Quote from: franky1 on February 07, 2019, 08:42:50 PM

https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

Quote

The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision
making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone
able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority
decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested
in it.

Thank you for proving my point. The longest chain told incompatible clients to gtfo and they did. It's almost as though it does exactly what it says on the tin.

Quote from: franky1 on February 07, 2019, 08:42:50 PM

Quote

Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism

Yes. A rule was enforced with the consensus mechanism to disconnect nodes flagging bit 6 and bit 8. It literally says right there in the whitepaper that new rules can be enforced and that's precisely what happened. Now that you've literally just explained it to yourself, does it make sense now?

I swear if Inigo Montoya were here, he'd tell you that he doesn't think those words mean what you think they mean. And he'd be right. Cheesy

Quote from: franky1 on February 07, 2019, 08:42:50 PM

now...
show me in the white paper where it says the network should be run by one team of devs code where everyone has to be sheep to that one trusted party

First you'd have to convince me that's what we currently have. I can't use written documents to confirm or deny things that only exist in your imagination. You should try speaking to a therapist.

Quote from: franky1 on February 07, 2019, 10:14:48 PM

strangely those wanting smll blocks and LN want people to lock funds into factories and let the factories be the fullnodes(multinetwork masternode servers) while millions of users just use auto-piloted phone apps that trust that the servers are not going to mess around

Strangely, those who can't understand that Lightning now has more nodes than every forkcoin combined are not taken seriously by anyone when they spread FUD about technologies that haven't even finished being developed yet. Troll harder.

Quote from: squatter on February 07, 2019, 09:54:53 PM

I think many big blockers believe that non-mining nodes aren't relevant to the consensus.

Which becomes all the more amusing when they deny that non-mining nodes are the very reason why they aren't getting all the "improvements" they think should be implemented.

Quote from: Wind_FURY on February 07, 2019, 07:01:08 AM

The point of the topic is "what do Mike Hearn, Gavin Andresen, and Craig Wright have in common, and why?".

Bigger blocks. But why? I know Mike Hearn, and Gavin Andresen understand the ramifications of it on the network, but why were they pushing for it? What was their agenda?

I don't doubt that Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen believed they were doing the right thing. I just think they miscalculated (as did I, along with many others at the time) the level of resistance they would encounter. I think in the earlier stages of the dreaded blocksize debate, some people (again, myself included) generally weren't aware of the now-self-evident phenomenon I raised earlier in this topic:

Quote from: DooMAD on February 07, 2019, 12:15:22 AM

if you can't get what you want without taking away what other people already have (and deem valuable, like decentralisation), it shouldn't come as a surprise when those other people decide that what you want is not very good. Why should they give up what they have for what you want?

It wasn't until we saw consensus in action that it became more apparent just how strongly people feel about it. Those people who are supporting this network without reimbursement by running a non-mining node have already paid a cost, so understandably they will enforce rules on the network which prevent increasing that cost against their will. More people now seem to respect this logic.