Community Directory


Go back

User Activity

Forum Posts

  • Replies: 1,764
  • Topics: 216
  • Likes Received: 1,244
  • Re: Upcoming Bitcoin Hard Fork & /r/bitcoin censorship

    @ivanb

    @adam The nodes basically aren't in this equation, LTB and Tokenly run full nodes and we are defensively switching to XT (not immediately) because XT will be compatible with Bitcoin Core and XT while Core will not be compatible larger XT blocks whenever they happen.

    Nodes are passengers, they pay their own way and don't have any say in the journey. People talk about wanting to change that so the incentives align better to support more nodes but so far it's just talk.

    I'm not sure that I fully agree with this. Full nodes run by users, merchants and other miners are all that stops miners from creating fake transactions, double spends, arbitrary coinbase rewards, etc. Individually a single full node means nothing to anyone except the owner. Collectively, if miners believe that there are enough full nodes in agreement with the rules a miner operates by then that miner has a better chance of having their work accepted and their incentive rewards made more valuable by this acceptance.

    I think my analogy carries through, you're talking about all the passengers boycotting to cause the network to correct itself. That's just not the state 99.999% of the time.

  • Re: So, is Factom just a defacto scam now?

    @junseth No @Adam, you're not rude for asking me to summarize your findings. You're a dick for telling me I was rude to Paul who showed up and admitted lying to the community. You're a dick for not ever asking the simple questions of that team yourself. You're a dick for subsequently supporting Paul, and consoling him in a side channel after it was discovered that he lied.

    If you'd like the TL;DR of the document, the important parts are highlighted in green. I did that for people like you. If you're color blind I'll change it so you can see it.

    @junseth you seem really angry?

    Just so you know, I've never talked to anybody about Factom for the show, we can't cover every project.

  • Re: So, is Factom just a defacto scam now?

    @brighton36 can you post links to all the things you're talking about? I'm drafting a letter to Paul requesting comment and would like to be able to point to specific instances when soliciting response, seems like you've been on this for a while.

    From what you and @junseth have said, it seems like this all centers around a press release about Factom and the Honduras government, and how that was handled by Paul. Is that right? is there anything else about the project that makes it a scam?

  • Re: Upcoming Bitcoin Hard Fork & /r/bitcoin censorship

    @cherapple

    I'm still left wondering, however (as someone who has less of a technical understanding): Where are the nodes in the equation? They are unpaid, run by volunteers, decreasing in number all the time, and not discussed on the same level that miners are discussed. Are they less important, or "becoming less important as it becomes easier to connect to the network" (as one person recently explained to me)? Do they matter in these block-size, hard-fork, consensus decisions?

    The nodes basically aren't in this equation, LTB and Tokenly run full nodes and we are defensively switching to XT (not immediately) because XT will be compatible with Bitcoin Core and XT while Core will not be compatible larger XT blocks whenever they happen.

    Nodes are passengers, they pay their own way and don't have any say in the journey. People talk about wanting to change that so the incentives align better to support more nodes but so far it's just talk.

  • Re: Upcoming Bitcoin Hard Fork & /r/bitcoin censorship

    @jayek I'm in agreement that we need to scale to the larger block size, but does anyone else feel the fork is a bad idea and should be implemented in core. Not so much an issue with the tech, but the general public perception and confidence in Bitcoin in as a whole, regardless if it's Core/XT. I think the way this has played out is bad for Bitcoin.

    You have described the position it sounds like Gavin/Mike found themselves in, thinking larger block sizes are important and wanting to do it through core but being unable to because any developer with commit access has veto power. This is the core of the issue it seems and what led us to where we are now.

  • Re: So, is Factom just a defacto scam now?

    Can you quote the specific parts that are so damning? You posted a 41 page transcript and I'm rude for asking you to summarize your findings?

  • Re: Upcoming Bitcoin Hard Fork & /r/bitcoin censorship

    @maxentropy Github - Code Change Widget

    The code watch dog idea might be a good idea. Easily observing the changes to Github repositories could invigorate debate on LetsTalk...

    A LetsTalkBitcoin installed Github widget could provide an additional source of information to the forums.

    I like this idea but the core of the issue is we need people who understand and can keep up with what is being done. It's not just github but mailing lists as well

  • Re: So, is Factom just a defacto scam now?

    @junseth Maybe they were truth futures, which is why Factom doesn't see a compelling reason to be truthful today. Here's the transcript for anyone trying to keep up: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1idEYEHd0woIFJsIiSGX482R2Q12zcQIXMwOcLquS9g8/edit?usp=sharing

    I read the first four pages of forty one (lol) and mostly saw you being rude to paul, what exactly is incriminating?

    @brighton36 Does the community care that they mislead investors, and refuse to correct the record, or do we still support them because we bought tokens, and are invested?

    It seems like this was the perfect scam, they marketed "truth tokens" to sixteen year olds, who, tired of scams, invested in them. :/

    Chris, can you explain why you're saying this about Factom? Feels like I've missed something, you seem pretty upset.

  • Re: Upcoming Bitcoin Hard Fork & /r/bitcoin censorship

    This was linked from the reddit thread calling into question Mike Hearn as the decider of bitcoinxt based on his past actions

    Mike Hearn's Questionable History

  • Re: Upcoming Bitcoin Hard Fork & /r/bitcoin censorship

    @edgelogic The language being used here is skewed in favor of the fork and BitcoinXT.. The commercial activities and preferences of the site owners are made quite clear. Whereas the important issue of maintaining consensus within the Bitcoin community, or for instance featuring the concerns of people like Adam Back, Nick Szabo, Peter Todd etc are not featured as a counterpoint... The contra arguments are not presented as part of your article... that is why I am raising it.

    There is no article! yet because we're trying to have the discussion here. This is a forum thread, the purpose is to discuss not for you to believe everything you read in the first post.

    The way to introduce the arguments you believe are the strong ones is to introduce those arguements. You keep mentioning things we're not mentioning them but you're the one who knows about them, please educate us.

    Mostly it seems like you're unhappy I don't believe the same thing you do coming into this discussion, but if that was the case we wouldn't need to talk would we? Explain why we're wrong if you want to impact anyone beyond yourself in this conversation.

© Copyright 2013–2016 The LTB Network. All rights reserved .