Quote from: pooya87 on April 08, 2019, 03:10:09 AM

Quote from: prasad87 on April 07, 2019, 06:39:42 PM

I've been seeing many complaint about network spam by Veriblock IEO.

i personally consider these types of transaction spam, but technically they are not. because they are using one of the bitcoin features that was added a long time ago called OP_RETURN. this exact case is one of the reasons why so many developers were against addition of this "feature" to bitcoin which is a currency not a data storage!

That's a fair assessment. Basically, what Veriblock are doing is within the letter of the law, but not within the spirit of the rules. To the letter of the law, an "All-you-can-eat-buffet" means you can eat as much as you like, but in the spirit of the rules, if you eat so much that there isn't enough left for anyone else, other people generally aren't going to be very happy with you. The behaviour of Veriblock is vaguely similar to that of a parasitic organism feeding off its host. Not nearly enough to kill the host, but enough to have some noticeable adverse effects.

It's one of those greyest of grey areas. Where do we draw the line between freedom and fair use? How much usage is too much? And so on. So for now, it's going to continue and we'll just have to accept it as a consequence of Bitcoin effectively being a victim of its own success. Bitcoin is now so much more secure than other networks, that people are leveraging that security to prop up other blockchains. It's actually quite an impressive achievement when you think about it. Even if it does have some unwanted repercussions.

As for the off-topic nonsense:

Quote from: franky1 on April 08, 2019, 01:35:09 AM

the nodes that were thrown off the network august 2017 were not offering anything that would break the rules.

If you think that, then you don't understand the rules as well as you think you do. BCH announced their activation date and had not changed their network magic at that time (They did later, though, which I respect. For all the bad things people say about BCH, at least they forked responsibly in the end). The /btc1 client developers, however, outright refused to change their network magic, which was highly irresponsible. Because of these factors, action was taken to keep the Bitcoin network secure. It's all well documented and I have posted the relevant link several times in the past to demonstrate that both to you and to anyone else who might be tempted to believe your incessant lies.

It was the right call. It's not even something that needs defending if you actually understood the first thing about Bitcoin, but since you clearly don't, I'll keep explaining it to you until it sinks in. I'm guessing it'll probably take another two or three years at this rate.

Again, if you think any of that compares to Veriblock remaining with the rules and simply being a bit greedy with the amount of resources they consume, you're clearly not in a position to comment on such technical matters and you are only discrediting yourself further. Sending lots of transactions is a whole different ballgame to announcing a fork without changing your network magic. If you conflate the two, I will call your intelligence/integrity (depending on whether you even realise you're talking nonsense or not, I still can't figure which it is) into question.

Quote from: franky1 on April 08, 2019, 01:35:09 AM

it was the core devs who implemented their network controversy BEFORE.. i'll repeat this multiple times BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE cores desired NEW feature even activated.

If you think you can force people to wait for an arbitrary date or time to reject incompatible code, you do not understand consensus. No exceptions. You just don't get it. It's not a democracy. There's no voting. We don't have to wait for anyone to decide to activate a feature before rejecting it. That's how freedom works. Nothing you can do to change it. You clearly can't reconcile your differences with this network, so please find another network of users to troll and leave us in peace.