Quote from: figmentofmyass on January 30, 2016, 01:26:20 AM

Quote from: bargainbin on January 30, 2016, 01:09:00 AM

Quote from: Lauda on January 30, 2016, 12:58:14 AM

Quote from: bargainbin on January 30, 2016, 12:52:22 AM

I'm not trying to tell you anything. I'm asking you to back up your assertions by citing the relevant code.
Do it.

Have fun.

Relevant files and line #s plz, don't be flippant.

Quote

Quote from: bargainbin on January 30, 2016, 12:52:22 AM

Where are you getting "95% and above is acceptable due to it causing the 'old chain' to die quickly"? Why 95%? WTF does "die quickly" mean?
Do you even code?

Quickly means everyone will jump ship as soon as they either realize that they're on the wrong fork or they see that almost everyone else has moved on. The difficulty will be way too high in comparison to the hashrate and will die. If you take the 75% to 25% option then you're essentially splitting the chain into two (not upgrading one). The exact numbers are debatable though.

TL;DR: You don't code. You don't know shit. I doubt you can even read C.

irrelevant. this isn't about code -- that's a complete strawman. whether or not you are a coder does not make you an authority on the economics of an experimental system. consensus is about economic incentive. that is game theory, not computer programming. there is no "code" that defines what works for aligning human incentives.

Was responding to this:

Quote from: Lauda on January 29, 2016, 11:59:44 PM

... Neither is [95%] arbitrary nor 'virtually' impossible to reach. It has nothing to do about my choice but everything to do with consensus in a consensus based protocol. Anything above 95% is acceptable and reachable.

If you feel that Lauda's alluding to game theory, feel free to cite that. Forgive me if I don't take the word of random_guy_from_the_internet on trust.

Quote

95% is a past threshold for consensus that worked.

Worked when, where and how? Also define what *you* mean by "consensus," everyone seems to have teir own opinions.

Quote

the idea -- and I believe this is in line with the "consensus mechanism" stated in the whitepaper and the definition of "consensus" -- is to establish as close to 100% agreement as possible, and to prevent any changes that do not approach 100% agreement.

Can you please cite the relevant passage? Again, it's simply rude of you to make me search for the text you're referencing.

Quote

i'd argue that the burden is on the XT/Classic crowd to prove why 75% a) can be considered consensus in the context of the "consensus mechanism" stated in the whitepaper. From a historical--as relates to bitcoin-- and linguistic standpoint, calling 75% "consensus" is completely laughable)....

cite the fucking relevant passage plz.

Quote

b) from a game theory perspective, why the 75% chain (or 51% chain for that matter) will cause the minority chain to be orphaned (dead) -- including a thorough assessment of incentives, including the relative hashing power increase netted by miners who remain on the minority chain.

Huh? "from a game theory perspective"? WTF are you taking about? Am enjoying the a) and b) list bit tho. Very acædemic of U.

Quote

i've never seen a thorough game theory analysis done by "big blockers" -- only baseless assertions that "derrrrp, ofc if one chain reaches 75% at some point the economic majority will quickly crush all opposition!1!!!" that's not an adequate explanation for anyone with basic intelligence. clearly it's enough for some of the chickens with their heads cut off running around on this forum, though.

Bro, unless you can be more specific than "herp, Gaem Theorie!!1!" I'm gonna have to put you on ignore.
Don't waste my time.