Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 30, 2015, 04:18:35 AM

Quote from: danielW on November 30, 2015, 03:00:36 AM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 29, 2015, 05:08:14 PM

Quote from: danielW on November 29, 2015, 04:40:55 PM

Quote from: VeritasSapere on November 29, 2015, 03:12:42 PM

Quote from: hdbuck on November 29, 2015, 03:07:21 PM

Quote from: Zarathustra on November 29, 2015, 03:04:37 PM

Quote from: Lauda on November 28, 2015, 08:59:32 AM

Quote from: muyuu on November 28, 2015, 02:16:07 AM

A good laugh Cheesy

https://archive.is/lQCHp

Quote

On Black Friday, with 9,000 transactions backlogged, Peter Todd (supported by Greg Maxwell) is merging a dangerous change to Core (RBF - Replace-by-Fee). RBF makes it harder for merchants to use zero-conf, and makes it easier for spammers and double-spenders to damage the network.

Nobody intelligent is going to take these clowns serious if they keep posting nonsense like that. Fork off already guys, nobody needs nor wants you here.

Nobody cares about your 'blockstream core only implementation' imperatif. The totalitarians will be forced to raise the limit soon.

it is usually the totalitarian that force things, not the other way around.

no one is forcing you to use bitcoin. (altho i suspect you are not using it anyway)

You are correct actually, force is not the right word. The totalitarians will be incentivized to raise the limit soon. That is much more accurate, thank you for correcting our rhetoric.

I am disgusted by what is happening now with Core and RBF, to push such a contentious change without any debate, voting, time or even miner consensus. It is truly horrendous especially considering the harm that RBF can do to Bitcoin. It is also highly hypocritical especially considering their reasoning for not implementing a blocksize increase. I hope that once Core is forked out of power we will be able to reverse these changes and repair the damage that has been done here.

Raising block size needs needs a change of the consensus protocol, and therefore needs consensus. Relay policy is separate from protocol and does not need consensus. Anybody can use whatever relay policy they want.
Everybody needs to use the same protocol, so we need consensus there.

RBF is really a user interface issue. It adds an interface to do what is already possible on network anyway.

This is part of the difference between a soft fork and hard fork as far as I understand it[/b]. Some very important and fundamental changes can be done using a soft fork whereas there are some others things that are not particularly fundamental that do require a hard fork. Whether a particular change is a soft fork or a hard fork is not necessarily always based on its importance. Therefore some changes that can be done as a soft fork, like you say without requiring a change to the consensus protocol, should actually be implemented using a hard fork so that it gives the community the opportunity to develop real consensus around the issue.

Quote from: jtoomim

Soft forks quash the minority voice. Hard forks allow it to persist.

Replace by fee is not a soft or hard fork, its no fork and zero 0 consensus on the network is needed. It is clear your understanding is poor, factually incorrect. Which is ok, not everybody has to know everything and you are still allowed to have differing opinions.

While differing opinions is ok, having such outrage and confidence in your views, making accusations against others, while having little knowledge about what it is you are complaining about, is unbecoming and frustrating.

It exposes your complains as not about the issues but simple about 'partisan loyalty'.

You have proven my point actually, that it does not require consensus. Core has also not sought consensus on this issue, I do not need to be a technical expert to know this.

Yes, but changing blocksize does require consensus and subsequently a lot of testing. You said there is hypocrisy.