Quote from: CoinHoarder on December 07, 2017, 06:55:51 PM

There is less network latency, less bandwidth requirements, and less hard drive space requirements with smaller blocks. Those three things combined result in a more decentralized network. Small block solutions being more decentralized than big block solutions once they are both massively scaled is not a lie, and not worth debating as there's a lot of research (plus simple common sense) that backs up that reasoning.

Although you are harping on small blocks, it sounds like you ultimately have more of an issue with Segwit/LN. Where things get a little murkey is when you start comparing The Lightning Network with big block solutions, but IMO arguing that the centralized PBOC on-chain payment channel is more "decentralized" than multiple LN payment channels ran by many entities is a lie.

It doesnt make any sense to argue that small blocks are more decentralized when you justify small blocks by pairing it with an insecure offchain protocol that settles onchain.

As I already stated upthread, that doesnt mean I am arguing that BCH is more decentralized. Theyre all centralized.

All proof-of-work and proof-of-stake blockchains will be run by oligarchies. Period.

So at least I prefer that Bitcoin be immutable and secure during the time the Zionists are building it to be their NWO reserve currency.

Because I need my BTC to not be stolen while I am working on a better blockchain design that could possibly remain decentralized while volume scaling.

Any way, this forkathon circus is just part of the process. I dont really care that much other than the annoyance of not being able to HODL Bitcoin with 100% confidence of it not being stolen by the a reorganization. I dont have a preference for the personalities of Core or BCH. Yet I do have a preference to see all those who believe in the lie of democracy (tyranny of the mob) to be destroyed and lose everything. As I explained upthread, I think the only social consensus should be to maintain immutability. If you want to experiment with a new design, then fork an airdop as BCH did.

Quote from: CoinHoarder on December 07, 2017, 06:55:51 PM

Even if LNs end up not working (which I don't think will be the case)

It will work technically in terms of demoing payments but the Mt. Box game theory means it will be fraught with manipulations we do not want on the reserve currency.

Let LN run on LTC. We can use LTC for payments for coffee.

Quote from: CoinHoarder on December 07, 2017, 06:55:51 PM

here are also payment channels available by utilizing Atomic Swaps and ALT coins.

More insecure shit. Please youre not a technological expert.

Quote from: CoinHoarder on December 07, 2017, 06:55:51 PM

A small block solution plus alt coin payment channels via atomic swaps is extremely more decentralized tham any big block solution (no LN is necessary). Point Blank. Period.

Incorrect as usual.

Sorry I do not have time to refute more of your naive ramblings.

You realize I have programming work to do, which is much more important than arguing with you. Could you at least stop repeating the same things over and over. I already understand youre infatuation with technobabble buzzwords that you dont understand the technological and game theory implications of deeply.

Quote from: CoinHoarder on December 07, 2017, 06:55:51 PM

There are two sides to the argument, but I personally see more merit in Core's roadmap than Bitcoin Cash's road map when it comes to decentralization

They are both lying. There will be no decentralization.

Youre just sticking your finger in the wind and guessing because you do not know how to create these technologies. You are not down in the trenches. You lack detailed understanding.

So what you see merit in, is irrelevant.

Youre not stupid. You read a fair amount. Youre somewhat informed (and probably read more current events than I do). But you lack technological depth. That is a big handicap, and you should be slightly more circumspect when throwing around proclamations about technology + game theory which is very detailed and complex.

Quote from: CoinHoarder on December 07, 2017, 06:55:51 PM

The users and community should share in the blame, because at the end of the day they had the final say.

That has been my point all along.

They will be punished by having their BTCSegWit pay to anyone donations stolen by the blockchain. Lol. Just what they (and you) deserve for believing in Cores lies.

Quote from: CoinHoarder on December 07, 2017, 06:55:51 PM

Either way, the BCH can not take the high road here... they have no grounds to stand on.

BCH does not donate all the SegWit transactions to pay to anyone.

They did not mutate Satoshis protocol in egregiously insecure ways with ridiculous BIPs!

Quote from: CoinHoarder on December 07, 2017, 06:55:51 PM

Furthermore, you have always overstated the relevancy of extremely low chance attack vectors that no one else really worries about.

Quoted for the (story of the) witless and the woodchipper outcome.

Quote from: CoinHoarder on December 07, 2017, 06:55:51 PM

Most of the vulnerabilities with dPoS for instance that you claimed would kill Bitshares and Steem remain a non-factor.

The whales are destroying STEEM just as I predicted.

Im very busy trying to beat EOS to launch, so please stop.

Lets both go quiet and work. Well observe what happens.

You can have the last word for now.

Quote from: CornCube on December 09, 2017, 09:37:33 PM

Quote from: thejaytiesto on December 09, 2017, 05:12:37 PM

If your blocks are huge, then your transactions are validated by some corporation.

Even if the blocks are small, an oligarchy is the only possible outcome of proof-of-work, both because of economies-of-scale of ASICs which cant be avoided with any algorithm and because as transaction fees become the majority of the mining income then consensus does not converge (i.e. is incentives incompatible).

[]

Quote from: CornCube on December 09, 2017, 08:53:02 PM

Quote from: orpington on December 09, 2017, 07:39:12 PM

Quote from: realr0ach on December 09, 2017, 07:36:17 PM

Quote from: CornCube on December 09, 2017, 08:54:47 AM

Re: John McAfee Bets His Manhood that BTC will reach $1 mil by 2020

Quote from: Nivir on December 09, 2017, 08:14:33 AM

McAfee is always bold and getting crazier than ever. He might be right but most probably it won't. If it won't happen he'll just say that people are crazy if they believe he will cut it. It was more like an expression that he risked a lot of amount in bitcoin.

Hes just promoting his altcoin, his projects, himself. He knows that Bitcoin is mostly young males would be fixated on losing their dicks.

IOW, smart marketer.

Do not take speculation advice from a marketer.

Bitcoin is a cuckold movement. It's claimed to be decentralized yet it's entirely controlled by a couple companies like Bitmain and Blockstream - a corporation coin in other words. There's not many excuses people can make for Bitmain, but people are going to claim Blockstream is "decentralized" or some nonsense, or that it's a "benevolent dictatorship". I don't really care what you call it, it's still a technocracy and a technocracy is not decentralized.

But how do the Jews fit into all of this?

Not Jews. The Zionists. Which is another way of saying the banksters. Mossad did 9/11. The evidence presented by PhDs is overwhelming. The evidence is much more complete and professionally analysed now than it was a decade ago.

They probably created Bitcoin as way to enslave the nation-states in a reserve currency they surreptitiously control, which cant be resisted by the politics and laws of any nation. Its creative destruction of the nation-states into the NWO.

And @roach is nonsensical with his tinfoil hat precious metals fetish.

Quote from: CornCube on December 09, 2017, 09:02:43 PM

I told you upthread that fungible monetary systems are the property of Satan. Youre wasting your time idolizing shiny pieces of metal thinking that is a solution to anything.

Were moving into a knowledge age. I will not repeat all the upthread explanations and links. Readers can scroll back.