Re: Post your SegWit questions here - open discussion - big week for Bitcoin!
The status quo is that bitcoin is not broken, and accordingly, if you want to change bitcoin, then you have burdens to present evidence and logic to show how improvements can be made..
Show me in the code where it says that.
Who the fuck is talking about code? I am talking about any kind of existing system, and if you want to change the system, then you have to persuade - by hook or by crook the status quo stake holders to change the system, to the extent that you are proposing to change the system.... If you cannot persuade them to change, then the status quo continues or whatever changes are based on proposals that come from others who are able to accomplish such persuasion.
Bitcoin isn't like any existing system we've ever had. It's pretty self-evident by this point that they don't have to persuade anyone to create a hardfork. That's not changing the system unless users voluntarily follow. If users don't follow, it's just another altcoin. Who is arguing the status quo can't continue? I'm only arguing they should have the option to find out if they want to.
In case I'm not making myself clear, I'm not saying that users *should* want this 2x fork, just that it has a right to exist and see who it may or may not attract. I only care about preserving the permissionless aspect of Bitcoin and, increasingly, it feels like some users would happily throw that under the bus if it meant they could prevent this or other forks.
As I suspect most other participants will naturally be doing, I'll be sticking on the chain that has the greatest alignment of incentives. You've already made your mind up which chain that is. I'm open to finding out first hand by seeing them both up and running in the wild.
You can invent whatever constantly moving goalposts your imagination can muster, but it's all just words at the end of the day. There's no burden on anyone to present anything. Stop talking out of your arse.
I am not inventing anything. If you ever lived in the real world and move out of your mom's basement, then you might come to understand that there are certain principles that guide human behavior and system dynamics... So, yeah, maybe there are going to be instances in which changes from the outside (by force) are successful - however, I am referring to systems, such as bitcoin, that have been maintaining.. and there are challenges from within and from without - however the hardfork that we are referring to is a challenge from without
I'm pretty sure quite a few of these miners have been around for a while. I'm still not sure where this notion comes from that they're somehow separate from the rest of the community. Are they really outsiders? Or is that just another failed attempt to dictate an ever-faltering narrative about external threats? As stated previously, I see this purely as two (or effectively up to four now) sides of the community going their separate ways over irreconcilable differences. If a bank or some major corporation ever launched a Bitcoin wallet, maybe then we could agree on the "outsider" part. Until then, we're at an impasse on that one.
Insisting that they do what you want them to do and giving them no freedom to choose for themselves would be an act of force, so it's fortunate you aren't in any position to do that. I'm sure you'd love to if you could, though.
Again, look at yourself... a fucking nutjob in your attempt to ascribe some kinds of motives to me that do not exist. I am a fucking commenter in a bitcoin related thread ... and you are making up some kind of argument and framework that has not even been part of the point of the conversation besides your making it out to be such.
If I conveniently forgot all the other stuff I've seen you say during my time on these boards, you might have a point.
To me, it looks like two groups willingly going their own separate ways because they are unable to reconcile their differences, except that one group seems to be bitching about it a whole lot more than the other.
BCH is not good enough? Oh you want another fork because BCH does not seem to be working? Each or these seem to be various minority and loud mouth whiner attacks, rather than genuine attempts to create a better bitcoin.
Maybe you shouldn't have done such a great job at selling the benefits of SegWit. Talk about victim of your own success.
What a fucking crying baby you sound like. Segwit is barely in the starting phase, and you fucking BIG blocker nutjobs are so fucking desperate that you are trying to write it off as some kind of negative phenomenon before it even hardly gets a chance to get started or to emerge out of its infancy. You want to suffocate and kill segwit in its infancy before it becomes too powerful to either injure or kill
No, I think we got our wires crossed there somehow. What I mean to say is that enough people are now convinced that SegWit is a vital step that they have included it in their proposed fork, hence not just using BCH. I'm entirely on board with SegWit being an available option for those who wish to take advantage of it. No dispute there.
I honestly don't see how it's such a stretch of the imagination that someone might want to create a fork to try out SegWit with a larger blocksize. It's hardly revolutionary thinking. And at the end of the day, it's all useful data going forward.
Get a fucking grip. You are trying to justify the destructive behavior of yourself and your fellow BIG blockers (I will concede that you may not be doing any action yourself beyond whining about it).... Anyhow, this particular premature attempt at segwit (with the addition of larger blocks) is not all useful data, because it is fucking completely unnecessary and unwanted, except for by bitcoin sabateurs and bitcoin naysayers..
"It can exist if people want it to" is pretty much the sum of my argument. You're the one having the shit-fit.
You are framing some kind of whiny issue that core doesn't want big blocks wei whei wei..
Nope. All dev team are free to code whatever they please. Permissionlessness in action. Why would I whine about a dev team coding what they want? That's the precise opposite of my stance.
So if that's "a given" (which I agree with), how do you logically also argue that the freedom for users and miners to secure a chain you don't agree with is an attack? I mean, you can't transact on a chain that no one is securing. I know you're not that dumb. So how do we have this naturally given right to transact on a proposed chain which you can't abide any miners securing? Chicken or egg much?
Don't be ridiculous. currently bitcoin has well over 100x of the mining power that it had a few years ago, so it can function securely off of a fraction of the current hash power.. and you are doing a lot of speculation if you believe that the original chain is not going to inspire any miners to continue mining on it.
More fantasy, from you... who would have thunk?
Again with the misunderstanding. I'm talking about the 2x fork, not the SegWit-Only chain. How, exactly, are users supposed to have the innate freedom to transact on the forked chain if the miners don't fork to begin with? It makes no sense to call it an attack if it's something you believe everyone is free to use. The miners have to create the fork in order for users to have that freedom.
If you have mining gear, you can point it wherever you damn well please. It's not an act of force for them to point it at a chain you don't personally approve of. They don't owe you anything. Your opinions don't factor into their decision making process, only your fees do.
Yes.. probably a large majority of miners are going to migrate to the most profitable chain... o.k. and so what?
The most profitable chain will likely be a combination of hashrate and users on the chain who are willing to pay fees, and again, so what? let's see how your currently theoretical renegade fork plays out when push comes to shove.
Okay, cool. I didn't think that was so much to ask. The "so what?" part is it's not an act of force like you claim. I thought I made that pretty clear.
The hardforker attackers are lacking in facts or logic to merit their attack and they are not willing or able to work within the existing bitcoin system, and therefore they are set upon attacking from without while attempting to act as if they are the "saviors of bitcoin." Again, more nonsense.
What's nonsense is the insane notion that when they don't agree with you, they're still wrong to leave. How do you square that decidedly circular logic? I'm serious about this one.
You are serious.. o.k.. great.. you can leave, and take the ship down with you... good luck (NOT)... sometimes it would be nice if the various renegade hardforkers or big blockers would just leave, but the will keep coming back so long as the main bitcoin continues to have more value than the various other shit networks that they create and they attempt to dilute bitcoin with such shit networks.
If you're convinced that the goal is to sink the ship, then I guess there's not much I can do about that. All I see is some people who want to try something different. Maybe they are as bad as you claim. You might be proven right in the end. But I can't, in good conscience, condemn them to "outside attacker" status based on nothing more than the largely generalised accusations of some butthurt smallblockers.
It's by far the biggest logical fallacy in your arguments. How do you honestly propose they work within the system if their ideas are inherently incompatible with it? Explain that. Please.
I don't need to explain it. I think that I have already sufficiently referred to the difference between trying to change matters from within or trying to change systems by attacking. You are correct in one sense that either method could be valid in the sense that "all is fair in love and war," and so if you warring and trying to destroy, then you can do whatever the fuck you like... does not mean that I need to agree or accept your chosen tactic... because I think that bitcoin is great and is on a great path..and is likely to persevere through out these nonsense renegade attacks, and the market seems to be a bit inclined in the same direction and that is why we continue to have upwards price pressures on our golden goose that you and your irrational BIG blocker nutjob buddies seem to be inclined to attempt to kill.
I also think Bitcoin is great. I just happen to also think it's resilient enough not to be killed by a true test of its consensus mechanism. And what "tactic"? They did try to change it from within, but that was unsuccessful. And fair enough. So it was naturally time for some developers to start doing their own thing. There is no other way to create what they want to create without a hardfork. It's the only option left open to them. Again, they can't remain on the current chain if their ideas are incompatible with yours. It's cause and effect, not part of some sort of sordid battleplan.
And for the record, my preferred solution doesn't actually involve "big" blocks.