Quote from: AliceGored on June 30, 2016, 08:40:38 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 30, 2016, 08:14:09 PM

Quote from: AliceGored on June 30, 2016, 07:53:17 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 30, 2016, 07:21:44 PM

Quote from: AliceGored on June 30, 2016, 07:08:25 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 30, 2016, 06:59:06 PM

I would not be surprised if this turns out to be true.
The Chinese operators of these mining pools do not understand the simplest things.
They may be able to buy and/or build more mining units to increase their hashing capacity
and out compete all others, but when it comes to anything else Bitcoin, they are total dumbshits.

If the Chinese Miners want to switch to Classic or anything other, they should be prepared to
take over and be singularly responsible for all future programming for that fork.
It is very likely a decent amount of Devs will walk off if they do this.

If they start setting up and attempt this fork, they better have a better plan then what is proposed.

It is contingent that the Core team stays and works on Classic, even though Classic is controlled
and maintained by totally different Devs. Do the Chinese Miners even understand that simple thing?

1MB4EVA KeccakCoin or Good Ol' BTC with greater throughput... hrm, tough choice.

Your arguing that the fact that they can make that vote a reality, that it transforms to the right choice?

That is total dumb shit thinking.
If majority of people vote to destroy the moon, then it's a good decision by your reasoning.

Great thinking there. Bright future ahead. Roll Eyes

*You're

I simply posted satoshi's description of Bitcoin's consensus mechanism. You're the one who equated Bitcoin with higher throughput akin to "destroying the moon".

Miners will face the consequence or reward of their decision via the exchange rate. As the price shot up near $40 upon hearing this rumor... the market may disagree with your sentiment.

If you disagree with miner consensus, you will remain completely free to dump your coins or move to an altcoin more in line with your philosophy.

I didn't equate "higher throughput" to "destroying the moon".

You did it via an (somewhat inept) analogy. I didn't make the analogy, you did.

Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 30, 2016, 08:14:09 PM

I provided an example to my prior statement: "Your arguing that the fact that they
can make that vote a reality, that it transforms to the right choice?"

*You're
It's simply how Bitcoin works at the protocol level, succinctly described by satoshi in the white paper. The protocol, by itself, doesn't decide right or wrong, its participants do, and they vote with their CPU's (or influence those that do by buying or selling on the market.)

Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 30, 2016, 08:14:09 PM

So what you are saying I said is pretty out of context. I'm not against "higher throughput", and never said to be.

The miners are trying to achieve higher throughput, so your flailing about over this seems to indicate otherwise.

Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 30, 2016, 08:14:09 PM

If the miner's do this, I will and sure others will buy into an altcoin that is in line with the original Bitcoin philosophy.

And I will buy more BTC as they are solving an important issue that has been repeatedly stalled and blocked by Core technicians. To free minds, and free markets!

It was not an analogy with throughput, I was making a different point on voting, but that doesn't seem to matter to you.
Nothing seems to matter to you other than the markets it seems.

Hopefully Bitcoin has reached to point that it will be able to withstand the assault that is going to come about from this move.
Sometimes I wonder whether people like you are a real person with a true belief or a government agency just trying to weaken Bitcoin.