Quote from: Lauda on February 02, 2017, 03:07:32 PM

Quote from: jbreher on February 02, 2017, 02:59:01 PM

Quote from: Lauda on February 02, 2017, 01:59:30 PM

Segwit is required to fixing the quadratic hashing problem

Red herring.

Nonsense. This is improper usage of logical fallacies. The user mentioned Segwit. Mentioning what Segwit aims to fix is not a diversion of the subject.

Sorry. I meant the entire consideration of the quadratic hashing aspect is a red herring. In the broader 'what is good for bitcoin' context.

Quote

Quote from: jbreher on February 02, 2017, 02:59:01 PM

There is no quadratic hashing problem. There is a quadratic hashing aspect, this is true.

It is a problem, you can put your useless 'semantics' somewhere else.

I don't know what you are trying to accomplish, babbling about 'semantics'. I'll say it again: mining incentives are already aligned such to ensure that the quadratic hashing aspect is a non-problem.

Quote

Quote from: jbreher on February 02, 2017, 02:59:01 PM

However, as it stands today (i.e., with no changes to the protocol), mining incentives are such as to render it a non-problem.

You mean, the same miners who use the safe *cough* SPV mining?

No. And yes. I mean each and every rational miner.

Quote

Quote from: jbreher on February 02, 2017, 02:59:01 PM

Miners will either abandon calculating hashes of such blocks, or they will be bankrupted by other miners who do.

The issue solves itself. Today. No change needed.

This just shows how delusional BU is:

BU or not is a completely orthogonal consideration.

Quote

You are leaving an attack vector open in hopes that everyone plays nicely?

No.

I see you are incapable of arguing your position, relying upon simple unsupported rebuttal to make your case. Not my issue that you can't seem to reason yourself out of a paper bag. Too bad, so sad.