Re: Post your SegWit questions here - open discussion - big week for Bitcoin!
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.
Then you've either got a short memory or a screw loose:
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
This is you calling them outsiders. You draw a clear line of distinction between people who work within "the system" (or at least what your warped definition of "the system" is, but I'll come to that later) and those who develop their own clients or declare hashrate for alternative client forks.
Hahahahaha Thanks for the reference DooMAD... Now I see from where you get some of your MADness.
Merely because I am suggesting that people should attempt change from within the system, you then translate that into me calling them outsiders?
You are fucking nutso. If you think about it, I am criticizing their action and not making any kind of claim about their existential status. You seem to be attempting to extract way too much technicalities from my words, which gives me the sense that you are being less than genuine in your attempts to interact with me on this topic. If you fucking blow up every comment that I make into some kind of self-selected reading, then how the fuck are we going to get anywhere in our discussion of this topic, when all you seem to want to do is spin.
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.
Nope, we clearly saw you say that. Here it is again:
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.
Anyone who doesn't play nice with your preferred gatekeepers are outsiders and attackers.
Again.. I am talking about actions not persons... so get a fucking grip and stop trying to distract and to make more out of the situation than it is.
This is clearly how you see it. Why deny it when it's what you really think? You can't say it on two separate occasions and then deny saying it.
I am not going to deny saying anything that you quote me as saying..... but seems quite apparent that you want to read it within your own fantasy context... in order to attempt to make this some kind of argument about characters rather than actual substance and possible meaningful discussions.
Well if you are going to work outside of the system and attack the system, then you can do whatever the fuck you want
Whoops, make that three separate occasions. But sure, this is all just "a product of my own construction".
Seems that you want to construct more meaning into something than it deserves in order to lose sight of the forest for the trees.
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.
What's this clusterfuck of selective quoting? And I'm not "making shit up", I'm pointing out the sheer, abject futility of you asking for justification in a permissionless system.
Yeah.. you also seem to be distracted in attempts to personalize matters that do not need to be personalized and to get into a broad array of irrelevance. Go figure.
Maybe if you stopped deconstructing every paragraph and taking every single sentence out of context that might have made sense to you (but everyone watch as you do it again in your next post).
I am just responding within your comments, so anyone who wants to go back and read your full comment can do so. i am not changing the substance of what you said... just responding point by point... to the extent that you might possibly say something relevant somewhere along the way...
By the way, there does not really seem to be any reason for us to continue this discussion because we are either just repeating ourselves and not really talking about anything useful any more. Correct?
In other words, we can agree to disagree and move on, no?
I made my "good" points, and you made your "lame" points.
and we don't agree.... so fine.. let's move on.The only "justification" anything needs is the market itself. If there is a gap in the market, someone will naturally step in to fill that gap. Hence multiple competing clients. They don't all have to meet your lofty standards or have one particular dev team's approval to "justify" their existence.
Again, what power do I have regarding my supposed "lofty standards" besides stating my opinion in a bitcoin thread?
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.
Exactly. Keep asking for permission in a permissionless system.
Could be that we are misunderstanding some parts. The system might be permissionless, but governance has some permissioned aspects, but that does not screw up the whole system.
Anyhow, we seem to be talking past each other in terms of what we consider acceptable processes and procedures for proposing change within the system and the importance of such processes and procedures.
Get approval from that centralised GitHub in a decentralised system.
I think that there is a process and procedure and there are comments and folks in that system decide.. here are not one decider or even a small group of deciders, although some folks do have more credibility and weight within that participatory system (process)
It's only consensus when that one particular dev team say it is, right? Don't you get it?
You are coming off as some kind of patronizing goofball who supposedly sees the light better than anyone else. My understanding is that the bitcoin core hub is open to anyone to participate and to propose ideas, but of course, you could end up burning your bridges if you come in there attacking, acting like an asshole and threatening to burn the place down. If you do that, then others are not going to want to listen to your stupid-ass, non-factual, lacking in logic and emotional rants, right?
Your warped definition of the Bitcoin "system" has a controlling central power that makes all the decisions.
I don't claim to know everything about bitcoin or the bitcoin system ? I am just trying to suggest that from my understanding there is a process in place. Apparently you know more about the whole process and why the whole process is supposedly broken in your own warped view attack of it..and your rationalization that all is fair in love and war... so let's blow the place up.
YOU are the reason that we cannot have nice things.
Everyone who doesn't agree with those decisions is apparently an "outsider". That's not how this is supposed to work.
Again.. you are emphasizing points of your own wrong-headed extrapolation.
Fuck your "challenges from within and from without" idiocy. They are within the system.
Yeah, for you, nothing matters, and logic does not matter, and everything is fair. Good luck in your conceptual living like that.
You just don't understand the system. It's open source.
Yeah, let's mix and conflate all ideas together in order to make everything open source and chaos.. that makes sense.
There are no attackers and no outsiders. Only contributors.
Not everyone has to contribute to the same GitHub, though. It's one big open free-for-all. Anyone can do anything. Either accept it, or fork off and close your source.
Yeah.. let's throw out all definitions of anything and do whatever the fuck we want and don't prejudge anything. Everyone is a winner!!!!!! You are surely a free range thinker and not going to get caught in any boxes, right? LET'S do stream of consciousness on everything!!!!!
By the way, you understand that at some point, we have to embrace some systems and get beyond the stream of consciousness bullshit?