Re: Bitcoin core value? - miners will switch to Bitcoin Classic
So switching "padlocks thrown about on our lawn" for "garlands of garlic on our front door" proves your case....how? I provided numerous arguments that suggest this is an absurd analogy with no basis in reality.
You don't understand what an analogy is. Start learning here.
Here's the most common definition of "analogy":
Quote
a·nal·o·gy
noun: a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
noun: a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
Did you or did you not make a comparison between "nodes", "padlocks thrown about on our lawn" and "garlands of garlic on our front door?" I didn't make those comparisons; you did:
1. You claim that the hundreds of padlocks thrown about on our lawn help secure our house.
1. You tell me that hanging garlands of garlic on our front door is essential for home security
Yes i did. For those failing to see parallels apparent to a household cat, I'll explain:
Garlic garlands, padlocks strewn about the lawn, and non-mining nodes are analogous, that is to say have a thing in common: They're all FUCKING IRRELEVANT TO SECURITY.
How so? Explain how
FTFY. If you can't prove to me that garlic garlands are irrelevant to home security, it's just a baseless opinion.
Quote
The similarities don't end here.
If one is challenged by some frustratingly dense douche to prove garlic's lack of efficacy in keeping out The Father of Lies, one is unable to do so, as one would be unable to prove nonexistence of unicorns and Easter Bunnies. Because proving the negative is notoriously difficult, if not outright impossible.
Go figure.
If one is challenged by some frustratingly dense douche to prove garlic's lack of efficacy in keeping out The Father of Lies, one is unable to do so, as one would be unable to prove nonexistence of unicorns and Easter Bunnies. Because proving the negative is notoriously difficult, if not outright impossible.
Go figure.
And what does this have to do with non-mining nodes? You haven't established that (see above). This isn't about garlic.
It's called an analogy. If I compare thee to a summer's day, I don't mean to suggest you have 24hrs & that there are 365 of you in a year. Your failure to understand such basics is, partially, what led me to conclude that you're a
... frustratingly dense douche ...
Duh.Quote
Quote
Since I mounted considerable evidence that nodes are essential to network security, it is incumbent upon you to explain how nodes are comparable to either of those things.
No. You typed shitloads of words, which rarely corresponds to "mount[ing] considerable evidence." This subtle distinction eludes you too, I'm sure.
It may appear to be wordy, since I make an effort to respond to every point my opponent makes. You, on the other hand, respond to precisely zero of the arguments your opponent makes. Then you complain that your opponent uses too many words, as if that was sufficient to refute his arguments.
In other words, you're just talking shit, as usual.
The problem with attempting to converse with your likes is that (on top of your other failings) you cause the argument to bloom -- instead of limiting yourself to a single point, you create multiple branches, going off on multiple tangents. This could be due to an undisciplined mind -- inability to focus, choosing instead the spray & pray, the shotgun approach, or "throwing spaghetti at the wall & seeing what sticks."
A less generous interpretation is "force the debate into a stalemate by causing it to bloom & become unmanageable/"too much of a bother to continue."
If so, GG.
Quote
...
Gaming the system, how? You've never read the bitcoin whitepaper have you?
It's not one-user-one-vote. My nodes are simply enforcing the consensus rules that the rest of the network is, i.e. honest nodes. How is that gaming the system?
And here you admit to gaming the very system you claim to support 
Gaming the system, how? You've never read the bitcoin whitepaper have you?
Quote
Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote
It's not one-user-one-vote. My nodes are simply enforcing the consensus rules that the rest of the network is, i.e. honest nodes. How is that gaming the system?
In that case, you disagree with the majority of Core supporters, who feel that one node = one "economic agent" (whateverthefuck that means) & thus nodes become a voice of the "economic majority" (whateverthefuck that means).
One node is one agent in the network. Could you explain how it isn't? That doesn't mean that one user = one node.
In that case, it things like Sybil attack are bullshit -- all the nodes participating in the attack are "[valid, legitimate] agent[s ] in the network." A Sybil attack is not an attack, merely Bitcoin functioning as it should. Discouraging "Bitnodes['s] incentivizing full node operators "until the end of 2015 or until 10,000 nodes are running." by Core was also bullshit.
Case closed.
Quote
Sources for the latter claim?
See above.