Quote from: franky1 on December 28, 2016, 09:25:36 PM

Quote from: DooMAD on December 28, 2016, 08:58:35 PM

Quote from: gmaxwell on December 28, 2016, 05:40:35 AM

BIP9 changed to a new quorum sensing approach that is MUCH less vulnerable to false triggering, so 95% under it is more like 99.9% under the old approach. But we saw no reason to lower the criteria: basically when it activates the 95% will have to be willing to potentially orphan the blocks of the 5% that remain if they happen to mine invalid blocks. If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90% (e.g. lets just imagine some altcoin publicly raised money to block an important improvement to Bitcoin) then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.

im laughing
firstly
gmaxwell is still pushing the anything not core is an altcoin. yet he doesnt realise if they were an altcoin they would already be on a separate network. so the altcoin wont be part of bitcoins network or concensus

but here is the kicker.. gmaxwells mindset is this twisted because he has an agenda..
he wants to intentionally ignore those opposing.. thus forcing an activation by denying other non-favoring blocks

what a sore loser.
first not releasing a version of core to let users even choose dynamic blocks. thus making a self fulfilling prophecy that his flock of sheep hate dynamic blocks.. not due to giving them the option.. but denying them an option and thus using no choice to fulfil his rhetoric for his flock of sheep
seems he is too afraid to release code that includes dynamic blocks because he fears people will download and use it, ruining his rhetoric

next telling non-core code to stop running on bitcoin main net and telling them to F**K off.. ofcourse thats not gonna happen, but yet maxwell is again scared that the consensus mechanism can ruin his rhetoric if his sheep decided they had enough of cores antics.

lastly he wants to intentionally and biasedly ignore opposition.. not because block data is invalid, but because he wants to twist the numbers to his favour to force his favoured code into activation. thus not using true consensus.

what a loser maxwell has become. im starting to think he has lost all care and understanding of bitcoin ethos and is willing to do anything to meet some corporate target to release the next tranche of investment

seriously he has lost grip of bitcoins ethos and has become a fiat money man. only thinking of the commercial services to make returns for his investors.

such a corrupt loser maxwell has become

Maybe it's just me, but personally I don't take issue with the way Core are implementing SegWit. Although, yes, clearly the wording should be "alternative client" and not "altcoin". The open market arguments I constantly feel the need to repeat cut both ways, so at the end of the day, Core are free to release any code they see fit and it's entirely the decision of those securing the network if they accept that code or not. I really don't see the point in arguing whether it should be 95% or 90% or whatever. As long as there's a clear and decisive sway towards activation, that's good enough for me. Obviously if it's not so clear-cut and people try to force it unnaturally, that's entirely another matter. But that's not what I'm seeing in gmaxwell's post.

Believe me when I say that I'd love to see a dynamic blocksize too, but I don't think it's right to block SegWit or hold it to ransom in order to enact a dynamic blocksize. Whether you like it or not, it isn't your decision. Either the network activates it, or it doesn't. There has to be a better approach to this discussion and not the constant bashing by both sides of anyone they disagree with. That means the approach shouldn't include constantly painting Blockstream as the boogeymen, since that's no better in reality than yayayo's foolishness earlier in the thread, or any of the other doomsayers constantly raving about "coups", "takeovers" and "benevolent dictators". Every time I read that nonsense, it just makes me think people don't understand this stuff at all.

This should be the 101 stuff. The absolute basics. Bitcoin has no central authority. There's no one person who can abuse the system. It doesn't rely on a "trusted" third party to make it work. As such, there can be no takeovers. There is only the code run by those securing the network. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. Why does everything have to be some nefarious conspiracy on both sides? I swear people need to find something better to do with their time. Everyone's losing the fucking plot.