Quote from: jbreher on February 16, 2017, 02:27:48 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 15, 2017, 11:08:32 PM

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.

And in that entire tirade, your only argument is 'someone else called it a problem'.

Fine. I don't need to convince you. Market advantage for me.

Incidentally, I already laid out the rationale in our exchange, for anyone willing to actually read what I wrote.

There you go telling another lie. Clearly you are unused to being curb stomped in an argument and are taking it badly, in the manner of a sore loser.

My tirade included several arguments besides '~~someone else~~ everyone not named jbreher called it a problem' but I understand you wish to avoid them, and so will simply pretend the other arguments don't exist.

My tirade also pointed out Gavin only wrote one patch to fix the quadratic validation problem, so you had absolutely no factual or logical basis on which to assert you couldn't know to which particular patch I was referring.

You contradicted yourself by first saying you weren't aware of Gavin's 100k/tx patch (which was roundly mocked for being an anti-future-proof kludge) then turning around and saying you were aware of it.

Anyone possessing a passing familiarity with the events of the last two years' Grand Schism would instantly recognize the 100k/tx patch to which I was referring.

It's not unreasonable to expect you to have an exceedinly firm grip on the subject matter when you are claiming to have made (from first principles LOL) some sort of supremely accurate ~~prediction~~ deduction based on nothing more than the phase "mining incentives."

Incentives appeal to motivations. Different people have different motivations. In this case, an attacker responds to your precious magical "mining incentives" differently than an honest (or at least non-adversarial) miner.

You got caught not knowing WTF you were talking about and then tried to cover it up, so I had to humiliate you in public.

You finally gave up trying to spin the quadratic validation time problem as something other than a problem, but not after an obnoxiously long period of defending the indefensible.

Everyone here in consensus reality (big- and small-blockers alike) agrees quadratic validation is problem. Nobody cares about your crazy anointed vision where it's not.

Quadratic validation time and the attacks it engenders are clearly a problem. Shame on you for using word games to distort reality, just so we can all admire your navel-gazing pet theories about "mining incentives" (which, by sheer coincidence, are also what supposedly make BU's loopy ideas about unlimited block sizes work).

That's what happens when you try to argue with someone who has the facts on their side. You make a fool of yourself and get BTFO.

I demolished every single one of your shitty attempts at spin, from the "it's not an issue or a problem" BS to the completely implausible "you didn't say which specific Gavin patch so I couldn't know" excuse of ultimate lameness.

You never even tried to defend Gavin's quick-and-dirty 100k/tx limit workaround.

You never even tried to explain how you could possibly be confused as to which quadratic validation time quick-fix I was referring, given he only made one.

And now you won't even quote me or respond on point, because you got #REKT.