Quote from: jbreher on February 15, 2017, 09:46:32 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 15, 2017, 09:34:38 PM

Quote from: jbreher on February 15, 2017, 03:58:03 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 15, 2017, 06:27:27 AM

If the quadratic hashing issue is a truly a "non-problem" then why did Gavin write an unforgivably kludgy, quick and dirty, non-futureproof workaround for it?

Because Gavin is a pragmatist that endeavored to give the users what they wanted, as long as it did not cause any actual harm? I dunno - you'd need to ask him.

Incidentally, I'm not aware of any 'unforgivably klugy' such work by him. To which pull req are you referring?

After:

Quote from: jbreher on February 15, 2017, 08:52:29 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 15, 2017, 07:59:38 PM

You aren't even familiar with Gavin's sigop/sighash patch and the situation/history surrounding it,

I've certainly been aware of it, yet am not currently familiar with the (irrelevant) details. Thanks for the background.

So which is it? Is your final answer "not aware" or "certainly aware?"

Your initial tirade was insufficiently specific to know which specific pull req that you referred to as 'unbelievably klugy'. After you actually bothered to identify that to which you were referring, it was evident I was already aware of it. Said identification, of course, being exactly why I pointed out that the thing of which I was unaware was what thing you had not at that point identified. Accordingly, until you identified it, I was not aware of what specific thing you were referring to. This is absolutely elementary. English much?

Quote

So you need to convince Gavin ...

I don't need to convince Gavin of doodly-squat. He's an uninvolved third party in this discussion. So far, this discussion is you and me, and you have not as of yet bothered to identify any shortcoming to my observation of the fact that mining incentives are already aligned to make the quadratic sig hash issue a non-problem. After three rounds, I am about to conclude you are unable to.

It's not like Gavin has written dozens of patches to ~~fix~~ workaround what you are now conceding is an "issue."

My initial tirade could only refer to a single, specific patch because Gavin only wrote one patch to ~~fix~~ work around the quadratic hashing issue.

There ARE NO OTHER tx_size limiting patches for you to have been confused by, you quivering deflecting hand-waving piece of shit.

I'll change my mind about the O(n^2) attack being a "problem" when Gavin does, since he was the one who identified it as such.

What happened to your overwhelming conviction that the quadratic sigop scaling problem isn't really an issue, merely an 'aspect' or 'attribute'?

Oh that's right, I showed you where Gavin used the word "problem" to describe the potential attack vector, and you were thus BTFO.

I'm not surprised you'd rather drop that point and pretend like it never happened, and glad you've decided to live in consensus reality, where an O(n^2) attack is considered by sane, informed people to be a PROBLEM.

Pro tip: when you make a shitty unsupportable argument like "this O(n^2) issue isn't a problem or an issue, oops I called it an issue, I take that back, I mean to say 'aspect' or 'attribute'" and then drop it when BTFO, it reflects poorly on the rest of your credibility.

If you didn't lack the necessary background required to form intelligent opinions on the subject matter, you'd be aware of GMAX and others' negative responses to Gavin's 100k tx size limit ~~fix~~ workaround.

Those critical responses gave Gavin's quick and dirty proposal NACKs because it is unforgivably kludgy and the opposite of future-proof (requiring another hard fork if it needed to be changed).

Quote from: jbreher on February 15, 2017, 09:46:32 PM

mining incentives are already aligned to make the quadratic sig hash issue a non-problem

Objection. Calls for speculation.

Assumes facts not in evidence. Your anointed vision, epistemological closure, and metaphysical certainty don't count as evidence. But good luck deducing from first principles empirical matters of fact! Cheesy

Quote from: jbreher on February 15, 2017, 09:46:32 PM

How about, instead of hurling insults, and non-responsive drivel, you actually engage the topic with reasoning? Incapable?.

I'll do that right after you familiarize yourself with the essential aspects of the topic and stop glossing over vital bits simply because you were not aware of them (or not aware of their significance).

The devil is in the detail. The details you casually and instantly dismiss as "irrelevant" are anything but. Get a clue or STFU.

Asking you to know WTF you are talking about before promoting your worthless Bitcoin Horoscope opinion as incontrovertible fact is not asking too much; it's a reasonable request.

Wait, isn't "mining incentives" the same hand waving BS that BU claims will magically allow the network to handle unlimited block sizes?

I'm sure that's just a coincidence....

/REKT