mircea_popescu: besides the point - it is a factual matter now.

mircea_popescu: initially i thought that "nodes" is a meaningful term, but what i see now is a large ball of node with a bunch of sattelites that have ~ no importance flattering themselves into thinking they're part of a network.

mircea_popescu: also a minor point, but at least relevant re protocol discussion.

mircea_popescu: this is a minor point. there are better bits. such as - that an transaction known but not advertised constitutes the simple definition of "transaction withholding".

mircea_popescu: by all means. hence, " and if there's a single icann in the lot with enough actual gumption to put together a hostile takeover package, i'll certainly consider it." ☟︎

mircea_popescu: PeterL when the ceo of a company makes a stupid mistake, the company pays for it. there are exactly no exceptions to this rule, nor will there ever be. morever, even when what the ceo does isn't a stupid mistake, the shareholders still pay for it. ☟︎

mircea_popescu: gumption to put together a hostile takeover package, i'll certainly consider it.

mircea_popescu: the shareholders can have all the legit complaints they want, about anything that happens whatsoever. we can all hold hands and sing kumbaya about our legit complaints that bitcoin doesn't work, and we would like it to, and it should be fixed by other people at their expense so we can continue our lifestyle undeterred. meanwhile - nonvoting shares can be sold, and if there's a single icann in the lot with enough actual

mircea_popescu: (imagine, as a subtopic, the wonder of computing if hardware came with guarantee "unless used for uinappropiate purpose" and then coders had to write code that didn't void any warranties.)

mircea_popescu: anyway. 2 has a much more obvious solution, if as discussed not exactly trivial and wtf are fibonacci stacks.

mircea_popescu: that's a large pogo rigt there.

mircea_popescu: it just turned a mild magic number ("get all the headers no less than 2000) into a fucking protocol limit. "only get 2k". this is utter nonsense. ☟︎

mircea_popescu: hm. and you have these two running on the same machine, or within a local net ?

mircea_popescu: or not is dubious, but that aside pirate's gpumax certainly played a major early role.

mircea_popescu: adlai there's some historical charge in there : bitcoin's first and largest ponzi ran a "mining" whatever, for the obvious and transparent purpose of acquiring freshly minted coins to pay out the idiot "investors". this was a major contributor to the early crystalisation of what came to be known later as "mining pools" which is what eventually in due time coallesced into today's problem. whether it was avoidable at all

mircea_popescu: so yes, for the sake of keeping the record straight - it is not possible for miners to include my (high-S, btw!) txn in blocks within 2:55 if in fact running a chain head delayed reporting scheme. either it got turned off or it never existed in the first place, anyone's call.