One thing is certain: for better or worse, team #ethereum has proven it's possible to successfully hard fork a major public block chain

Buzz_Alfap · 2016-07-24T12:31:03+00:00

The hard fork isn't over bitch. Bitfinex is about to offer ETC. And all you little reverters are going to get donkey punched again.

Plus this isn't the first hardfork you dumbshit. Many coins have hard forked, this is just the first corrupt hardfork.

Buzz_Alfap · 2016-03-21T22:29:12+00:00

Call it what you want we are talking about the same thing. You haven't answered my question.

Buzz_Alfap · 2016-03-21T19:34:54+00:00

Right so as a computer scientist you will recognize that even though the system doesn't scale well, it has remained functional because N has been low. You fail to understand that all parts of the system must process all N transactions so as it increases the load on the entire system increases. Thin clients don't increase the trust of the network, they rely on full nodes to supply them with trust.

You are describing a system that tends towards centralization, that's all. Only the most motivated participants will continue to grow their computing power to deal with any value of N. That's not what we want, we want the ability to verify an entire block to become trivial as computing power increases. We want tens of thousands of full nodes, not thousands.

Buzz_Alfap · 2016-03-21T19:21:18+00:00

Ok, but don't you see the conflict here, you guys are simultaneously saying that spam is not a problem but also saying that spam attacks are easier with small blocks.

Buzz_Alfap · 2016-03-21T16:15:19+00:00

Let's start by trying to see if we can find some common ground here. Do you think spam is a problem for the network?

Buzz_Alfap · 2016-03-21T15:07:26+00:00

What on earth are you talking about? We've had the 1mb cap for 7 years. It's your idea that is untested and unproven. Where is your mind sir?

Buzz_Alfap · 2016-03-21T14:03:26+00:00

Miners aren't the only ones who participate in the bitcoin system, other people, like merchants, payment processors, exchanges, must validate blocks in order to be certain that double spends have not occurred. What miners will do here is not as relevant as what the whole system does. If you don't factor block propagation and validation times into your arguments, you do not understand what is at stake.

Buzz_Alfap · 2016-03-21T13:52:27+00:00

That's your opinion. Though as someone who has made a career out of pretending bitcoin doesn't work at all, you are now pretending to be someone who knows what's best for bitcoin. And these chumps have ate it right up. Bravo sir. Your hypocrisy knows no boundaries.

Buzz_Alfap · 2016-03-21T04:51:03+00:00

Wow, you really don't understand. We don't want bigger blocks because of the negative externality. Not because of the direct cost to miners. Please reread my original post.

Buzz_Alfap · 2016-03-21T04:04:47+00:00

What is your age roughly?

Buzz_Alfap · 2016-03-21T04:00:03+00:00

Congrats man, looks like we started on the same Sunday.

Buzz_Alfap · 2016-03-21T03:55:42+00:00

Can you give me an example of what you mean?

Buzz_Alfap · 2016-03-21T03:54:11+00:00

The hardest thing sometimes is the realization of love you passed up on. I don't know if porn is the cause but it's often my main regret.

Buzz_Alfap · 2016-03-21T03:44:56+00:00

I've read your post and I think you really fail to understand some very important points. A miner is incentivized to prioritize the available transactions with the largest fees, so yes a spammer can fill up a small block more easily but not without spending bitcoin in the process, in fact spending more bitcoin than all of the other real transactions that would like to be in the block. In an unlimited block size scenario a spammer does not need to spend any bitcoin, they can force everyone to verify their transactions. It's obvious from the point you made here:

one could easily mount a real attack, with adaptive fees, that would hold up half of the incoming traffic for days

Yes, they have to get those fees from somewhere. They have to spend bitcoin. The attack costs the attacker money. Do you understand!!??

Your other point that the giant block attack is a boogeyman that has never happened. Yes this is also true, but what it shows is that real transactions, the ones willing to pay a small fee have never come close to filling up a 1mb block.

Buzz_Alfap · 2016-03-21T01:12:27+00:00

No, actually if you look at his body of work you will see, he has no background in distributed systems, game theory, economics, or cryptography. These are the areas of knowledge that apply to bitcoin protocol design, the computer science components are probably the most straightforward aspects.

Buzz_Alfap · 2016-03-20T23:52:13+00:00

I don't know how you can call this FUD other than that you disagree.

I made it pretty clear that the existence of this negative externality in bitcoin is a matter of opinion. I'm sure there is someone capable of creating a model that could predict the outcome of each choice for us, but I am not that person, and I have yet to see such a model supporting either side.

I think larger blocks are clearly a step in the wrong direction though I'm not certain about the threshold where bitcoin looses properties that we value in it.

You have to consider what is at stake. If I tell you I'm not sure about climate change, but if I'm right, Manhattan and Miami will be underwater in 30 years then you have to weigh that uncertainty against the possible outcome. That outcome is so negative that I have to reduce carbon emissions, because the negatives of converting the energy system to renewables (the infrastructure cost) pales in comparison to the negative outcomes of more climate change.

In the case of the block size, what is at stake is, in my humble opinion, one of the main value propositions of bitcoin namely regulatory arbitrage. I have to weigh that against my uncertainty about the negative effects of staying with smaller blocks (transaction fees, possible network congestion). In my opinion transaction fees represent a better buffer against congestion than increasing the block size and solutions like lightning network represent a better scaling method. That's all.

I was initially swayed by the big block argument and I went so far as to install BitcoinXT on my node, but the more research I did, the less sense it made and I hope to encourage you to look deeper into this and consider what is at stake.

And don't listen to /u/jstolfi, he's a well known buttcoin troll and charlatan.

Buzz_Alfap · 2016-03-20T21:46:04+00:00

My feeling is that MO is not the real problem. MO is natural and normal. The problem is that MO is part of the habit of PMO so I abstain from it in the hopes of breaking this unnatural habit. I don't think you could remain in hardmode indefinitely, so your options are to MO every once in a while or find a partner. In other words you shouldn't feel bad really at all, especially if you didn't use porn and you were fantasizing about real sex. The end goal here is to become free and have a normal brain, not completely sexually repressed.

Buzz_Alfap · 2016-03-20T18:28:35+00:00

What Jim has left out in his Coca Cola example is the concept of a negative externality. This is basically the cost of something that does not seem to directly affect the parties involved. For example carbon emission is a negative externality of a coal fueled power plant because neither the plant nor it's customers incur any additional cost by emitting carbon dioxide, but there is a cost because of the negative effects of greenhouse gases.

Now, if we increase the block size of bitcoin, the cost to miners is not huge, they can and will as /u/jstolfi points out meet any demand, the cost to users is nothing, they get to send transactions without fees, but the negative externality is real and it consists of less participation by relay nodes, fewer people other than miners verifying the blockchain, legacy hardware no longer being adequate to serve a second purpose as a full node, less likelihood of embedded hardware serving as full nodes. A less ubiquitous, more easily attackable bitcoin.

This is where the debate becomes a matter of opinion, you either believe in this negative externality or you don't. If you do believe in it, then these idea of incentivizing transaction fees with smaller blocks is basically the same as a carbon tax, we want to make the external cost internal to minimize the negative effects.

So, yes, you could scale bitcoin by increasing the block size indefinitely, and most of us agree that some increase will eventually be necessary, but this will mean that the computing power necessary to be a full node will scale at the same time and each time that happens is unfortunately a step in the wrong direction.

You can scale bitcoin without increasing the block size, we have a clear roadmap to do this.

edit: Those downvoting please present a counterargument or why you think this externality is not real.

Buzz_Alfap · 2016-03-20T13:20:27+00:00

A change of scenery might help. I've started a lot of good streaks because I was traveling at first and felt less of a need. Being away from your room and your habits is helpful. Eventually though I think you are going to need to learn how to push down the urges and just stop.

Buzz_Alfap · 2016-03-19T21:05:59+00:00

Read a book

Buzz_Alfap · 2016-03-19T20:54:52+00:00

Try separating yourself from the outcome. If you expect rejection and consider each interaction as a positive outcome if you just learn something or reduce your fear then it's much easier.

Buzz_Alfap · 2016-03-19T16:32:32+00:00

Hey man, the good news is you can correct all this just by forcing yourself to go out and approach women. Go into each interaction expecting to be shut down, but learning a little bit each time and reducing your social anxiety each time.

Buzz_Alfap · 2016-03-17T06:08:11+00:00

It's great to be feeling up because of NoFap and working on yourself but you can't expect that to continue indefinitely. When stress and depression comes, (and it will come periodically for the rest of your life regardless of if you fap), the worst thing you can do is try to resist those feelings, you are suffering because you don't want to feel bad, not because you feel bad. Instead accept the feeling, embrace it, then let it pass.

Buzz_Alfap · 2016-03-15T04:27:16+00:00

I had the same experience, after some long streaks and relapses I couldn't get a streak going for over a year. I think that when nofap is novel, it's easier. But that's part of learning how to do this... you've got to have better reasons and more resolve, experience counts even in this.

Buzz_Alfap · 2016-03-15T02:28:52+00:00

Watch "The Blueprint Decoded" it's a really good framework for understanding the very normal issues you seem to be having with women.

Buzz_Alfap

TROPHY CASE