Quote from: PorkUsher on June 30, 2016, 11:11:33 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 30, 2016, 10:46:17 PM

Quote from: PorkUsher on June 30, 2016, 10:20:21 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 30, 2016, 09:51:47 PM

Quote from: giggidy23 on June 30, 2016, 09:39:16 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 30, 2016, 09:29:51 PM

Quote from: PorkUsher on June 30, 2016, 08:39:08 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on June 30, 2016, 08:30:26 PM

You have proven to be a dumbshit, as well it seems.

I'm arguing not to tell someone how to do their job.
Chinese Miner's are telling the Core Devs that they don't know what they are doing.

Well that's where the problem is, a misunderstanding.
No, the miners aren't telling the devs "that they don't know what they are doing." What they're telling them is they're not doing what they *promised to do*.
The interests of the miners are not the same as the interests of Core devs, see?

I'll give you an analogy, show you what I mean:
Let's say Core devs are building a railroad, and drawing pay from Mayor Mccheese.
The railroad can go through the plains, which will take it right through Hamburglar's Town, or it can go over the mountains, which would take it right through The city of Mccheese.

Now, many would argue that it makes more sense to build the railroad on the plains, because no need to blast. And many will tell you just the opposite, that the mountain route is better, because shorter.
Both are not wrong. But guess which way the railroad's gonna go tho?
See where this is going?

What if in your analogy there are bandits and blockades in the plains.
These bandits have the ability to stop the train, kill all the riders and destroy the train.
Do you still go through the plains knowing that?

I'm only telling you that the train is more likely to go through the mountains if Mccheese is paying the surveyors.
I'm probably not making myself clear, so here's what I'm really trying to say:
You think that there is a right way and a wrong way to build a railroad.
I'm telling you that there are *many* right ways to do it, and different people would profit depending on *which* right way is picked.
So it's not a question of "who is smarter, Core devs or miners, Mayor Mccheese or Hamburglar. It's a question of who would profit most from what route.

As I'm sure you are aware, you have been answering me under different usernames,
so either you are using multiple accounts or you guys keep answering and talking for each other (unlikely).
Either way, I do not really care since that is not important to the larger issue here. I'm just pointing that out.

I understand what you are saying in your analogy.
I think there is a right and wrong way, since the only right way is the way that protects the network from possible attacks.

Look, I don't know how to make it any simpler, but I'll try.
1. There are many right ways to build a railroad from NY to SanFran.
2. If you live in EastDmbfuck, WY, te right way *for you* is if that RR goes through EastDmbfuck, WY. Because then you wouldn't be EastDmbfuck, WY. anymore, you'd be Metropolis WY.
3. Routing RR through Armpit, KS, is not wrong, but it's wrong for EastDmbfuck, WY.
4. All of these routes could be made perfectly safe, that's not what this is abut.
5. Both Armpit, KS & EastDmbfuck, WY will give you a zillion reasons why their way is the best. It's in their enlightened self-interest to lie to you.

Back to Mayor Mccheese: City of Mccheese will shrivel up and die if RR don't go through it. It's banking on it. It bought all the properties that are in the right of way. It's desperate. But that's a tale for a later date.

P.S. Yes, I'm using multiple accounts. It serves MY enlightened self-interest.

It is a nice example, but there are too many issues from my view point.

First, there can not be multiple right ways. Only one way will lead to success and many will lead to extinction.
When railroads were created across the USA, they did not build multiple paths, there was one and it led to success.

Second, it is true that different towns will lie to me and want me to choose them, but then who do I choose?
I could choose the one that seems to favor my security and survive-ability.

I would have to choose the lesser of two potential evils. So which is less evil?
One side declares mass riders and carry shit tons of gold and the other says slow and steady and security.
I don't want to ride a train that will be blow off the rails by bandits and killed, I want security.
I do not believe you can have both within the same train or path.

Three, I understand that the Mayor bought all this land and wants the train to go through theirs,
but if the mayor is correct as to security and other important issues, compared to other Mayors who
don't worry about security and other issues, why is owning all that land a problem?

What land are you referring IRL? (since the only land that exists in Bitcoin is hodling bitcoins).

You are still missing the point. There is no one railroad that lead to "success." The towns that got passed by died, railroad towns bloomed.

Most miners are mercenary. They don't give a rat's ass about Bitcoin's "success" if, in the process of succeeding, it impoverishes them.
They want to make money, which is well and good. But miners making money is not synonymous with Bitcoin being successful. The would like Bitcoin to succeed only as long as it makes them money.

The rest of your arguments -- you not wanting to ride unsafe trains, etc., are neither here nor there. If the miners make more money when BTC crashes and burns (hypothetical, but I can offer actual scenarios), that's what they will choose. It may not be a good thing for you as a BTC hodler, but that's how the cookie crumbles.

Again, miners are not in it to help us build a Bitcoin utopia -- they're businessmen, doing it to make money. They are free to (and will) do what they feel maximizes their profits. They might make mistakes, but they are a big, moneyed motherfucking thing. Huge money!
They got creditors watching over them and expensive advisors on their staff, so don't go Dunning-Krugering by thinking you know what's best for them.

Ok, well we disagree.

If Miner's do not care about future use, but only the now, then they wouldn't investment more money into hashing.
That increase in hash is a vote of confidence of the future.

If Miner's only believe in the now, they better jump ship now before they default and go bankrupt.
Bitcoin is not a ponzi, where it disappears overnight, but it seems the Miner's think so, in your opinion.