Wall Observer

[adamstgbit]

its more attractive now than it would be should you get forced off chain.

also running a LN node might be more attractive as there is profit in it.

 

[QuestionAuthority]

Wall observer is dying and being censored like mad now on BCT. The funny thing is the censorship is because people are talking about being censored. Your posts are deleted if you talk about your posts being deleted because you talked about your posts being deleted. It's some sort of perverse butterfly effect time loop.

 

[adamstgbit]

The girl in your above-linked video (daily decrypt) has some real goofy and illogical ideas in her attempt to find a problem and/or corruption where none exists. In any event, she is falling victim to quite large exaggerations, while striving to make them sound logical.

idk about that i think it would be hard to argue against what she is suggesting.
there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that core devs think bitcoin is broken and only LN can fix it.

 

[JimboToronto]

Good morning Bitcoinland.

Still "stable"?

 

[rebuilder]

my point re: nodes is running one isn't really incentivized at all. Perhaps if you're a merchant with a need to have trustworthy nodes for double-spend detection, that's an incentive. Other than that, we seem to rely on goodwill for nodes.

That means, to me, that any argument about what will happen to nodes if we change X is moot: In pretty much every scenario that doesn't involve financial incentives for running a node, running a node will become a serious operator's game. Joe Average simply has no reason to run a full node.

 

[adamstgbit]

@rebuilder

i agree with you, in the end only those how NEED a full node will run a full node.
BitBay, CoinBase, DirtyBitches4BTC.com etc..

this is natural evolution of the bitcoin network, so its unfair for some to say we need to keep node count as high as possible therefore most TX should happen on the LN network.

alot of the core supports have argument like this, which make no sense when you get down to it

"2MB will increase node requirements and lower node count so we should use segwit instead" wait a min! segwit increases node requirements by the same amount if not more!

 

[Erdogan]

Zanglebert Bingledack: There are no sides. That idea is harmful, because it activates tribal reflexes. The blocksize debate has long since ceased to be about technical details for most participators, and has become a matter of group identity. That needs to stop, not that I'm optimistic on that front.
[doublepost=1458722771][/doublepost]


POW mining will centralize. It's hard to see any way around that. As long as economies of scale apply, bigger will be more efficient.

This isn't news, either - IIRC, Satoshi said he foresaw mining being done mainly by a few big players, although he did expect they might do so at a loss to secure their interest. (again, IIRC.)

Not to say Satoshi's predictions are gospel, but he did design the system and apparently accepted that consequence of POW mining, so it's hardly surprising it's happening. The original design just didn't intend for widely decentralized mining to last long.

It will be right-sized. Bigger is not always better - at some point the cost of bureocracy will kick in. Right-sized is all right - we don't need an infinite number of miners.

 

[JayJuanGee]

Wall observer is dying and being censored like mad now on BCT. The funny thing is the censorship is because people are talking about being censored. Your posts are deleted if you talk about your posts being deleted because you talked about your posts being deleted. It's some sort of perverse butterfly effect time loop.

I don't believe that there is any meaningful or significant censorship going on over there.


I think that you can say whatever the fuck you want as long as you say it in the right thread and back it up with either evidence or reasoning.


If you are dissing the moderators or promoting another forum, of course, those kinds of things would be removed. If you are spreading disinformation or FUD that is likely another kind of thing that may be subject to removal, if it is not backed by evidence or reasoning.


Regarding the WO thread, surely that thread is a lot more open than other threads concerning topics; however, admittedly, it is a thread that is supposed to be about bitcoin price etc... rather than alts... .. .and so discussion of blocksize limits could likely meander into being quite a bit out there.. and probably it would be allowed up to a certain level and pumping of ethereum and/or other alts of the moments can begin to meander quite a bit off topic, too, so wouldn’t that be fair game for removal?.... ..


Well, I've been involved in that WO thread long enough to recognize that it seems to allow a whole hell-of-a lot of more off-topic tolerant as compared with some other threads... and that is great too and that is part of what has made that thread so popular.. and likely to continue to be popular (though it would be a whole hell of a lot better if we had Adam over there giving out beers every month to two years depending on mood, and chartbuddy to fill in the downtime with actual price-related facts.

 

[Tomothy]

JJG- I recognize that I haven't been following WO on BCT as long as you have, but I have noticed stark changes over the last months if not earlier; starting w/ banning of LambChops initial BCT account which IMHO, did and does represent censorship. The WO thread has, as of before, simply been off the wall. You want to talk about anything; talk about it there, it's fair game. Sometimes it's related to btc price, usually it isn't. However, as soon as Adam began discussing btc classic changes, IN EARNEST, they applied the heavy fist. Even during the time of XT there was some slight changes and moderation but not anything like recently. I would say, it used to be tolerant. It isn't anymore but that's just what I've seen. In any other environment things could be different, but why start enforcing moderation now, when it never really happened before except like removal of naked old men stuff. It presents the appearance of bias. In this info war, that's really all you need at this point to start screaming witch.

 

[theZerg]

If you are dissing the moderators or promoting another forum, of course, those kinds of things would be removed. If you are spreading disinformation or FUD that is likely another kind of thing that may be subject to removal, if it is not backed by evidence or reasoning.

Lol, I guess you think that's ok then? So I guess you think that its not censorship when posts are removed that criticize TPTB or suggest alternates?

Watch this not be censored: Go to www.bitcointalk.org if you want to beat your head against a brick wall and then get kicked for your troubles.

 

[hedgewizard]

idk about that i think it would be hard to argue against what she is suggesting.
there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that core devs think bitcoin is broken and only LN can fix it.

a problem I have with this video is why should there be a subsidy for developers. the work/reward for mining is very measurable but a developer's contribution can be contested. In a democratic rewarding of such a subsidy the naysayers and neutral folk aren't represented unless you could burn the coins proportionally or something along those lines. Why is it so bad that developers are left to work with donation models and everything stays voluntary without a developer welfare scheme baked in to the protocol? I'm not convinced its necessary or even mostly a good idea

 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin Explanation

 

[adamstgbit]

a problem I have with this video is why should there be a subsidy for developers. the work/reward for mining is very measurable but a developer's contribution can be contested. In a democratic rewarding of such a subsidy the naysayers and neutral folk aren't represented unless you could burn the coins proportionally or something along those lines. Why is it so bad that developers are left to work with donation models and everything stays voluntary without a developer welfare scheme baked in to the protocol? I'm not convinced its necessary or even mostly a good idea

hot girl pointed out the reason why in the video, hot girl knows her shit, never question hot girl!

because blockstream.
[doublepost=1458758559][/doublepost]

I don't believe that there is any meaningful or significant censorship going on over there.

[doublepost=1458759077,1458758259][/doublepost]at the very minimum there is manipulative moderation going on over there....

 

[JayJuanGee]

JJG- I recognize that I haven't been following WO on BCT as long as you have, but I have noticed stark changes over the last months if not earlier; starting w/ banning of LambChops initial BCT account which IMHO, did and does represent censorship. The WO thread has, as of before, simply been off the wall. You want to talk about anything; talk about it there, it's fair game. Sometimes it's related to btc price, usually it isn't. However, as soon as Adam began discussing btc classic changes, IN EARNEST, they applied the heavy fist. Even during the time of XT there was some slight changes and moderation but not anything like recently. I would say, it used to be tolerant. It isn't anymore but that's just what I've seen. In any other environment things could be different, but why start enforcing moderation now, when it never really happened before except like removal of naked old men stuff. It presents the appearance of bias. In this info war, that's really all you need at this point to start screaming witch.

I think that I already made my main points in my earlier post, and likely you are correct that some of the "cracking down" coincided with discussions about Classic and XT.

Nonetheless, I'm not sure how you can defend the likes of NOTLambchop, and his alts or other copycat trolls....... Some of the posts of the notlambie ilk and other trolls are clutter and not really intended to promote meaningful discussion.

I doubt that there is some kind of fine line between trolling and not - because sometimes it becomes quite obvious that a poster is attempting to engage in pure inflammation or off topic discussion, without really engaging or generating any arguable meaningful value, and there is considerable amount of discretion with owners of forums regarding who they allow to participate. Yes, I understand some of the arguments that the space is no longer private and may have become public, but really in essence, the owners/moderators retain considerable discretion in how they moderate. Moderator/owners do not lose their right to crack down, merely because they may have been lackadaisical in the past.

 

[adamstgbit]

Classic is a big part of the discussion.
threads about Classic are move to altcoin section.

is that not censorship???

 

[Fatman3002]

Is it attractive now?

Financially? no

Nerd-cred-wise? yes

Will it be as "rewarding" to run a node for a settlement layer for large companies running LN-like solutions as it is running a node in a genuinely horizontal p2p payment network?

 

[adamstgbit]

do you think these img were made for fun?

maybe they created a hole new bitcoin sub redit https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored

because they wanted to create home for NLC??????
[doublepost=1458760590][/doublepost]

I will expose BTC

for what everyone already knows it to be.​

[doublepost=1458760759][/doublepost]

 

[Bloomie]

@JayJuanGee Maybe it's time for a history lesson. The censorship on Bitcointalk began not to reduce off-topic posts or trolling, but to suffocate BitcoinXT. They succeeded, but now we have two wonderful projects, Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin Classic, and many more to come.

Source: theymos: "I have power over centralized websites. I know how moderation affects people. Banning from r/bitcoin will hurt XT"

 

[JayJuanGee]

Classic is a big part of the discussion.
threads about Classic are move to altcoin section.

is that not censorship???

Hey Adam, I have no connection with the powers that be at BCT or any other bitcoin forum (except through any of my arguable charisma through public threads), and like you said in your earlier post, I am just asserting my opinion.

Personally, I do not consider the various kinds of moderating that I have seen on BCT to have risen to the level of censorship... including, I would not classify moving classic threads to alt sections as censorship, especially when the moderators probably still would allow people to reference those moved threads in various bitcoin discussions.. and attempt to lure participants in bitcoin threads to read those other threads.

Moving, classifying and/or reclassifying threads seems to be considerably within discretion of the owners/moderators, even though there may be a lot of generated contention with those kinds of decisions to move threads (especially when the moving/classifying seems to be delving into substance).

Additionally it seems to be largely within the discretion of moderators to consider the extent to which they want to have their moderation decisions openly discussed within their forum or even in other forums. Many forums do not allow their members to publicly challenge moderation decisions because those kinds of topics can cause a considerable amount of discord or undermining of the value of the forum.

In the end, surely some of those kinds of moving and classification decisions are debatable concerning whether or not the topic is sufficiently connected to bitcoin threads and the extent to which that kind of discussion would be allowed in various bitcoin threads.

We all know that the WO thread has been permitted to have a lot of classic, xt, big/small block discussion on an almost continuous basis since those topics came up a year ago and even more persistently in recent months...

A lot of that kind of discussion still seems to be allowed in the WO thread... yet maybe sometimes the big/block small block discussion gets to be too much into the weeds of those technicalities rather than price/wall observing, etc.? I think that it remains within the discretion of moderators to remove those discussion from such thread, even though you created the thread.

I'm in no way attempting to defend BCT mods because I do not really know a large number of underlying facts, including what factors they account for when moving threads, or suspending/banning members, so I am just expressing my personal opinion.

People seem to be too loosely asserting that something that is censorship, when it is in fact within reasonable management discretion. You certainly know more personal facts regarding your own situation, so I am not attempting to open any of those topics at this point, unless you think that is relevant to such a discussion.

 

[ChartBuddy]

Coin Explanation