Quote from: JackH on January 08, 2016, 05:48:19 PM

Quote from: Peter R on January 08, 2016, 05:44:44 PM

Indeed. For people who want to track consensus regardless of the who/what/where/when/why of the eventual block size limit increase, Bitcoin Unlimited is the best choice.

Why are you posting that picture? Is the RED supposed to induce a negative emotion? Is RED supposed to be wrong?

BU is full of flaws and allows for Sybil attacks.

The crowd here are capable of thinking for themselves, this is not some political campaign where you just utter the same words over and over and show us 4 colored boxes. It means absolutely nothing that you draw those boxes. Its insulting how you present your option.

Who are you?

Now, that peter was banned from reddit, you feel strong enough to offend him?

And who are you, to speak for the crowd?

Like Peter or like him not, but listen to him, when he's right: As a result of unsuccesfull discussions, unlucky decision-finding and bad behavior we face a future, where hardforks without consensus become more likely to emerge. Like it or not. You can blame, whoever you need to blame, but it's better to be prepared.

Like Peter said: Bitcoin Unlimited could help you to manage forks.

If you had read anything in this thread, you should know.

Ah, btw

Quote from: JackH

It is obvious you have failed at understanding the basic principles behind Bitcoin. A Sybil attack has NOTHING to do with Proof of Work.

The Sybill attack comes from nodes!

There is no sense in debatting, when you don't read. Scroll back to page 2 to see that this kind of attack we are talking about has ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING to do with Proof of Work.

Quote from: Bergmann_Christoph

Quote from: smallblockist

"Something about 2.000 Nodes sybilling everybody with 200 MB blocks

Sorry for stepping in.

If someone tries to sybill the networks and sets up 2,000 nodes with a blocklimit of 200 MB, no responsible miner would take this as a reason to set his own limit to 200 MB.

When one of the miners was corrupted too, he could release a 200 MB block and 2,000 Nodes would propagate it. All the other nodes with lower limits would reject the block untill it reaches some depth. For that to happen the majority of miners has to be corrupted.

Small-Block stalward brg444 helped. Even he knows that this simple sybill doesn't work.

Quote from: brg444

The attack is a lot more complex than that. I think you're on the BU forum? Taek had a nice explanation of the centralization pressure enabled by BU. Someone could leverage a sybil attack to effectively do just what he proposed: slowly but surely prune nodes out of the network until it gets consolidated into a few more controllable hands.

The attack is that a majority of MINERS that controll a mass of nodes pushes the network step by step into centralization by pruning the weaker parts of the network out. Several people did answer this attack in this discussion. Also it was answered in another forum, where you have been linked to. None of it was answered by you. Instead you are still insisting on the sybill-attack that was denies even by your own teammate.

You don't need to have to be willing to learn. But please, stop disrupting people, who want to learn and discuss, with your insults.