Conversation

Notices

1. pokkst (pokkst@xmrposter.club)'s status on Tuesday, 31-Jan-2023 00:53:25 JST pokkst
   seeing Core devs and supporters advocating for censorship because people are making valid transactions they don’t like is fucking pathetic
   
   fuck BTC supporters
   • pokkst (pokkst@xmrposter.club)'s status on Tuesday, 31-Jan-2023 00:53:09 JST pokkst

     in reply to

     • cjd
     • Hypocrite Hater
     @cjd @Hyolobrika I haven't even gotten into how Theymos/Blockstream stole 6000 BTC from the community via the "new forum" fundraising for bitcointalk OVER 10 years ago, with no new forum still (funneled to Blockstream via Slickage LLC, a no-name web dev studio connected to Warren Togami, a Blockstream employee), or how Peter Todd was paid by a self-proclaimed government intelligence agent to implement RBF and create small-block propaganda videos: https://il.ax/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I
     
     Before YouTube removed the dislikes from being shown, this video had like 95% dislikes over the years.
   • pokkst (pokkst@xmrposter.club)'s status on Tuesday, 31-Jan-2023 00:53:11 JST pokkst

     in reply to

     • cjd
     • Hypocrite Hater
     @cjd @Hyolobrika I do use BCH occasionally. Used to be more into it, but the community and its direction have gone more for DeFi bullshit than privacy and cash shit, so I just left for XMR.
     
     BCH doesn't have more traction though due to Blockstream propaganda and their "Bcash" narrative and censorship (of which Theymos and several other mods have admitted to doing for /r/bitcoin and bitcointalk and such.)
   • cjd (cjd@pkteerium.xyz)'s status on Tuesday, 31-Jan-2023 00:53:12 JST cjd

     in reply to

     • Hypocrite Hater
     Then why not just use BCH?
   • pokkst (pokkst@xmrposter.club)'s status on Tuesday, 31-Jan-2023 00:53:13 JST pokkst

     in reply to

     • cjd
     • Hypocrite Hater
     @Hyolobrika @cjd Like I said, Bitcoin has become corrupted since then, around the time Blockstream was founded and funded by big banks and members of the Bilderberg Group (2013/2014). Bitcoin Cash (BCH) has already demonstrated that 256MB blocks are possible (on their Scalenet testnet), even with a Raspberry Pi node.
   • pokkst (pokkst@xmrposter.club)'s status on Tuesday, 31-Jan-2023 00:53:14 JST pokkst

     in reply to

     • cjd
     • Hypocrite Hater
     @cjd @Hyolobrika
     Here is Satoshi giving instructions on how to increase the block size in the future via hard-fork, since the 1MB limit was supposed to be temporary (the original hard limit was 32MB with 1MB soft limit if I recall correctly, but it was removed early on since the network was still new)
     https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366
     
     Here is Mike Hearn corroborating what I'm saying, in which Satoshi emails him directly and makes direct comparisons to Visa/Mastercard/PayPal and how Bitcoin can already scale better than them: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149668.msg1596879#msg1596879
   • pokkst (pokkst@xmrposter.club)'s status on Tuesday, 31-Jan-2023 00:53:15 JST pokkst

     in reply to

     • cjd
     • Hypocrite Hater
     @cjd @Hyolobrika From Satoshi himself, who showed the math and its capabilities for fast and instant transactions.
     
     See: Him literally comparing Bitcoin to Visa, and how it can scale to be faster than it, and his snack/vending machine scenario.
   • cjd (cjd@pkteerium.xyz)'s status on Tuesday, 31-Jan-2023 00:53:16 JST cjd

     in reply to

     • Hypocrite Hater
     Where did you get the idea that Visa level transaction load was going to be possible ?
   • pokkst (pokkst@xmrposter.club)'s status on Tuesday, 31-Jan-2023 00:53:17 JST pokkst

     in reply to

     • cjd
     • Hypocrite Hater
     @cjd @Hyolobrika The original purpose of Bitcoin was to replace Visa and Mastercard, not gold. It has been corrupted since then.
   • Hypocrite Hater (hyolobrika@gleasonator.com)'s status on Tuesday, 31-Jan-2023 00:53:18 JST Hypocrite Hater

     in reply to

     • cjd
     @pokkst hmm. Seems like that is a problem that needs to be fixed. Moderation is obviously a bad way to do it given the goals of crypto, so maybe the system should be re-architected to not be so collectivistic with the fees somehow. Idk how.
     
     @cjd is this related to your proposed spam problem with bitcoin that you were talking about some time ago?
   • cjd (cjd@pkteerium.xyz)'s status on Tuesday, 31-Jan-2023 00:53:18 JST cjd

     in reply to

     • Hypocrite Hater
     I don't think it really matters. Setting a hard block size limit and sticking with it is a good idea. Bitcoin isn't meant to replace Mastercard, it's meant to replace physical transport of gold - so anything less than $1000 transaction fees is winning. Higher fees make bigger block rewards, which will become more and more important as the block subsidy decreases.
     
     If Blockstream wants to forbid people paying 100k to put their dick pics on the blockchain, what are they going to do, change IsStandard() ? Cool now you need to pay a mining pool. Change consensus rules? That's a hard fork so forget it.
     
     > 2011-08-25 18:54:55 <cjdelisle> ran out of prayers?! That explains the price drop.
     https://bitcoinstrings.com/blk00003.txt
   • pokkst (pokkst@xmrposter.club)'s status on Tuesday, 31-Jan-2023 00:53:19 JST pokkst

     in reply to

     • Hypocrite Hater
     @Hyolobrika That depends on how many are being created, but my point is that that issue is not exclusive to Ordinals. Right now it has virtually no effect.
     
     In the case of Binance, they sent so many consolidation transactions with a flat 200,000 sat fee each, that the mempool filled up completely and it created an artificial fee floor of ~14 sat/byte for everyone (anything under that would not be relayed by most nodes as the min relay fee was ~14 sat/byte).
   • Hypocrite Hater (hyolobrika@gleasonator.com)'s status on Tuesday, 31-Jan-2023 00:53:20 JST Hypocrite Hater

     in reply to
     @pokkst so it wouldn't create higher network fees for everyone, just the tx creator?
   • pokkst (pokkst@xmrposter.club)'s status on Tuesday, 31-Jan-2023 00:53:21 JST pokkst

     in reply to

     • Hypocrite Hater
     @Hyolobrika If people are paying for it and miners are accepting it then Adam Back has no authority to try and censor them. I do think on-chain NFTs and other data is pretty dumb, but there is a market for it, and that’s why I primarily use a chain designed specifically for normal, cash-like transactions, not "smart contract" shit.
     
     Still doesn’t disprove anything I said, that Adam Back & Co. are advocating for censorship.
   • Hypocrite Hater (hyolobrika@gleasonator.com)'s status on Tuesday, 31-Jan-2023 00:53:22 JST Hypocrite Hater

     in reply to
     @pokkst
     >one NFT transaction via Ordinals can – in the worst case – take up a whole 4MB block thanks to Taproot’s implementation. That would be problematic and create much higher network transaction fees, which no one wants or needs.
     https://cryptomode.com/bitcoin-on-chain-nfts-are-a-thing-but-there-are-potential-tradeoffs/
     There seems to be more to it than you mentioned.
   • Hypocrite Hater (hyolobrika@gleasonator.com)'s status on Tuesday, 31-Jan-2023 00:53:23 JST Hypocrite Hater

     in reply to
     @pokkst where?
   • pokkst (pokkst@xmrposter.club)'s status on Tuesday, 31-Jan-2023 00:53:23 JST pokkst

     in reply to

     • Hypocrite Hater
     @Hyolobrika on bird site
     Adam Back & Co. advocating for censorship because of the Ordinals taproot shit
   • cjd (cjd@pkteerium.xyz)'s status on Tuesday, 31-Jan-2023 00:54:41 JST cjd

     in reply to

     • Hypocrite Hater
     What I like about BTC is that they have not had a hard fork since, I think, 2010
     LS likes this.
   • silverpill (silverpill@mitra.social)'s status on Tuesday, 31-Jan-2023 03:35:46 JST silverpill

     in reply to

     • cjd
     • Hypocrite Hater

     @pokkst @Hyolobrika @cjd Who said what back then is hardly relevant. Some people watched how ideas work out in the real world and adjusted their beliefs. Thanks to them it is still possible to run Bitcoin full node on an average laptop.

     Bitcoin Cash... Is it possible to sync it from the genesis block? And what is the blockchain size?
     There's no shortage of shitcoins where transactions are fast and cheap (just like Visa and MasterCard, wow!), but if you can't run full node, you have to rely on some intermediary. Speaking of the "original purpose of Bitcoin", the first sentence in Bitcoin whitepaper is:

     >A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.

   • pokkst (pokkst@xmrposter.club)'s status on Tuesday, 31-Jan-2023 05:19:20 JST pokkst

     in reply to

     • cjd
     • Hypocrite Hater
     • silverpill
     @silverpill @Hyolobrika @cjd I understand it's hard to accept, but it's the truth, and if you still fall for the small-block propaganda then I feel sorry for you.
   • pokkst (pokkst@xmrposter.club)'s status on Tuesday, 31-Jan-2023 05:19:21 JST pokkst

     in reply to

     • cjd
     • Hypocrite Hater
     • silverpill
     @silverpill @Hyolobrika @cjd Satoshi's calculations still match up, regardless of what censorship methods BTC maxis try to use.
     
     Yes, as I've already stated, a Raspberry Pi can handle 256MB blocks just fine, as demonstrated on BCH's Scalenet testnet.
     https://read.cash/@mtrycz/how-my-rpi4-handles-scalenets-256mb-blocks-e356213b
     
     https://old.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/l63xrg/weve_come_a_long_way_this_is_the_load_on_my/
   • cjd (cjd@pkteerium.xyz)'s status on Tuesday, 31-Jan-2023 05:19:45 JST cjd

     in reply to

     • Hypocrite Hater
     • silverpill
     Hard limited block size is a really good idea whatever Blockstream or anyone says... Because whatever block size you can imagine, it will never be enough in the long term.
     
     Also, bidding up the cost of block space keeps the spam out and pushes most casual txns to side chains and lightning channels where they belong.
     
     Also, it's a really good idea to never ever EVER modify the consensus rules. To the point where I am in favor of wallet software spot checking blocks and rejecting the chain if the block does not match consensus. Because once consensus rules CAN be "tweaked a little", then you open the door to people lobbying to change a little more and a little more (See: Ethereum).
   • silverpill (silverpill@mitra.social)'s status on Tuesday, 31-Jan-2023 05:59:18 JST silverpill

     in reply to

     • cjd
     • Hypocrite Hater

     @pokkst @Hyolobrika @cjd 6 blocks per hour, each one is 256 MB => that's 36 GB per day. 12 TB per year. Right? If this block space is fully utilized you get a ridiculously bloated chain.
     I have no difficulty accepting this "truth" - just not interested in this kind of system. Bitcoin serves me well and I have no problem with its block size limit, so don't feel sorry.

   • silverpill (silverpill@mitra.social)'s status on Tuesday, 31-Jan-2023 09:22:20 JST silverpill

     in reply to

     • cjd
     • Hypocrite Hater

     @pokkst @Hyolobrika @cjd

     >Enjoy your unreliable and slow payments on BTC I guess.

     You mean, my secure peer-to-peer payments, my widely accepted BTC and my good old hardware?
     There are different tools for different tasks and no single tool can satisfy every need. If I need fast payments I could use L2 system or some other good L1 chain (not Bitcoin Cash).

   • pokkst (pokkst@xmrposter.club)'s status on Tuesday, 31-Jan-2023 09:22:21 JST pokkst

     in reply to

     • cjd
     • Hypocrite Hater
     • silverpill
     @silverpill @Hyolobrika @cjd You are assuming that blocks would always be full, which is not always the case, nor is it healthy for a network, as blocks should never be consistently completely full like they are on BTC, since that leads to mempool congestion issues, transaction relay issues, and point-of-sale and payments unreliable (especially when transactions start being dropped from the mempool)
     
     I simply stated that a Raspberry Pi can handle it, which it can, when it's needed. The evidence is there.
     
     Currently, no chain has enough demand where 256MB is needed, which is why BCH still only has a 32MB block size limit, but maybe in several years assuming crypto usage picks up it will be, and even by then storage and CPUs will be even more efficient and cheaper.
     
     Enjoy your unreliable and slow payments on BTC I guess.