Re: Post your SegWit questions here - open discussion - big week for Bitcoin!
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?
I don't know how you go from a person, such as me, commenting on a bitcoin thread to be "dictating." You seem to be assuming that all the miners are in lock step, perhaps based on segwit2x signaling of intention, and we likely already realize that signaling of intention and actually running software are not going to be equal things... so we cannot necessarily lump the behavior of all miners, and even if there were to be 90% of miners going over to hardforked segwit2x, I am not sure whether that is going to be any kind of deal breaker. We would just have to see how it plays out and if such economic incentives were to follow such direction, which I doubt.. but willing to see how it plays out... even though I am going to projectingly complain that it is unnecessarily disruptive bullshit to experiment in those kinds of ways on a live network - not that my comments are going to change what people (including miners) do.
What are you waffling on about now?
It is NOT called "waffling." It is called responding to your various points.
My point was that the people you've taken exception to are not "outside" the system, except possibly by your own unique definition.
That seems to be a product of your own construction, to assert that I am defining attackers as "outsiders." Merely that I denigrate the motives of attackers does not mean the same thing as defining them as outsiders, as you seem to be ascribing to me for some seemingly self-serving and perhaps simplification of my arguments reasons.
These people are very much involved in the Bitcoin space. You merely choose to define anyone who doesn't agree with a certain dev team as an "outsider" and you're trying to make others do the same by attempting to control the narrative.
Again, you are mischaracterizing and also seem to be ascribing me more power than I have... thanks for that... NOT.
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.
O.k.... So part of the justification that segwit2x is necessary is because BCH is not enough because it had removed segwit, therefore, segwit2x would be the superior way. Seems like a bunch of attempts at shifting justifications to me, and that if there is any tiny difference of opinion or view, then we are going to create a renegade hardfork to attempt to accomplish that mission rather than figuring out ways to work within bitcoin... yeah.. do whatever the fuck you think you want to do, but I don't need to consider your game and the game of the various hardforkers to be legitimate attempts at improving rather than destroying, diluting and confusing matters based on stupid ass small tweaks here and there.
So what it boils down to is: You're not happy when the "Big Blockers" won't listen to reason and take notice of the technical merits of SegWit. And you're not happy when they do listen to reason and take notice of the technical merits of SegWit. Awesome.
What it boils down to is that you are mischaracterizing my assertions, again. What else is new?
"It can exist if people want it to" is pretty much the sum of my argument. You're the one having the shit-fit.
Your the one who is jumping in on a conversation in which I asked the newbie to clarify his position and you jumped in with the multitude of additional topics.
You were being kind of a dick to them, though. Play nice with the newbies.
So fucking what? Are you a white knight? If we wanted, we can go back and look at my inquires to see that I asked some questions and made a few clarification assertions to attempt to clarify, but Newbie did not clarify and instead comes off as a troller, but instead, you consider it as an opportunity to jump into the argument and to support the trolling... You are doing a great service, here.... .NOT.
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.
Well, we may be getting too much into the weeds with our back and forth, here, but my understanding is that you are engaged in an attempt to justify segwit2x because core does not believe 2x is needed and even asserting that core might never get around to 2x, and 2x is actually needed and is urgent, therefore, segwit2x is justified to take place ASAP. Yeah, you have also added some additional arguments about the freedom to fork.. blah blah blah... with maybe some starry-eyed rationalizations that these rogue hardforks are good for everyone and let the free market decide blah blah blah.. Of course, we all believe in the benefits of the free market and survival of the fittest, blah blah blah.. much of which seems to be post-hoc attempts to justify nonsense renegade and unjustified attacks on bitcoin.
My stance is that "justify" doesn't even come into it. It's not a thing. I do find it interesting that you used the word "justify" (or a variation of it) no less than 4 times in that paragraph, though. You seem to feel strongly that there should be a reason or some sort of rationalisation for every single act in Bitcoin, but in my mind, that's actually incompatible with the more important aspect of permissionless. What happens when something isn't justified?
Again, you seem to be overstating the case..
Who decides when that's the case? What are the consequences? Who enforces that? It all starts to sound a bit permissioned when the topic of justification crops up.
Yes, you are attributing too much power to my making comments in a bitcoin thread.
If Bitcoin insisted on justification, there would have to be someone in charge to approve things. That would be a weakness in my view.
Yeah, make up shit and then argue the counter-case until you are blue, it does not matter.
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.
Right
sounds like an unjustifiable experimentation to me... of some small group supposedly "creating an option" which is really sloppy, ill-thought-out and irresponsibly reckless.You are welcome to that opinion. But given the choice between "attackers" creating "sloppy, ill-thought-out and irresponsibly reckless" forks, or having someone in charge to prevent people from doing that, which are you going to pick? There are always worse options. Be careful what you wish for.
You are making shit up. I did not say that I was wishing for someone to stop the fucking forkers... I was just denigrating the forkers and saying that they are not justified... so fucking what? These are not the same things, so stop conflating the significants of what some random person (me) says in a thread as having some kind of prohibition weight when it does not... it merely has a denigration and criticism weight.
By the way, I just noticed that even your labels are misleading...
Yeah, there is a 2x fork, and the other one is called "bitcoin" Have you heard of bitcoin? There is only one bitcoin, and your attempt to give bitcoin some other label, is mischaracterizing bitcoin since all of these other imitators are attacks on bitcoin (they are not equivalents to bitcoin even though they suck off of the bitcoin titty to get benefits).
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.
Again. you seem to be acting like this is some kind of beneficial free market experiment that is all fair in love and war... blah blah blah.
If by "acting like" you mean "accepting the reality" because this is how it is and can't work any other way while still being permissionless, then sure. Not only can you not prevent it, you shouldn't even want to prevent it, because being able to prevent it means something is broken and someone is in a clear position of control. I mean, fuck, people in 2010 had a firmer grasp of this shit than you do. Then again, the forum was primarily comprised of free-thinking people with technical backgrounds then, so it's not surprising. These days the forum is just full of closed-minded Luddites who want to destroy anything that isn't what they already know.
Another tangent from you. Great.
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.
That's crazy if you really believe that there are no other options... fucking crazy.
Okay, let's see:
Step 1 - submit pull request for larger base blocksize - rejected
Step 2 - ...
Help me out here? What's the next option?
Fix the pull request and submit it again. provide facts and/or arguments that would get more support for the unneccesary position, and maybe some time down the road, your position will be adopted when it becomes justified by facts and/or logic.
Bow down and accept not having it? And "options"? Plural? This should be good. Let's see the list, then. Name all the ways you can add a larger base blocksize to Bitcoin without you throwing your toys out of the pram. Go.
I have no reason to go through some silly exercise like this to make some list of your imagination. NOT necessary..
Again, they can't remain on the current chain if their ideas are incompatible with yours.
Don't be fucking ridiculous. There can be all kinds of differences of opinion and still remain on the same chain. The nutjobs are just creating excuses to be incompatible and now that a "successful" hardfork has been carried out, feel like the tactic de jure is to hardfork over every minor thing while describing every minor thing as a irreconcilable and material difference.
So the blocksize debate that has been raging for years is now a "minor thing" in your eyes?
Yes.. raging by a bunch of attackers making up shit... There mere facts that they yell and scream about it and more time has passed with such repeated yelling and screaming does not cause such lame ass arguments and lacking of facts situation to become justified merely with the passage of time.
Interesting framing of the issue to say the least. Plus, plenty of smallblockers have been telling them to fork off, so they can't really complain when it actually happens.
Put the blame of renegade attacks on small blockers.. o.k.. That makes a lot of sense..
How, exactly, do you propose we all get along when we can't agree?
Everybody does not need to agree. The ways of the world remains that people do not necessarily agree on things and there are a variety of ways to still get along without making every little thing a supposed "deal breaker" In other words there are moderate positions regarding lots of topics.
Would the answer sound something like your desired outcome and nothing at all like the desired outcome of those you disagree with? As far as I can see, you're not offering any ground here. What compromises are you willing to make in order for us to all move forward together as one?
There is no need to compromise on the small blocker arguments, at this time, under these facts and logic, merely because people are making unjustified whining and attacking... At least does not seem so to me, but I am just one voice on a Bitcointalk thread... so why does it matter what I think?
Because if you aren't willing to concede any ground and they aren't willing to concede any ground, that sounds like a deadlock to me.
could be.
Sure, there can be all kinds of verbal disagreements, but we can all stay on the same chain as long as everyone bows down and does what they're told. Because that's how Bitcoin is supposed to work...
No one is saying bow down, but sometimes, certain things are not justified to make into a deal breaker.
Does that about sum it up?
How could it sum it up, when you are not really saying anything that engages with my points... and seems we are not really making any progress anyhow, here.
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.
Well, I actually understand that there is some need to go with context and whatever is the practice of the day, and these days the upcoming trend is to attempt to get airdrops through hardforks. So, yeah, it is likely that we will see a variety of alts created or attempted through such new and "acceptable" methodologies. Does not mean that I need to praise such new methodologies... so we are going to have DooBitcointmMAD coming out soon, too?
Not unless someone codes it for me.
Great. One less shitcoin, then.