Quote from: exstasie on March 25, 2016, 05:04:47 AM

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

No. But nice try at reductio al stupido. Hashpower is a pretty good measure of economic resources. In this world where chicken littles are cluck-clucking about how expensive a 2MB node is to run, a mid-size miner can spin up any number of nodes. To such a miner, the cost of operating nodes is less than chickenfeed. For a mere two chicks. The non-mining nodes have cluck-all to do with consensus. But they do make the impotent feel good about their 'power'.

Quote

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.

Even if miners were somehow magically prevented from operating nodes, if the miners build a chain with whatever rules they care to, and the transactionators keep transactionating upon that blockchain, that chain defines Bitcoin. The nodes have fuck-all to say about it. What are they gonna do, just drop all the incoming transactions on the floor? Miners unaffected - they'll just reach down and pick up the dropped transactions, and mine 'em in the next block. Or the next...

Now you can argue that the node instances are a reflection of the transactionators' will. But that is a different conversation altogether. Is that your claim? If so, well then let's discuss this real issue rather than imbuing 'nodes' with some magical power that they do not in reality possess.

Though to answer your question directly, the miners are interested in what 75% of those making transactions will choose. As those making transactions are the power that keep miners in check. They have no need to worry about amassing 75% of nodes. Nodes are powerless.

Quote

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?"

Yes. The reason is that there are many changes other than SegWit in The SegWit Omnibus Changeset.

Quote

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.

In my book, any change that changes the protocol so significantly that formerly fully validating nodes become nodes incapable of validating all transactions is something other than 'backwards compatible'. But you can live in that fantasy land if you want to.

Quote

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.

First, I'll grant you one fair point. I used the term 'BlockstreamCoin' merely in snark, based upon the similar derision cast upon the other forks. However, you knew exactly what implementation I was speaking of, didn't you? Your other terms? Not so much.

But more germane, neither Classic (which, by the way, is NOT the fork published by Coinbase), XT, nor Unlimited seek to split the chain. If they did, their activation threshold would be somewhat south of 75%.

Quote

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?

Nope - you're still not getting it. We do not seek a version that no one uses. We seek multiple interoperating versions, all adherent to the same protocol based upon emergent consensus. We seek a coin guided by Nakamoto Consensus, rather than one restricted by the few. We seek these principles to be eventually adopted by the overwhelming majority of Bitcoiners. And at the moment, our trajectory is positive. Cheers!

Quote

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.

Using a different implementation is not 'breaking consensus'. As long as a shared protocol (i.e. a protocol that has achieved consensus) is employed, it matters not what implementation each user chooses.

Quote

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.

But you make claims about them that you cannot verify. The integrity of your statements is duly noted.