Quote from: jbreher on March 25, 2016, 04:15:09 AM

Quote from: exstasie on March 25, 2016, 12:19:00 AM

That's cute. Unfortunately if you do so in a contentious manner (i.e. with 75% miner agreement and no consideration for nodes/users) you will split the network.

Is there something in your reply that you believe is a stunning revelation?

Apparently you don't know how hard forks work. Miner agreement says fuck all about what users are doing. Cool

Quote from: jbreher on March 25, 2016, 04:15:09 AM

Quote

Only the fork that is not compatible with the original network can be considered an altcoin, by definition.

Oh - there it is. Though it is merely a stunning misunderstanding of the way Nakamoto Consensus works. The blockchain that emerges with the majority of the hashing power (e.g. economic majority) ends up being The One True Bitcoin.

Hahaha. Another clown that thinks *hashpower* defines the consensus rules. Explain to us all how that works. Does ___ PH hash = 21 million coin limit? Grin

How's it going to work if 75% of miners fork to another network, and the majority of nodes do not follow? Miners don't make the rules. Nodes do. Cool

Quote from: jbreher on March 25, 2016, 04:15:09 AM

FWIW, The SegWit Omnibus Changeset, as proposed, is also not compatible with the original network. We need some way forward. I have cast my lot with bigger blocks for the time being.

Is there a reason you always refer to it as "SegWit Omnibus Changeset?" Does that make you feel important, or just being obnoxious?

Quote from: jbreher on March 25, 2016, 04:15:09 AM

How sure are you that you'll end up on the winning side of this trade? I'm working towards my side being the victor. You doing anything other than waiting for Blockstream to pull through for you?

It's not about winning or losing. It's about forking attackers off my network. Why would I need Blockstream to do anything?

Quote from: jbreher on March 25, 2016, 04:15:09 AM

Quote

How so? Blockstream doesn't control anything. They aren't pushing a contentious hard fork on the community.

You're right - they're pushing a contentious soft fork on the community. Yawn.

That's not a very good comparison. A soft fork won't split the network. Backward compatibility really puts a damper on your non-arguments, doesn't it? Anyone who doesn't want to update need not. Cool

Quote from: jbreher on March 25, 2016, 04:15:09 AM

Yikes! I have no idea what 'adam's datacentercoin' is. I assume by 'CoinbaseCoin', you mean Classic? Or do you mean Unlimited? XT? Or maybe you mean the source tree that Coinbase's engineers forked? You're gonna have to specify.

I guess you should specify what you meant by BlockstreamCoin. Because there is only one global ledger: bitcoin. Classic (heavily backed by Coinbase), XT and Unlimited seek to split that ledger into multiple ledgers. Again, this is the definition of an altcoin.

Quote from: jbreher on March 25, 2016, 04:15:09 AM

I've made my choice for the moment, thank you. Interestingly, any of the above are compatible with any of the others.

LOL, and we can release a billion more versions that no one uses, too. That means your altcoins are "bitcoin"...why?

Quote from: jbreher on March 25, 2016, 04:15:09 AM

So when another incorporates features I value higher, I can simply switch. Oh yeah - you can throw Satoshi 0.12 in that pile too. At least for now. Next Core rev... err ... not so much.

LOL, this guy is willing to break consensus every time someone codes in a feature he likes. Like I always say, it's great that there are these new implementations now -- you forkers are cannibalizing each other.

Quote from: jbreher on March 25, 2016, 04:15:09 AM

Can you name more than five people that you consider to be 'the bitco.in crew'? How many of them are pumping DASH here?

I dunno, five people would be nearly counting their whole userbase. But theres VS, frapdoc, adam... the others, not sure. I certainly don't make any effort to follow these people; they are like insects to be squashed.