2 ms·

You're repeating your arguments without any technical arguments yourself. You repeat the mistakes as outlined in this article: https://medium.com/@johnblocke/

by lawn 9y ago

You're repeating your arguments without any technical arguments yourself. You repeat the mistakes as outlined in this article: https://medium.com/@johnblocke/decentralization-fetishism-is-hindering-bitcoins-progress-11cfa5c7964d https://medium.com/@johnblocke/decentralization-fetishism-is... > They back a solution that gives them more control over the network and higher fees, not lower fees. You think they will give lower fees but you're uninformed about the current fee situation. How so? Because bigger blocks will give lower fees than Segwit only. > Blockstream doesn't have control. You're pushing an uninformed narrative that makes Blockstream out as some sort of evil corporation--- the reality is block stream employees are a minority of core, core development is done in the public eye (unlike even Segwit2X and certainly any of Bitmains's hacks, like BU which was closed source for awhile before people just gave up on it.) The censorship in those channels are well documented. > You keep talking as if the miners are supposed to be in control, as if that's right. It's not. You don't understand the point of PoW in Bitcoin. > You act as if there are a lot of miners and they are the bitcoin community, they are not, they are the minority. Doesn't matter. And btw, you think UASF is the majority? Because they are not. > Your articles are non-technical nonsense full of FUD written by people who do not understand the bitcoin code. Where are the technical arguments against these supposed "non technical FUD pieces"? You provide none.

rothbardrand 9y ago
> How so? Because bigger blocks will give lower fees than Segwit only. Who profits from high fees? Core? No. Miners. BitMain is very adamant about not wanting low fees. The idea that Segwit, which quadruples block size and offers a fee discount is an attempt to keep fees high is absurd on the face of it. >And btw, you think UASF is the majority? Because they are not. You're convincing me that you're operating from a script and have no technical knowledge of the situation. Segwit2X IS a UASF. > And btw, you think UASF is the majority? Because they are not. Segwit2x is the majority of signaling right now. (Though it's a fake out because Bitmain plans a hard fork.) Your personal attacks and failure to address the technical issues speak for themselves, so I have not quoted them, nor responded.
- lawn 9y ago
  Uh I'm obviously referring to BIP148 when I say UASF, but way to argue with semantics. > BitMain is very adamant about not wanting low fees. Yet Bitmain supports larger blocks, you're not making sense. > Your personal attacks and failure to address the technical issues speak for themselves, so I have not quoted them, nor responded. What personal attacks? Sure, continue dismiss it as "FUD" or "non-technical people".
  - rothbardrand 9y ago
    It's not semantics when you're talking about different activation mechanisms... that you think it is proves to me you don't really understand what's going on. I point out a contradiction in Bitmains position and you say that means I'm not making sense? Once again, you are arguing that your ignorance somehow trumps the facts. And of course, you resorting to insults is all the proof I could have needed. Go educate yourself. Start at bitcoin.org

by lawn 9y ago

rothbardrand 9y ago

> How so? Because bigger blocks will give lower fees than Segwit only. Who profits from high fees? Core? No. Miners. BitMain is very adamant about not wanting low fees. The idea that Segwit, which quadruples block size and offers a fee discount is an attempt to keep fees high is absurd on the face of it. >And btw, you think UASF is the majority? Because they are not. You're convincing me that you're operating from a script and have no technical knowledge of the situation. Segwit2X IS a UASF. > And btw, you think UASF is the majority? Because they are not. Segwit2x is the majority of signaling right now. (Though it's a fake out because Bitmain plans a hard fork.) Your personal attacks and failure to address the technical issues speak for themselves, so I have not quoted them, nor responded.

lawn 9y ago
Uh I'm obviously referring to BIP148 when I say UASF, but way to argue with semantics. > BitMain is very adamant about not wanting low fees. Yet Bitmain supports larger blocks, you're not making sense. > Your personal attacks and failure to address the technical issues speak for themselves, so I have not quoted them, nor responded. What personal attacks? Sure, continue dismiss it as "FUD" or "non-technical people".
- rothbardrand 9y ago
  It's not semantics when you're talking about different activation mechanisms... that you think it is proves to me you don't really understand what's going on. I point out a contradiction in Bitmains position and you say that means I'm not making sense? Once again, you are arguing that your ignorance somehow trumps the facts. And of course, you resorting to insults is all the proof I could have needed. Go educate yourself. Start at bitcoin.org