Quote from: gmaxwell on January 26, 2016, 04:29:11 AM

Quote from: Peter R on January 26, 2016, 04:00:38 AM

I actually did cite you, Greg. Here's a screen shot:

That isn't a citation for my work; it's a petty dispute of an unrelated criticism.

It is a citation to your past statement where you claim that things like orphaning risk cannot contribute to PoW security. I believe I showed that those claims are false. It's okay to be wrong sometimes. Everyone is. Just admit to it once and a while...haha you might even help to create a more positive environment around here!

In regards to your comment about using pre-consensus techniques to completely eliminating block-size dependent orphaning risk, you were wrong about that too, as I demonstrated in the subchain paper.

For the lurkers out there, Greg and I used to get along fine but things took a bad turn when I began researching topics related to on-chain scaling for Bitcoin. I can trace the hostility between us back to this (IMO) unnecessarily-spiteful public comment Greg made after I posted some ideas (that later inspired this work by the way) in Cypherdoc's thread:

Quote from: gmaxwell (nullc)

This post seems to be filled with equations and graphs which may baffle the non-technical while actually making some rather simple and straight-forward claims that are, unfortunately, wrong on their face.
...
what your post (and this reddit thread) have shown is that someone can throw a bunch of symbolic markup and mix in a lack of understanding and measurement and make a pseudo-scientific argument that will mislead a lot of people, and that you're willing to do so or too ignorant to even realize what you're doing.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3c579i/yesterdays_fork_suggests_we_dont_need_a_blocksize/cssghn6