Quote from: solex on March 17, 2015, 09:30:00 PM

Quote from: MPOE-PR on January 31, 2013, 01:34:29 PM

I've asked MP. While nobody can really know the future, turns out what we'll likely do is start an entirely new coin, this time guaranteed to never be hard-forked; not by a bunch of coder nobodies, but by MP himself. In practice that'll most likely work out to simply staying with the old version and replacing some code monkeys. This, mind you, not because we really care all that much if it's 1 Mb or 100 Gb, but because the precedent of hardforking "for change" is intolerable. We'll find ourselves in due time under a lot more pressure to fuck up Bitcoin than some vague "I can't manage to envision the future" sort of bs.

[my bold emphasis]

The reality of MP's position is that he does not want Bitcoin changed, which is why he runs an old version of Bitcoin Core, and has drawn a red line at the 1MB fork. He doesn't really care if the block limit is 1MB or 100GB, it's the principle of changing Bitcoin without MP's permission, which is unacceptable.

This is correct. This is indeed the crux of the issue, and I have not kept it a secret. I want bitcoin to remain anti-socialism, and MP wants the same. USGavin wants to change bitcoin so that socialism continues to be a thing. So yes, this is the "red line."

I'm not against changing it, so long as changes are in accordance with the aforementioned terms. For example, the bitcoin foundation is currently cleaning up the mess of a code base with which satoshi left us. There is talk of re-writing the whole thing in ADA, a language typically used on airplanes. If bitcoin is ever to get serious investment, it needs to be written correctly and not depend on garbage like OpenSSL. Things like changing magic numbers should only ever be considerations in the event of catastrophic failure of the network. And right now, MP is the only one in a position to decide if such a failure has occurred as his exchange is what's keeping the whole thing going. It's because of MPEx that your coins even have value; it's because of MPEx that there is any semblance of "correct price" in the rest of the market. All purchases made in bitcoin must be measured against what gains the funds could have made if deposited on MPEx.

Why is it MPEx that sets the standard for bitcoin? Because MPEx will not be pushed around by the USG. MP has firmly established his exchange as the safe place to keep your assets; the place where governments cannot interfere and taxes cannot be imposed. These are the things that bitcoin is about. This is why if you aren't in the WoT, you aren't in bitcoin. And this is why the guy who works with the CIA is the same guy who wants to change bitcoin.

Quote from: RoadStress on March 17, 2015, 09:39:44 PM

Quote from: danielpbarron on March 17, 2015, 06:04:46 PM

You are so despicable. Those people can just use a 3rd party shared wallet if they are so disinterested in actually keeping a full copy of the ledger. What is the difference from their point of view? Whereas the difference from your point of view is clear: your handlers want the full ledger to be as centralized as possible so that maybe they can corrupt it!

Are you suggesting that people are better off with their private keys handed off to a 3rd party just because they do not want to keep a full copy of the ledger?

Yes! I am pointing out that there is little difference. If you do not validate the transactions, you might as well not have the keys. If the unwashed masses aren't to have the "full" experience no matter the circumstances, I would much prefer that fully validating nodes remain inexpensive. If you can't have the keys to your funds, you can at least verify that your local bank has the funds they claim to hold on your behalf, and that the world's money supply is in fact what it should be. It is not worth having the keys to a network that can easily be corrupted by whoever has the most access to bandwidth. The whole point of bitcoin is that it can laugh off any and all attacks launched against it.