Ninjastic
PostEdited versionsQuotes to this post
Post
Topic
Board Bitcoin Discussion
Re: Stop fuckin' around, fork the son-of-a-bitch already.
by
VeritasSapere
on 18/09/2016, 21:44:32 UTC
Quote from: Lauda on September 18, 2016, 09:32:36 PM
Quote from: VeritasSapere on September 18, 2016, 09:25:30 PM
I hold the position that the longest SHA256 chain should be defined as Bitcoin. Whether that will be the network you favor or not will remain to be seen. However the most likely scenario is that we will split of as a minority to begin with which means we will take a new name, to avoid confusion, I can agree with you on that Lauda.
The first part is wrong: "longest SHA256 chain as Bitcoin". Bitcoin could be replaced (hypothetical scenario) with a SHA256 chain that has nothing to do with the previous Bitcoin blockchain (e.g. no balances). You won't define this as Bitcoin, will you now? Just pointing out that the position is missing a characterization that describes a longest SHA256 chain relevant to Bitcoin (at least up to some point).
You are correct that under this extremely unlikely scenario this principle does not hold, a slightly modified statement would though: "I hold the position that the longest SHA256 chain that also contains the Bitcoin genesis block should be defined as Bitcoin". Another exception might be if the hashing algorithm is ever changed for legitimate reasons, thanks for pointing this out, you are keeping me sharp!

Quote from: Lauda on September 18, 2016, 09:32:36 PM
Quote from: VeritasSapere on September 18, 2016, 09:25:30 PM
Though there is a chance that in the future you might regret not being more compromising on this issue.
There is zero reason for someone rational and open-minded to regret having a wrong position, especially if they learn and adapt. If the proponents of the 'split' chain end up being right about the whole 'debate', finds a way to scale Bitcoin 'the right way',and that chain becomes the main chain, then there's no reason for me not to shift my position towards it. I'd expect an irrational person to act differently.
Hint: Do not make consecutive posts, but rather try to group them up as 1 post whenever possible (forum rules).
Good to hear that Lauda, the possibility exist that we might one day be in agreement then. Smiley

I could always be proven wrong in the future as well, and I would have to admit the fault and continue learning.

Point taken about consecutive posts, I will do my best to avoid that. I can lump them together now actually.

Quote from: Carlton Banks on September 18, 2016, 09:36:33 PM
Quote from: VeritasSapere on September 18, 2016, 09:25:30 PM
You are indeed correct in your recommendation Lauda to fork off, that is exactly what I think will happen soon. Though there is a chance that in the future you might regret not being more compromising on this issue.
I thought you said promoting fear was a hallmark of propaganda? And, hmmmmmm, isn't that exactly what the forkists have always argued with, fear based arguments? According to Hearn and Andresen, Bitcoin should have imploded by now. Yet the real Bitcoiners won the debate, and you're coming back for more. Ok.

And why are you still pretending that the fork is about technical issues and not politics? You're the propagandist here.
I have always argued using reason, so you are still building those strawmen I see Carlton. My predictions are holding true, just look at the chart I posted earlier on this thread. I have always said that this debate has primarily been about politics, to discuss the politics of the code we must also understand the code however.

I really just came back because I missed you guys. Wink