "there is a single point of failure in the maintainer", then it would be much more productive to try to figure out how to solve that problem.

AFAIK the exact same problem affects most Core-derived clients, including BU, Classic and yes, the BTCfork org too (I excluded XT because I'm not too sure what their commit arrangements are).

The point is, it's not exactly an easy problem to solve, and there isn't that much evidence that Laan is really such a big problem in the big scheme of things. BU seems to be gaining support well despite him being in that position.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@Norway I agree with @freetrader about not starting a campaign against a single person here.

I agree, that core is a completely dysfunctional project, which is being abused by manipulators. But v. d. Laan is an useful idiot at best. He is a) completely irrelevant and b) posting a picture with the title "Single point of failure" could be taken very, very wrong by some people (although I guess that's not your intention ).

including BU

With commit rights that might still be the case, but at least the decision making process is very transparent for BU.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

I agree with @freetrader about not starting a campaign against a single person here.

Unfortunately you really don't get to pick the battlefield - the attacker chooses it.

When Gavin and Mike announced Bitcoin XT, the people who disagreed with that approach did not choose to confine the debate the realm of ideas, they chose to make it personal and as they increasingly lost the argument on logical grounds they abandoned the pretense of objectivity moved on open tribal warfare.

They are still engaging on those terms.

Pretending you're having a rational debate with civilized people when that's counterfactual is equivalent to a choice to lose.

 

[freetrader]

However, we're not losing the argument on logical grounds, and in that situation resorting to such tactics here on this forum is more equivalent to a choice to lose than refraining from doing so.

I don't want any credence to be lent to arguments that this might be a place for misguided witchhunts. Defending against those with "but you did it first" or "but you're still doing it too" is infantile and hardly worth anyone's time here.

Mike Hearn was capable of defending himself, and I think he did a good job.

Let Gavin fight his own battles in that regard, he's also capable enough.

We should not be using their reputation or past events as shields to justify stooping to similar levels as the opposition. It's far better just to point out when they are doing it.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

We should not be using their reputation or past events as shields to justify stooping to similar levels as the opposition. It's far better just to point out when they are doing it.

If you define success as maintaining your vanity rather than achieving your goals, then this is a successful strategy.

But only in this case.

"Stooping to the level of the opposition" is in fact the only way to achieve success in the face of malicious opponents.

That's why malicious people work so hard to spread the meme that nobody should do it.

 

[79b79aa8]

when played consistently and played well, there can be an argumentative advantage in not engaging in personal attacks, low blows, misinformation and other tactics -- which at least some core members have engaged in and continue to engage in, while cynically shrouding themselves in a mantle of self-righteousness. but it is not like those who have been on the receiving end of such tactics constitute some kind of monolithic block that can be expected to respond consistently and well.

yet the incontestable kernel of truth in @Norway's comment is this: a single implementation bitcoin has, not one, but multiple points of failure. decentralization also means client/developer team decentralization.

miners (bitfury: we are looking at you) must, in self-interest, take in this point.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

If you define success as maintaining your vanity rather than achieving your goals, then this is a successful strategy.

But only in this case.

"Stooping to the level of the opposition" is in fact the only way to achieve success in the face of malicious opponents.

That's why malicious people work so hard to spread the meme that nobody should do it.

"When you dance with the devil, the devil doesn't change. The devil changes you."

I have no problem with people using the same trolling tactics on these guys and so on, but you don't have to use the lowest tactics.

miners (bitfury: we are looking at you) must, in self-interest, take in this point.

I guess they are still mourning, that they don't have their puppet master Clinton in office.


Anyway... BU has more blocks than SW in the last 24 h!
That is fucking great! still some % to go but it's getting there.
Hah, mining is still decentralized enough. Getting ready to sell my keccak coins lol

 

[Zarathustra]

Who is to blame that the project is in such a mess now?
The swarm. There are swarms that install sick leaders (Saudia Arabia, North Korea, BlockStreamCore) and others that prefer to govern themselves without leaders (Switzerland, Bitcoin Unlimited / Classic).

And then there are still some small and self-sufficient communities in the wilderness, which even refuse to be ruled by the masses via integration into a large swarm. That's even better.
But I would be happy if the Bitcoin swarm is at least able to get rid of the sick rulers and all their followers. At the moment I feel more comfortable to live within the Swiss swarm than within the Bitcoin swarm. But I think it's worth to fight with Bitcoin Unlimited to re-liberate the vandalized and terrorized Bitcoin Project.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

Some shower thoughts to ponder:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma#Strategy_for_the_iterated_prisoner.27s_dilemma

A very common outcome when honest actors "take the high road" in a disagreement with a malicious actor is the honest actors illustrate their honesty and their opponent's dishonesty.

This frequently backfires because the onlookers simply use that information to determine who is dangerous and who is harmless and so side with the dangerous party against the harmless party as a path of least resistance.

 

[Norway]

@satoshis_sockpuppet
I'm just showing the picture of Wladimir. I have never seen him before. I have only heard his voice a couple of years ago on a video stream of a talk with Gavin present and him on the phone. He didn't make many sounds. If he is timid, that's ok with me.

I think that it's a good thing to keep real people responsible for decisions affecting real people. I'm not attacking him as a person. Why do you say that? I'm just pointing out that he sits with the power to say yes or no to every single line of code that is published from Core. That makes him a single point of failure in a security model.

I think Wladimirs power and responsibility has been under communicated for a long time.

It's actually becomming more clear to me why @theZerg chose to focus on the organization before he wrote a single line of code. Because it's so f'd up in Core. Wladimir is just a janitor? Just listening to a group voice and doing his job? Come on!

But more than anything, I want you all to consider my proposal of using Bloomfilters as the default for every transaction. Explain why the idea is so stupid and has no place in bitcoin (It's a few posts above.)

 

[freetrader]

NOTE: since Reddit user /u/fail_safd deleted his post, I am removing the post link here too.

Anyone wanting to find his comment can still do so under his profile, though I expect it to be deleted shortly (after all, it was an 11-day old sock account of someone who doesn't like some well-known big blocker community members).

Archive link of the account: http://archive.is/x6cuA

@Norway: read this post til the end.

Then ponder if it's such a great idea on the day that Roger has been banned to make /r/btc a bigger target. And quite likely get other people dragged into the crossfire.

You've been following the recent posts, I'm sure. You know they're looking for excuses to get /r/btc as a whole shut down.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@satoshis_sockpuppet
I'm just showing the picture of Wladimir. I have never seen him before. I have only heard his voice a couple of years ago on a video stream of a talk with Gavin present and him on the phone. He didn't make many sounds. If he is timid, that's ok with me.

I think that it's a good thing to keep real people responsible for decisions affecting real people. I'm not attacking him as a person. Why do you say that? I'm just pointing out that he sits with the power to say yes or no to every single line of code that is published from Core. That makes him a single point of failure in a security model.

I think Wladimirs power and responsibility has been under communicated for a long time.

It's actually becomming more clear to me why @theZerg chose to focus on the organization before he wrote a single line of code. Because it's so f'd up in Core. Wladimir is just a janitor? Just listening to a group voice and doing his job? Come on!

I agree with most stuff here.
But look at the outcome of your post, I don't think it helps BU, r/btc, you or Bitcoin or anybody else. It's just an excuse for the other side to attack single people.

But more than anything, I want you all to consider my proposal of using Bloomfilters as the default for every transaction. Explain why the idea is so stupid and has no place in bitcoin (It's a few posts above.)

It's stupid and has no place in Bitcoin.

I have no idea how much one can save by using them for tx.

 

[AdrianX]

To be fair I love the multi pronged approach. May people do and say things I would never try. Personalty I think it's in bad taste but then again who am I anyway.

What is clear is the mandate that Van der Laan was given when he became the Bitcoin Core Maintainer was to address protocol-level, cross-implementation issues and I was lead to believe clean up and comment the existing code base, Core have moved in the opposite direction.

Given he's just added and rejected everything dictated by the BS/Core hegemony there is bound to be blow back and this is just one reaction for those actions.
[doublepost=1484780611][/doublepost]

@Norway: read this post til the end.

Then ponder if it's such a great idea on the day that Roger has been banned to make /r/btc a bigger target. And quite likely get other people dragged into the crossfire.

You've been following the recent posts, I'm sure. You know they're looking for excuses to get /r/btc as a whole shut down.

also relevant is the number of views the post has and the number of up votes that post has. its low and arounf 50/50 upvoted/downvoted.

What is not well understood is the hundreds or thousands of frustrated bitcoin enthusiasts who have had their voices silenced. They as Justus has pointed out will react with equal force to prevent being bullied.