Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Satoshi Roundtable Thoughts

gavinandresen.ninja

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 116 posts

Re: Satoshi Roundtable Thoughts

#91

Post by riprowan »

Taek wrote: post #14
studentrob wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. You're even getting down voted here without explanation. EDIT: Well you used to be grey and at the bottom. Now you're up top.

There has been an enormous and coordinated effort to disrupt the Bitcoin community, and many of the actions have been far from subtle. /r/bitcoin has been subject to spam attacks, sockpuppets, brigade voting, and a huge number of manipulations. The moderator team tried to control it, honest people became victim to heavy handed moderation, and a lot of damage was done. The grandparent comment really does not seem genu…

So we're supposed to believe that same side that supposedly disrupted the community through sockpuppetry is also at the mercy of DDoS attacks?

Seems like anyone capable of orchestrating DDoS, can also organize sockpuppets.

Re: Satoshi Roundtable Thoughts

#92

Post by bhaak »

maaku wrote: post #77
bhaak wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ruleset is certainly not unchangeable. If enough miners and full nodes install a different bitcoin implementation, having combined more than 51% of the hash rate of the network, the ruleset of the new majority is valid. That's how bitcoin reaches consensus and that's how Classic would activate (going for 75% and a grace period of a month, because otherwise you'd probably get chaos and the possibility of 2 distinc…

> If enough miners and full nodes install a different bitcoin implementation, having combined more than 51% of the hash rate of the network, the ruleset of the new majority is valid. No, that is a misunderstanding of how bitcoin works. If the miners activate a new ruleset, and if that change is not so very carefully constructed as to make the old rules a special case of the new rules (a soft-fork), then those miners…

Bitcoin is simply decision making by CPU power. Quote Satoshi: "Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested in it."

I didn't say that everyone follows automatically if there's a hard fork. But if there's a hard fork and an un-upgraded node finds itself on the losing side of the fork, it is lost.

Whoever generates the longest chain that gets accepted by the majority of the networks, wins.

Re: Satoshi Roundtable Thoughts

#93

Post by gasull »

rsi_oww wrote: post #18
Vozze wrote: post #9

There is a revolution going on in Bitcoin land. Very similar to how dictatorship gets overthrown in the real world. In the real world, dictators fight with censorship and violent force. In Bitcoin land these are social media censorship and DDoS attacks. The main Bitcoin forum on Reddit is censored heavy handed. No criticism allowed, mentions of alternative software or forums get deleted right away. People who run alt…

> The main Bitcoin forum on Reddit is censored heavy handed. No criticism allowed, mentions of alternative software or forums get deleted right away. This is simply not true. The only rule on the /r/bitcoin Reddit is not to promote these network fork attempts. This is not just alternative software, it is software that follows DIFFERENT rules from the main bitcoin software and would follow a different ledger history i…

You cannot even mention an altcoin without being shadowbanned. It happened to me. Mentioning an altcoin isn't the same as promoting it. You might want to point out that some users are flocking to Ethereum because of the fees.

Re: Satoshi Roundtable Thoughts

#94

Post by freework »

ikeboy wrote: post #59
studentrob wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't look good when you ban a mode of thought entirely I've no skin in this game, and I don't fully understand the technical problems and solutions for bitcoin. I also don't understand the challenges facing moderators of reddit. It does seem strange to me, however, that people are calling for consensus on an issue where 1) most discussion occurs online, and 2) for which there exists no balanced forum that allow…

The actual technical discussion takes place on the mailing list. No points of view have been banned from there as far as I know.

The dev-mailing list is very censored, I can verify this based on my personal experience. Many of my posts strengthening on-chain scaling points have been deleted from the dev-mailing list.

Re: Satoshi Roundtable Thoughts

#95

Post by freework »

Taek wrote: post #14
studentrob wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. You're even getting down voted here without explanation. EDIT: Well you used to be grey and at the bottom. Now you're up top.

There has been an enormous and coordinated effort to disrupt the Bitcoin community, and many of the actions have been far from subtle. /r/bitcoin has been subject to spam attacks, sockpuppets, brigade voting, and a huge number of manipulations. The moderator team tried to control it, honest people became victim to heavy handed moderation, and a lot of damage was done. The grandparent comment really does not seem genu…

> /r/bitcoin has been subject to spam attacks, sockpuppets, brigade voting, and a huge number of manipulations.

How do you know it's "sock puppets" and the like, and not real people who are expressing real opinions?

Re: Satoshi Roundtable Thoughts

#96

Post by debacle »

gasull wrote: post #93
rsi_oww wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The main Bitcoin forum on Reddit is censored heavy handed. No criticism allowed, mentions of alternative software or forums get deleted right away. This is simply not true. The only rule on the /r/bitcoin Reddit is not to promote these network fork attempts. This is not just alternative software, it is software that follows DIFFERENT rules from the main bitcoin software and would follow a different ledger history i…

You cannot even mention an altcoin without being shadowbanned. It happened to me. Mentioning an altcoin isn't the same as promoting it. You might want to point out that some users are flocking to Ethereum because of the fees.

Reddit mods can't shadowban people.

Re: Satoshi Roundtable Thoughts

#97

Post by Phlarp »

jbmorgado wrote: post #65
rsi_oww wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The main Bitcoin forum on Reddit is censored heavy handed. No criticism allowed, mentions of alternative software or forums get deleted right away. This is simply not true. The only rule on the /r/bitcoin Reddit is not to promote these network fork attempts. This is not just alternative software, it is software that follows DIFFERENT rules from the main bitcoin software and would follow a different ledger history i…

> The only rule on the /r/bitcoin Reddit is not to promote these network fork attempts. Not really. Any criticism of bitcoin or even worst, any bad news, about bitcoin are censored in /r/bitcoin For instance, when back in 2014 MtGox failed, some days before a user from /r/bitcoin posted a lengthly article that discussed the MtGox resolution citing the problems MtGox was facing, that they had lost a big part of their…

Honestly if you are paying any attention what-so-ever to bitcoin and using /r/btc or /r/bitcoin as your primary or sole source of information then you deserve every bad thing that happens to you.

When two-bit-idiot or whoever it was posted that doom and gloom document regarding MtGox in 2014 you would have had to been completely out of the loop not to have seen it re-linked on twitter or any of a dozen other outlets. My memory of the Gox timeline has grown fuzzy over time, but from what I recall, everybody with half a cluestick knew for at least a few days prior to this release that Gox was circling the drain and god have mercy on anyone with funds left sitting in their wallets. They hadn't been processing fiat withdrawals at all for weeks, at the very best you could withdraw in Yen with a two or three week delay. This should have been everybody's signal that shit was hitting the fan. A few weeks later they started getting spotty about processing BTC withdrawls, and it wasn't until after this that the bankruptcy planning doc got "leaked".

Re: Satoshi Roundtable Thoughts

#98

Post by gravypod »

riprowan wrote: post #85
mcguire wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for this. For those of us not following closely, that paper explains the issue clearly. From my reading, the protocol is supposed to adjust the difficulty of the block chain proof of work to provide a certain number of blocks per hour?

Yes, that is correct.

From what I understand from reading many of your comments (riprowan, seems like you understand what you are talking about):

  - Some people don't want to increase the block size
  - The original whitepaper says that this is supposed to increase
  - People who advocate for this have some big players trying to hinder their discussion
I don't know if I am getting this right. But does that sound about what is happening here?

Re: Satoshi Roundtable Thoughts

#99

Post by toomim »

rsi_oww wrote: post #13
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #5

So this is #3 of the Satoshi Roundtable notes and opinions that have made it to HN, as far as I can tell (I was initially confused and thought this was a re-submission of Brian Armstrong's notes https://medium.com/@barmstrong/what-happened-at-the-satoshi-... ). As someone who has dabbled into the bitcoin and block chain area but never seriously, all of these reports and the constant reporting of the serious issues fa…

There is near complete consensus, see: https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-con... Nearly every developer, along with the vast majority of miners, have agreed to this. The group that did not agree (Coinbase, 2 developers, and some small miners) is extremely good at social media and has done a great job of spreading a false story of "serious scaling problems" and "developers can't reach consensus".…

Please read the article that this whole thread is about--you know, the link at the top of this page that we're discussing. Gavin says that 75% of the people at roundtable 3 voted in disagreement with the document you linked.
Post reply on HN