Bitcoin Forum

Since this XT drama began, I was wondering about Gavins desperate efford to force bigger blocksize, even after he obv. realized, that there is a strong resistance against this fork. I mean, he could have simply stepped back and wait for the right time to come up with his idea again. When the current blocksize really turns out to be problematic, then he would have a majority and a consensus.
 
Instead he is knowingly dividing/weakening the Bitcoin community (incl. himself) for his idea.

This behaviour doesn't seem appropriate to me. Is there something more behind it, than just a larger blocksize?

Divide et empera. That seems to be the strategy. If they succeed in taking over Bitcoin, they will rule it. Many of the current devs have stated they will likely stop contributing to the code. Who will then? Gavin has stopped contributing a while ago, Mike didn't do this at all. There are a lot of talented developers here, but very few have as much expertise as the current devs. So it will all be on Gavin, can he shoulder it?

Or maybe magically the new devs appear and start slowly, bit-by-bit to weaken Bitcoin's security model. If done properly, most wouldn't notice until it's completely centralized.

maybe he really want bitcoin to succeed unlike many other? it's true that without bigger block bitcoin can't embrace a large volume of TX and i'm not talking about the stress test volume that was a joke in comparison with a real big volume that awaits bitcoin if become mainstream

or maybe he know that the volume will rise with the halving and he want to go ahead and make the change before that happen

Why then make increases so aggressive? There are two BIPs apart from Gavin's that are more reasonable and thus more likely to reach wider consensus. Yet he still take the most radical approach. That's not how consensus is reached, that's how the system is put in jeopardy.
https://i.imgur.com/GsAmzcd.png (https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/633028070060912640)

Yes, exactly this! I think that everybody are making a bad guy out of Gavin and he probably isn't the one. We can all be suspicious, but maybe his will to succeed is just much bigger than all of the rest of us, after all he has been with Bitcoin since the beginning, together with Satoshi.

Now, maybe he did turn bad in the process, but Bitcoin community is huge until now and I am sure that there are some smart people out there who will catch on this, if this is really happening.

aren't they implementing an anti-ddos which should be better than the core version? it should solve in part those possible attacks that may occur

I have no idea of what you are talking about, but the attack suggested by Nick Szabo doesn't seem to be solvable by some kind of magic anti-ddos. It's inherent to Bitcoin and is made easier by larger blocks.

This is what they're implementing besides the block size increase (their model is unsustainable):

Obviously more will come if people join them and the fork becomes active. The question is why are they doing this and why are people not listening to reason?
Also, Gavin isn't that bad. The real problem is in Hearn and his ideas of a Bitcoin dictatorship.

Obviously the other people are being ignorant and stubborn. Thanks for calling the ones, who caught on, smart. However, it is becoming really tiring posting the same stuff in every other thread.

---

---

Update: Read before posting nonsense from their website.

those are the new features besides bigger block

Bigger blocks
    Double spend relaying
    Better DoS attack defences
    BIP 65 / getutxos support
    DNS seed list refresh

better dos attack defences should mean something, but i don't know how efficient, they will be

It must be difficult if you worked hard on something and you want to see it implemented, and now you cannot do it anymore, because you are not the lead developer anymore. It would frustrate the hell out of me

if I spent a lot of time on something, and I must wait for consensus for it to be implemented. He used to make changes and most people just took his word for it... now he is not sitting behind the wheel anymore

and it must be bad for him. His is a brilliant developer, and it would be bad to lose him, if he leaves Bitcoin to follow Mike and his goals. Let's just swap hats for a moment and see it from his perspective for once.

I too, can see that some of these changes could be good for Bitcoin... but some are terrible.  ???

I have no more respect for this guy. When i start with bitcoin Gavin was like a myth in my eyes. Now i see him like a shady person who works for his own dark proposes. He is not working for the bitcoin future but for the financial system future and has nothing to do anymore with bitcoin community. this is shame for him :(

You are making a good point, but if his ego is driving him away from the core protocol, shouldn't he be aware of his image beeing damaged if he not succeeds with his fork? I really find it strange, that he is risking all that for a simple code change.

The core protocol didn't have any block size limit. It has been introduced as a temporary restriction for testing. What is really stupid is all this stubborn desire of still keeping it active.

The only "desperation" I'm seeing is people like you trying to stifle discussion and debate.  You're afraid to allow the market to decide.  You don't want to let people to have a choice in case they choose a path you don't approve of.  If you want to use an open-source coin where anyone can make alterations to the code and release their own version of the client, you have to accept it when that actually happens.  If you can't accept that, there are plenty of closed-source coins out there that you might find more to your liking.  Larger blocksizes aren't just "his idea".  It's an idea that many people support.  All you can do is attack him because you're having trouble attacking the idea.  If I were a coder and released another client that supported larger blocks, would you be attacking me as well?

Bitcoin core is not a permanent authority on what Bitcoin is or should be.  Neither are its developers.  Bitcoin is not a dictatorship and one group of developers doesn't get to make all the decisions forever.  If you don't understand that, why are you even here?

There's a bomb implanted in Gavin's wife by evil big blockers. Unless a 1.1mb block appear in the middle of January then up she goes.

I think we have the first strike from financila system against bitcoin and community. It seems that Gavin and Hearn is with the bank side.

Anyone who supports blockstream is an idiot from this point.

If an alternative client won't achieve majority by January then the experiment is fucked.

I expect this comment to be deleted shortly. Search for uncensored forums!

yeah no, satoshi had what,,,33 MB blocks?

good enough for me to make block size bigger.

/thread

The problem as I see it is that the Bitcoin Core software is the reference software. If you want software guaranteed to have no back-doors,spying code or malicious spamming. Where do you find it? You have to trust an implementation and be able to judge other implementations against it. We need to trust that those that know and are experts in their fields, are actively defending against malicious changes and they can't do that across 10,000 different implementations.

Gavin has been there since the start. He has "form", as they say and the respect he has, was earned. That's not to say he could not be convinced into bad ideas, I just think its not his modus operandi to be malevolent and I don't see any factual basis to not continue with this assessment. He seems to feel passionately about bitcoin and argues for things he wants to see. Has he been "subverted" and moved to the dark side? Maybe. But I only see reasoned articles for debate at the moment fro a topic and decision he feels passionately for.

I sometimes feel that people want to piss in the developers' garden that they are tending because they can and there is nothing they can offer. Its a sort of reaction to a feeling of helplessness. There is nothing wrong with criticism and debate as there is nothing wrong with others wanting a different route but there must be a plan and plans by committee are slow laborious processes that don't please everyone.
Others just want to stamp on your plants because they don't like people having nice things ;)

The problem is that most people don't know what the implication of these sorts of issues really are or, perhaps more importantly, what the interests of those in the debate are. What we do know is some people want change and the debate is about how much rather than not at all. So. Bitcoin is a hard concept to see in its entirety and most can only grok small chunks at a time. There are some that can grok everything and for us muggles, we have to listen to their arguments and vote with our confidence in those we trust.

My opinion is, I don't have an opinion on this particular change. I am dead set against centralisation and see many discussions that will ultimately lead us there but this isn't one of them. To me, this discussion is like "how pregnant should we be" and see all proposals as not being efforts to increase the distributed nature of Bitcoin.

What, by starting a thread? That's kind of like the opposite of stifling debate, it's almost as if it's promoting or inviting debate  ::)


One thing that I take a great deal of comfort from from this XT nonsense; almost none of the so-called supporters are credible members of the forum, most come across as the usual sock puppets. I suspect that very low numbers of real people actually support GavinMikeCoin.

This. I've never seen a reputable member who switched their node from Core to XT. Still XT-lovers brag about their mining power.

Why blockstream and core devs want exclusive control of bitcoin development going as far as censoring bitcoin communities?

You can vote with running xt and migrating to uncensored bitcoin forums!

It's not about blocksize, it's about taking it over of course.

If it was a thread to discuss the pros and cons of an 8mb blocksize, then maybe (but we have enough of those already).  Instead, this is another attempt at character assassination because people would rather talk about the personalities involved than the actual issues.  By all means keep shifting the argument when you hit a wall, people aren't blind, they do notice and it doesn't do your cause any favours.

Gavin genuinely seems like a nice person. I think he's being pushed. Hearn seems like a genuinely dick-ish person.
In one interview when talking about the blocksize with Gavin and Mike, Gavin says "some people are pushing me to be more of a dictator". Mike smiles, takes a sip of his beer, nods his head and points to himself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIafZXRDH7w&feature=youtu.be&t=1672

Gavin needs to distance himself from Hearn and return to core development if he wants to remain a part of bitcoin. This wild cowboy forking XT bullshit is dangerous and is only going to taint his name. Get out now Gavin, while you still can!

I wonder what Gavin Andresen think about these discussions considering he's probably the only person that knows Satoshi's real identity.

Mike has deep associations with a company called Google, a company that has deep ties to the US Government.

Gavin himself was accepted to present Bitcoin to the CIA early in its history.

These two men are divorcing from the main project to create a project they will likely majorly control, with these governmental connections likely used as fuel.

Does your vision of Bitcoin involve deep cooperation with the US Government?

Disinformation.

Even if people upgraded to XT, hearn wouldn't have more control than any other devs.

The code is opensource. Normally, Devs can only propose ways, and the community can decide what turn to take.

Currently most posts and comments that go against Blockstream/Core devs are being censored on forums owned by theymos.

I think the sole reason behind the creation of Blockstream was to control bitcoin development.

the BTC was created to make money for a bunch of people. "Satoshi" is a fictional person which represent a group of people who are coming from the e-currency industry(e-gold, Osgold and so on).

They created a nice story which was "eated" by the hungry hipsters and done... here we are :)

The fact that Gavin wants to created another BTC (ALTCOIN) to have MORE control over it, it's normal (it seems there is a  "girls-fight" between the BTC "core owners" nowadays:)  ) . The people are greedy and wants more and more...

You didn't ever ask yourself, what are the relations between the main developers, exchangers and merchants. Who is behind the curtain?. :)

Just make a simple search regarding to the main exchangers like CoinBase, Bitstamp, BTC China, Ripple.
 SatoshiDICE (owns more than 50% from the existing BTC :) )   and many others. You will find the SAME people ash shareholders.

LOL because reputable members are long gone from this forum (such as Eric Evoorhees who speak loudly against Thermos' action btw). And most of the rest are sold accounts.


Gotta laugh at the "reputable member" tho,

Bitcoin has gone from merits of idea to authority figure. If you like politics, bitcoin is the worst option

Perfect example of the IQ of these BitcoinXT bashers.

Congratulations, you reached the bottom:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg

Say the guy who like to call anyone with opposite opinion: shills, trolls.

Saying that Mike Hearn cannot be trusted isn't shifting the argument, it is the argument

https://avatars1.githubusercontent.com/u/331997?v=3&s=400

Who wouldn't trust a man with such a sincere smile?  :D

(tip for you, Gavin, see if you can get your whole face to smile, instead of just your teeth)

good point. OP is indeed a troll.

Wrong, he would. You have made contradictory statements.

As you are implying, currently core devs have clearly more control over Bitcoin code than Gavin and Mike. If the latter two succeed with their fork, then XT becomes the real Bitcoin. As many of core devs leave (they have stated they likely will), the Bitcoin code gets under control of Gavin and Mike.

Of course, if they start malicious activity in the open, someone will notice, and some action will likely be taken. But it's not the only way to undermine Bitcoin -- you can engineer trivially looking patches that introduce actual weaknesses which almost noone can notice until it's too late.

I'm not implying they will necessarily act maliciously, I'm pointing out the fact that if they do, it can go unnoticed. There are very few people with enough expertise to notice that, and most of them work for your odious Blockstream...

Good point, you should start by looking at Lighting Network and Blockstream first.

You know the one thats already in the work instead of your hypothetical scenario.

meono why did you join this forum 14 days ago and have predominantly posted in XT related posts? It seems a bit weird that all you can do is to push the XT agenda. Where were you in the past 4 years? What makes you the expert? Do you have another account? Are you a dev?

Others have called my Gavin.

But none of what you ask matters if you want to counter my points.

Have a look at it's sig.

I mean, he could have simply stepped back and wait for the right time to come up with his idea again.
He know that the volume will rise with the halving and he want to go ahead and make the change before that happen

time is money !  ;D

Beautifully said.

Regards,
Me

Right.  What will they do then?  Go work at Visa?  Look, no matter what happens, they will still be crypto guys and they will still be working on something.  New guys are going to come work on the core.  Let them go.  Many of them, like Luke Jr. are dicks anyway. 

I'm still trying to read and catch up with this subject About XT and so far it seems like a Money Grab....It seems some (Nameless) are looking to score big with this.  I can't say that it's a Bad idea on a money making sorta sense but Splitting the BTC Population to choose a certain Fork Path would be bad for all no?

Like i said i'm still reading up on this correct me if i'm wrong. I wonder if Satoshi will chime in on this?   Imagine that....with just a few words from him he could Move the population one way or the other.  It's insane.

From what i see it's a Money Grab/Move with personal gain in front Steaming away......How much Money is at stake for those who are involved in XT?

theres 2 things that will happen:
BTC go totally UP
or BTC going totally down.


vote with your money.

I cant believe you got paid for that...^^^


So what are the questions that matter? If you want to influence us, educate us...

If you want to know why i registered 14 days ago, go PM admins or mods here.

Second, are you seriously asking what questions to ask me? LOL what a twisted logic you have there. My point is so darn simple, tell me how Mike will ......control bitcoin network.

Keep repeating it but then ignore MY QUESTION.

Also another point:

It is true we have contemplated joining a class action lawsuit against Gavin and Mike if they go through with the hard fork.

Because, if you lost your Bitcoins as a result of Gavin network split - would you hold him accountable?

I think loosing money to a market crash is the thing that happens before your last value gets erased with a failed fork. Of course people would join a lawsuit then. Blowing btc up due to pure arrogance would be epic shit to witness.

How is gavin so desperate?

I don't see him here spamming the forum or complaining/etc.

NO I think that's getting a little ridiculous. I think what Gavin and Mike are doing is reckless and childish, but in the end bitcoin is still an experiment and you never know if it will succeed or fail.  If those two alone can take down bitcoin then what do you think will happen if bitcoin were priced 10x the current amount and the banks decided it was time to infiltrate and destroy bitcoin from within? Bitcoin is more robust than two core developers, I guess ex-core developers now...

Says the person, who hides behind a sock puppet account to promote BitcoinXT. How ironic....

Show your real face and we would consider if you are biased enough to have a valid argument. Your post history does not show any reason other than being created to promote Bitcoin XT and to attack members

who does not share your view or opinion. Ignore = On.  >:(

How do i show my real face exactly? Put my face directly against the screen while you hit "scan" ?

I'm confused....

What a poor attempt in humor, if you don´t have it, leave it and just troll, that´s what you do best ;)

A little tip for future reference.

Notice i dont have any sig ad campain? Wouldnt it make more sense to have one with a sock puppet acct as i was accused of?

The main point is, it does not matter if my account is sock puppet or not, if you make judgement based on the account name, charismatic figure, you're exposed to be manipulated (remember the forum allows sell/buy accounts). The post only needs to carry the merits of itself, not the poster behind it.

Go to Altcoin section and get an idea why ppl got scammed left and right.
Or check the history of Mining section:
Josh Inaba was once vouched to be "reputable" member once,
IceBreaker
Cypherdoc

... the list goes on and on.

And
I might have terrible humor, agree  ;) Afterall i'm not a comedian. Unless that add merits to my post .

The fact is, you created a account to hide behind, so that you can talk smack to other members, without having the risk of tainting your reputation on your main account.

A signature campaign would be a problem for you, because it place a limit on how much posts you can make per day, before you get banned for Sig spamming.

The disposable account you have now, is a throwaway and is ideal to talk smack to other members and also to spam as many threads as you want.

What I am saying is... Have a civil debate with your real account, and we would take you seriously.

We all have a opinion on this matter, but we choose to have a civil discussion, without attacking people and calling them names.

Let's just keep this civil and professional, because it's a important subject and it needs serious debate.

I wish this whole blocksize debate would just get sorted. It worries me that things like this can happen. I'm also sceptical of peoples motivations for it.


This guy is probably trolling you all and trolls only win when you try fight them. Just ignore it if its something you dont like.

Have you looked at the actual content of it's sig yet? Look. Then stop talking to it.

See this is the problem why calling names is justified.

Thats not fact, thats your opinion. If you cant distinguish the two you lost ground for a debate. If it bothers you so much, you can PM your fav mods to confirm.


It sounds more like someone speaks from their own experience.

Honestly, I'm not that afraid of core devs leaving (despite that probably no one has as much expertise in Bitcoin as they do). I'm not happy about Gavin and Mike becoming the new devs. New people may come, but it doesn't mean they will be allowed into the team.

I know, it's mostly FUD and my personal fears. :-X

10% of all nodes are already XT - time for the core devs to change their view.

Don't forget to subtract my 2 fake XT nodes from your data ;D

I don't think 10% is enough. When we start approaching 35%-40%, I think everybody will start sweating and this is where real decisions will start to be made. At least everybody are counting on this happening, me too to be honest. I see this as a last resort.

10% is just a bluff for everybody out there. 

The sooner it happens the better. The fork is inevitable no matter what the naysayers trying to cause more drama.

The NEW BTC means new data base and control over your BTC.
There is a control even now but the new BTC will be more centralized. I am expecting a lot of "know nothing" people to say that BTC is decentralized.. I don't care. I am just having fun about this debate. :)

You do not ever wonder who are the guys who develop the BTC core. All of them are coming from the e-currency businesses. They are not saints at all. All of them wants money. They are not dreamers like many of you.... :)

BTC was created to make money for a bunch of people. "Satoshi" is a fictional person which represent a group of people who are coming from the e-currency industry(e-gold, Osgold and so on).

They created a nice story which was "eated" by the hungry hipsters and done... here we are :)

The fact that Gavin wants to created another BTC (ALTCOIN) to have MORE control over it, it's normal (it seems there is a  "girls-fight" between the BTC "core owners" nowadays:)  ) . The people are greedy and wants more and more...

You didn't ever ask yourself, what are the relations between the main developers, exchangers and merchants. Who is behind the curtain?. Smiley

Just make a simple search regarding to the main exchangers like CoinBase, Bitstamp, BTC China, Ripple.
 SatoshiDICE (owns more than 50% from the existing BTC Smiley )   and many others. You will find the SAME people as shareholders.

Vow to the master of troll and conspiracy.

Where are the XTbashers now? take note pls

I said that I don't care about what you say,meono (MEMO)  LOL.  

Yes, I am troll for you becuase you have horse glasses or you have an interest in this shit called BTC (maybe a HYIP, maybe an exchanger..) . I don't know.

You must be very stupid or very ignorant to call someone troll without arguments. You don't even know who these people are but you keep say a lot of  "bla bla bla"

Make your homework(search, make connections between these guys and you will see that I am right), dude Memo :)

For me....it's only fun. :)

Keep dreaming that Gaving & Co are volunteers and they want you rich :))

I second this.

It would be time to abandon bitcointalk.org.

I rarely check in, and this place became a shithole, even worse than it was.

With this bitcoin price crash we can see that this fork was not so innocent. Is clear now that someone want to destroy bitcoin and this BitcoinXT nonsense fork was the first step. The next days maybe weeks we will see more price crashes and the MTGox crisis we be like a heaven walk from what will happen to bitcoin from this BitcoinXT movement.
This persons Gavin and Hearn or is stupids or is something else. There is no other explanation.

No it doesn't but it's all stuff that comes from Gavins' mouth. We have no evidence for nothing of that, do we?

I fixed your post to reflect the fact XT nodes are indistinguishable from NotXT node decoys (until it's too late for the Gavinistas to avoid the deadly trap we have set for them).

Ever looked up where the term 'stool pigeon' came from?   ;)

wake up btcoinXT supporters. This is the first serious attack to bitocin ecosystem from financial system


http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010379.html

very true, dude ! :)

you can invent a similar story. you can even say " I am Satoshi", when we know that "Satoshi" is a fictive person which represent a group of "smart asses" derived from the e-currency biz.

XT must prevail or Bitcoin will die.  It is that simple.  

The Blockchain Technology Cat is out of the bag.  Blockchain technology is the financial industry darling.  Billions of Dollars are being invested.  They've seen the beauty of blockchain and it is here to stay.  They want the ledger control.  And they will get it.  It was written into the plan and the stars from the beginning and anyone who thinks differently is naive.  It was PLANNED all along.  "Satoshi" set it up.  Do you think it is an accident that the renegade badboy image of Bitcoin came about by accident?  No, it was introduced through the channels it was intentionally.  The techies ate it up, and the criminal element embraced it.  And through them the beauty of it found a showcase which others eventually noticed.   It was simply a way to get it accepted by the masses, and get the attention of the Fiat guys.

But these Fiat guys want the Ledger control, and they want to expand capabilities, and that will require bigger blocks.  They will NOT let go of what they have found.

NOW - the path of least resistance is to keep Bitcoin.  It already has acceptance.  It has a broad dispersion throughout the global public.   It has a decent infrastructure buildout.  The odds are that Bitcoin gets through the XT hurdle and becomes the standard - AND THE FIAT GOVERNORS WILL CONTROL THE LEDGERS.

OR.... XT will fail through bickering.  In which case the Fiat guys will pick a new "Fiat Bitcoin" to run their Blockhain Ledger, and bitcoin will slowly die as they use all their tools to force everyone into what they create and replace Bitcoin with - AND THE FIAT GOVERNORS WILL CONTROL THE LEDGERS.

Either way they will win.  One way they win bigger.  

Bitcoin will in the end prevail with an XT patch I believe.  And that will be in a way a win for the people.  But make no mistake - nothing will stop "THEM" from controlling the Ledger eventually.  And it was planned that way from the start.

Satoshi isn't who/what you think.

Peace, -d

There is nothing for him to hide, just that there is a need for the fork.

I think Satoshi is waht we think he is :). Gavin was not what we think he is.

Was the "let's put Gavin in charge" msg signed with Satoshi's key?  Or did Satoshi actually disappear get disappeared before it was written, so that msg could be plausibly confirmed by his subsequent absence?

If we're going to declare Satohi's latest post to the list as fake until proven otherwise, let's do the same for his "Gavin is in charge" decision.

If it's not signed, agnostic is the proper trust level.

Interesting point. It would be fitting to an old conspiracy theory of mine. At the time, when Gavin was invited to the CIA, they could have found Satoshi with the help of the NSA program and made him an offer about his "Bitcoins", which he rejected. They killed him and then comes the part with the "Gavin is in charge" message to put their future puppet in command. Later they found out, that Satoshi has a huge amount of Bitcoins and they didn't extract the private key out of SN. Thats why SN's Bitcoins has never moved.
Gavin was flipped to take control over the Bitcoin protocoll and now is the time for the final battle.

... but it was one hell of a ride.

doesn't matter at this point. once bitcoinxt goes south, Gavin won't have a place to come back to. he decided to go rogue, and I hope no one will welcome him back

the problem is that redditors are not seeing any of the negative XT shit. I've posted several things about XT and it was gone before i could even see it under NEW

Probably, and that's why the idea of a single central chain and currency like bitcoin is so unhealthy. It is far too easy to take over. People would have a better position if crypto had like 5 or 10 big coins instead only one. Let the bankers have all their ledgers, no problem. We have enough blockchains for everyone.

He probably can't even look his own image in the mirror straight in the eyes...

All this would not have been possible if he would have had to defend his proposal in front of community in direct conversation.

Honestly, I've had a mild feeling for some time that Gavin just wants out, and even has perhaps tried to subtly warn people about this stuff.  I don't get the sense that he is anywhere near the driver's seat.  I'm inclined to wonder if he is more like a guy bound up and stuffed into the trunk.

Only time will tell whether Gavin's right or not but one thing's for sure, the vast majority of Bitcoiners do not possess the necessary technical expertise to be able to properly evaluate his proposition. People need to realize that being opinionated about something they only vaguely understand does not help Bitcoin in any way. It only serves to fuel disharmony.

Dividing Bitcoin experts from the users serves harmony then?

Thank you for seeing something and saying something.

Looks like Heam is still working for sigint.google.mil.

 very good point but I am sure many people from this forum will ignore it. :)

they ignore many things regarding to BTC.... like who owns Bitcoin. Who is behind the scene, who are the shareholders for the main exchangers , merchants and miners.

The same shareholders are the sponsors for many news media websites which promote Bitcoins.

Take the ones from the so called "Foundation"(Bitcoin developers) and you will find that they are connected with the exchanges and their shareholders as well. Not that they know each other but the are interconnected by running the same businesses.

Just make a simple search regarding to the main exchangers like CoinBase, Bitstamp, BTC China, Ripple.
 SatoshiDICE (owns more than 60% from the existing BTC )   and many others. You will find the SAME people as shareholders.

true!

Interesting take on it. Maybe lobbing that code into Hearn's repo was like Gavin's warrant canary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrant_canary) ?

I mean who could possibly think he would do such a thing without being compromised? Ergo he's compromised and it is his way of telling us without breaking the law.

Quote to add to my data of XTbashers. Love this

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hfgpo/an_initiative_to_bring_advanced_privacy_features/cu7mhw8?contex=2

Nick Szabo is asking the same:


http://wallstreettechnologist.com/2015/08/19/bitcoin-xt-vs-core-blocksize-limit-the-schism-that-divides-us-all/

The rush is that there is something that Gavin and Mike are hiding. They are trying to get this fork pushed through under the guise of bigger blocks, but what's the real update they are hiding? Is it a blacklist?

Perhaps a government entity approached the "chief scientist" of bitcoin with an offer he could not refuse. Something along the lines of "get us in and we'll make sure you or your children will never have to work again". Sounds like a spy movie? Truth is stranger than fiction, and certain folks have A LOT to lose if bitcoin succeeds.

What about this:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2014/02/04/challenge-vulnerable-code.aspx
http://www.underhanded-c.org/_p_26.html

Or my idea before I read about this contest:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=638297.0

true.

Bitcoin can never succeed as its not fair enough. However some form of fair block chain tech will wipe out the banking system as soon as the dumb couch potatoe bank loving brainwashed losers try and think for themselves.
Ah thats my rant over for the day.

To fork or not to fork: that is the question

Who he thinks he are Gavin and act like this? I think bitcoin no need him anymore and i think he has a big idea for himself. Bitcoin can survive without him and can continue to act with his stupid decisions.

I've never watched 'game of thrones' or whatever, but I understand that the basic idea is the plebs compete for a slot in the more limited upper class.  It struck me when Gavin came back from his meetings with the CFR and got extra chummy with Hearn that he could have been offered a winning hand in such a game.

I've always felt since 2011 since I got involved that at best Gavin was a very mainstream kind of guy who would be most comfortable if 'the authorities' exercised control over aspects of Bitcoin so that the 'bad guys' couldn't use it to 'do evil.'  He has always given me the impression of being rather naive.  I have never agreed with almost any of his priorities when he was still influencing the direction of Bitcoin but I leaned toward writing it off to his native disposition as a rube than to anything more nefarious.

This is true, I'm not sure we would be able to know if something like this was happening except by observing his actions.

Not to mention that there are a multitude of other possibilities, based on the limited facts.

+1
Reddit is an echo chamber.
There actual dissent is taboo.

Look at the cryptocurrency list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cryptocurrencies. Most of these if not all have their own blockchain. Let XT have its own blockchain, even if it uses the same one as regular Bitcoin for its beginning. Keep Bitcoin pure. Make XT a new currency.

:)

exactly. it's an altcoin like any other fork of bitcoin and that's how it should be in my opinion. let them do whatever, but don't touch bitcoin with this proposal.

thats right let them atleast dream even everybody know that it will not succeed.. ;D

great point. Xt is an ALTcoin

Why not 8 MB? It's not that the blocks somehow magically will be filled up up to 8 Megabytes over night after the fork happened. I mean there would be a lot of transactions needed to do that.

Why artificially constrain bitcoin adoption i ask you? If amazon, for some reason, would allow bitcoin transactions now then bitcoin would be dead instantly. Because the user experience with bitcoin would be that terrible that all these users never would touch bitcoin again.

Bitcoin needs to be open for adoption. And there is no risk in having bigger blocks. Not even spammers will fill them since the costs will be way too high. They weren't full before too so i wonder why so many believe that the 8MB blocks will be full when forked.

I have answered this question today already, and many times in the past.

Basically, presuming that blocks won't be nearly full is fallacious. We must be sure that the system works well with even full blocks in order to ensure its long-term viability.

I think he has a big ego. And i don't like the way he did this. But i think the other side of the bitcoin devs are even more dangerous. Wanting to make transactions not confirm in order to create higher fees. Which would mean hindering adoption and a bad user experience. And unfortunately many of these developers would like that because when bitcoin gets more unuseable than their own altcoin, the lightning network will take these transactions over.

It is really a pity how the developers make politics.

Today i have read that one single bitcoin transaction costs so much electricy like 1.75 average us household uses in one day. That is a lot. And we have so many hashpower that we could still secure a hundred time more transactions.

The result for me is that we simply have too many miners. Mining is too rewarding. Which means too many miners want to play in it. And since they want profits they now claim we need to leave the blocksize at 1 Megabyte in order to artificially raise fees. That is stupid. On top it would mean they would have a short term gain but would kill bitcoin in the long run.

There is nothing wrong with the 8MB blocksize. Or even dropping this artificial limit totally. Spamming would be too expensive anyway.

Well we will nevertheless lose some if these miners at next halving. For some people, mining will just become unprofitable.

Yes about hashpower. There is so much of it that Bitcoin can even scale 100 times and the network will be well secured. So we can say that Bitcoin is operating with certain loses at the moment, but it won't be "losing" anything when adoption and number of transactions picks up.

This is essentially how every new start-up business operates in the beginning, with loses, counting that will grow in the future.

We will have to find a way to scale Bitcoin in this way or another in order to increase adoption.

It's hard to follow this thread. ::) One side accuses the other side to want to destroy bitcoin. One side with an alternative client and the other with their sidechain.

It simply is not easy. Hearn has dangerous ideas. Gavin in his ways of extortion is no fun too. And many core developers have their own little side project, the lightning network, blockstream. This network will succeed the more transactions will move away from bitcoin to that network. And how can you achieve that more easy than keeping 1MB blocks, making bitcoin expensive, slow and not trustworthy because you don't know if your transaction actually will go through?

This is all a pity.

I'm for a blocksize raise because there is no logical way around it to get a higher bitcoin adoption. I don't like bitcoin-xt but i think it is valid as a form of voting. Though miners would not care about that vote anyway.

I would never want to use bitcoin-xt after bigger blocks are implemented. I would switch back to core. Because hearn is way too dangerous.

And as far as i read practically everyone supporting XT is seeing it the same way.

not true.

one side is an altcoin the other is bitcoin.

period.

Because bitcoin needs to prepare and anticipate for the future. There's really nothing to hide at all. If we are just complacent and decides to accept way things are, imagine what would happen when it comes to real situation. People are still with the mentality if it ain't broken don't fix it but the fact it's clear whether we want to aceept it or not.

Always a secret plan.  ::)
How many of you actually know Gavin?

I think you misunderstood what he wrote. The other admins have their own sidechant, the lightning network. And that network would have an advantage when bitcoin would turn out to be expensive and slow or not unreliable. Because transactions would swith there. Which, by the way, is their argument. We need to take out transactions from bitcoin and leave bitcoin as a high value transaction system.

Surely not what most bitcoiners would want. Or the vision satoshi had with bitcoins.

So yes, both sides have their own altcoin in mind.

Meh, as long as bitcoin does not get highjacked. They can build whatever they want on top of it.

But high value transaction system? Sign me up already. ::)

what is the possbile agenda?

Though the problem starts when they promote 1 MB blocks which will effectively make bitcoin worse for users. Higher fees, unreliability about transactions going through and so on.

You should not create a sidechain, claim that transactions should move from bitcoin to sidechains and to make that possible make bitcoins less useful.

That simply is not ok.

And what about hijacked? Practically no one using xt is a fan of hearn. It is only a vote for bigger blocks. No one wants the other stupid things he wants.

Bigger blocks shall arrive in due time, if/when we have properly assessed all the little details that make this whole system hold together, taking into account real data and undertake proper tests to be sure not to break the fragile equilibrium that Bitcoin's unique consensus implies.

This is why status quo prevailed until gavin and heanr spread monsterfud amongst the noobs over at reddit.

This is why it shall prevail until a consensus is reached by all parties (not only the big miners, payment or wallets big corps).

This is why this process will take time, because blocks are not even half full on average, fees are laughable, mass adoption is still just some egocentric speculation, and socio-economics incentives are more investment driven (bitcoin's main sales pitch until now) than some cheesy visa/paypal competition (which is, btw, technically impossible on a single POW layer - ~26 GB/blocks to compete - because obviously decentralization hence, security of the network comes first).


edit: and to answer the OP, gavin was so urgent because his USG puppetmasters wanted to implement some "governance" on top of bitcoin (besides rushing a fork that could have literally killed bitcoin and its fragile equilibrium).
and he even admitted it somehow that he and heanr would be the "benevolent dictator".. not gonna happen tho.

Yes. I agree what could he be hiding?
There are rumors saying that the changes he wants to introduce are meant to turn bitcoin into an easily trackable crypto...

how is he desperate, i saw some interviews on youtube and he actually looks and sounds like a genuine guy who really cares about bitcoin.

How does Hilary/Obama/any other creepy "benevolant dictators" looks like when on Tv? Do you also get the sense that they "genuinly" care about the people?

ya, but all Gavin is trying to do is fix the limit and not let the concept of bitcoin be destroyed. It's not like hes doing it for power, every future decision made for bitcoin doesn't need his approval.
Gavin or not, all i want is >1mb limits.

why? where does this urge comes from? how is bitcoin "broken"?
how do you qualify to express your opinion regarding something that is economically complex and crucially technical?

plz dont tell me the first time you ever heard of this ting is from gavin last year... because its been investigated and monitored since at least 3 years.

ill admit im pretty new to this debate, but doesnt the 7 transactions limit per second worry you?

No it doesn't.

A change to the protocol which reduces the security of the network by killing the fee market does. A change in the protocol that centralizes the mining business because only big players can have low enough latency does. A change in the protocol which kills decentralization of full clients does.

Remember decentralized security of the network and decentralization of transaction verification are the two factors which make the Blockchain (our blockchain) more than just a random *.txt file of transactions some nerds are sending around.

Also remember, we don't need to pay for a coffee with Bitcoin on the Blockchain. The Blockchain is an expensive resource and should be treated as such. It should be dedicated for transactions that need a very high amount of security, otherwise Bitcoin will simply die after the subsidy stops as usage is uneconomical. If Bitcoin could become the global method of choice for preserving and transferring larger block of wealth around the world with a extremely high amount of security and autonomy I will be delighted (not to mention rich as hell).

last time i've checked gavin hold a good stash too, everyone is doing everything for himself here, there is no genuine guy

there are only some, not-bad guys and bad guys, and btw why he is not posting here anymore?

This is a very correct answer and I agree with you 100%. At the same time I think that leaving the cap at 1MB is a bit too paranoid. Even if we raise it to let's say 8MB, we can't make Bitcoin so much more insecure, can't we? But this is still 8x more transactions per second than with 1MB and this would mean a lot for these huge, expensive transfers around the world.

Of course, raising cap illimitlesly and in this way making Bitcoin insecure is out of question.

bitcoin is about trust, hence being paranoid.

block size does not matter that much in regard to effectively scaling anyway, now doesn't it?

and it is not 1MB forever, let's not deviate in some manichean dystopia, although it was rightfully implemented to prevent *spam* remember?

Remember that upping the blocksize is not the only way to increase the transaction rate, the best approach for solutions to the problem is making better use of the blockchain resource we've already got. Plans for that are more advanced than I hoped, someone (probably Eligius) is already creating version 4 blocks, which means that type of solution is all one step closer to being technically possible.

I think gavin feels he did not take advantage of bitcoin enough being an early adopter so he wants to recreate the thunder by re-releasing bitcoin under his own terms. That's how I feel about it.

you will never know the agenda of a sociopath and thank thuck that these sociopaths will no longer be in control of our new money supply

this is history in the making we most defond bitcoin to the death

This is the way I see it:  Technology is advancing, interest is growing, and somebody somewhere (J.P.Morgan perhaps) is working on implementing a blockchain technology that is backed by the resources of the big banking industries and the US dollar.  In order to be competitive, Bitcoin needs to set the pace and be poised to be the technology that is adopted when (not if) the transition becomes viable.  I believe Gavin is speculating on this event (might even have inside knowledge) and is doing his best to make the Bitcoin blockchain as healthy as it can be in the event of mass adoption.  Mass adoption.....what would happen to the Bitcoin blockchain, in its current state, if it suddenly became available and adopted by a first world banking infrastructure?  It needs to be poised and in a position to handle the weight if it wants to be considered for this task seriously.

As far as I see it Gavin is desperatly trying to save Bitcoin.

You mean Gavin "The Economic Crisis is Over; Prepare For Fiber to Every NFLX terminal" Andresen?

 ::)  http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-08/ceo-worlds-largest-shipping-company-global-growth-worse-official-reports

Let's not take Gavin's advice on anything, as he was clearly promoted beyond his level of competence back when Satoshi left.

Bitcoin is antifragile, and thus does not need saving.  The feigned desperation is an emotionally manipulative marketing technique being used to sell XT via FUD and FOMO.

This ignores the fact that during a economic crisis a USB flash drive is a way more cost effective way to store 4 GB of data than a warehouse full of punched cards.

Edit: It is still possibe to send a telegram; however this costs a lot more than sending an email.

whats with this talking about 4GB flash drives and credit cards everywhere??

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1240437.msg12924791#msg12924791

but there is no need to save anything at the moment. so far, bitcoin dealt with problems in a good manner.

Right? Its like these "big blockers nao" are under some Reddit spell, talking about problems that are not problems and promoting some solution that is not a solution anyway.. ???

Why do you think the security of the network will be killed when there is no fee market? You realize that the network is 100 times more secure than needed? And that means that the reward for mining is way too high at the moment.

Besides that... it doesn't really matter if the reward is as high as now or only 10% of that. It ALWAYS would mean centralization since corporate organisations will scale up their operations. And small miners are not lucrative anymore since ages. It doesn't matter how high the reward is, the centralization will go on regardless. I'm wondering why satoshi foresaw this and did not think it is a bad thing.

Regarding Nodes... who says that nodes have to work in millisecond areas? Why should bigger blocks mean centralization at all? Harddiscspace? It's dirt cheap. Internet bandwith? Is growing nearly exponentially in most countries. So as long as you don't live in developing countries or in the landside of the US ( ::) ) then you should be fine. In no way it could mean centralization like you seem to vision it.

And only because you think Bitcoin is a currency that should not be used to pay for a coffee doesn't mean that is the vision normal bitcoiners has. In fact you should look around you, microtransactions are one big hit of bitcoin. You surely won't find many fans with the idea of waiving that.

And why should it? Bitcoin should replace bank money. If you can't use bitcoin for the everyday life then it's usefullness is so very much limited that it would turn out to be some black money coin only at the end. The use cases for legit transactions would simply very limited.

Satoshi never mentioned a vision of bitcoin being a currency for the rich. ::) If bitcoin really would turn out to be a high amount transfer system then this would mean only some people can use it. And because of the nature of bitcoin those people would be not seldom those who want to do bad things with money. Bitcoins fame would turn way more negative. Simply because the normal use cases of money does not really exist anymore. The couple of people that would use it for legit things could be counted on one hand. And the rest? Would use an altcoin. And surely not the controversy lightning network. Way too many "great" altcoins tried that.

Exactly. I'm so very disappointed in our developers, it's really hefty. They act like politicians that work hiddenly for some bank or insurance company because they know their job later is secured. Like corrupt politicians. Really a pain to see such unworthy behaviour in a community that started with such high ideals. But i guess money really corrupts. ::)

Then when will it be changed? Most developers act like never. They speak of a needed fee market, as if we need to safe the poor hungry miners who don't earn enough.

And if i'm not wrongly remember, at the last price rush of bitcoin we could see full blocks for some time. Legit transactions did not confirm. Surely not the best experience for new users.

Sounds interesting and i hear the first time of that. But i did not find any info about. Do you have a link about it?

If the space could be used better then we could safe bandwith and discspace, only the cpu would be used more then.

Oh noes!

The block size has to be increased to accommodate more transactions. It is getting urgent now.

I'm always impressed how non big blockers can say with a straight face that there is no problem leaving everything at 1 Megabyt blocks.

Let's say blocks are half full now. What happens when legit transactions are constantly, on average, 150% of 1MB? It would mean that 33% of all valid transactions will never confirm. Can you imagine a currency where 33% of all transactions never confirm and that currency had somehow a chance to survive?

And fee market... you realize that if constantly many legit transactions are waived, then the fees will rise constantly too. There would simply be no end because even if everyone raises their fee, still 33% can't get confirmed. What would happen? 33% of all users who use bitcoin would drop bitcoin. Surely that would be a great day for adoption. ::)

Except Bitcoin is not contained in a bubble and there are other alternatives by which one can hold & secure their wealth in Bitcoin yet use these superficial open source payment layers to transact with.

Kinda like you don't use your savings account to buy nuggets at McDonald, ya know?

People will learn to pay a fee for a quick Bitcoin transaction.

I don't see a real big deal in a transaction not confirming in my normal use-case over the last 4 years.  On-chain transactions for me are nearly always about risk management.  My risk management strategies are years-long and course operations.  Even in my to-date use of Bitcoin, I've not expected a transaction to occur with high reliability because it remains in an experimental state.  What I do expect, however, is that my transaction would time-out eventually rather than be lost which is a vastly different thing.  So far I have been pleasantly surprised that my native Bitcoin transactions have gone through within a few block cycles.  That is perfectly adequate for me.

My expectations for a sidecoin will be entirely different.  There I would expect reliable and fast transactions (if that were the design goal of a particular sidechain.)  I would also expect that in an unusual system failure or successful attack, my value would not be lost.  I am willing to take a hit on convenience (say, to have my value tied up for a few weeks) in this case because I expect such events to be rare.

This is just basic economics. The fees will first rise sharply, then 33% of users will drop Bitcoin, some will move to (an)other crypto-currency(ies) with adaptive blocksize limits, some will move to the legacy banking system etc. Yes this could very well be the end of Bitcoin but not for distributed blockchain based crypto-currencies. Now we see why Gavin is so desperate about his fork. He cares about Bitcoin.

Let the freeloaders drop Bitcoin.

If Bitcoin manages to attract the wealthiest of pockets and those that care about true censorship resistance & decentralization then we can consider it a success and a foundation on top of which the next financial system can be built.

Pretty suspicious hey?! There are many people accusing him of going rogue. There are gossips running around saying he wants to bug Bitcoin with this new fork...
Is he working with the CIA or not?

So we keep Bitcoin just for the 0.001% just like credit cards in the 1950s, since we must not upgrade our technology from punched cards and telegraph lines.

brg444 has probably his pockets full of alt-coins  ;)

Given the engineering decisions behind Bitcoin you really have but two choices: accept that some transactions & use cases will be discriminated against or join the gang of XT shills and attempt to turn Bitcoin into VISA.

That's not even possible at 8 gigabyte blocks, some off-chain solution is needed no matter what. So it's the best place to start. Blocksize is basically the last scaling factor that needs adjusting, not the first.

non big blockers? im just a regular bitcoiner man ;)

anyway, to answer you, imho i'd tend to say lets revisit blocksize once block reward < fees.

i do want to see a fee market emerge before cutting into it.

its been fun until now, low cost transactions and all, but seriously im in bitcoin for a bit more than a visa competitor.

monetary sovereignty, censorship resitant and truslessness y know...

Are you going to unleash in your typical mature and reasoned protesting when the 1MB limit is lifted before block reward < fees? Or... is your impotent rage only for Gavin?

https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/641707352123645956

It's a question of trajectory and method now. Thankfully, the idea of "1MB forever" popescu pogs is doomed.

again, im not advocating 1MB foreva.

nor am i buying any time, for there is non to be bought in the first place.

i am all up for reassessing the blocksize once block reward < fees

because i do know now is certainly not the time, nor the proper solution to scaling bitcoin far beyond visa paypal et al.

True moving from 1 MB (the present situation) to 8 GB (Bitcoin XT / BIP 101) is like moving from punched cards 80 bytes each to computers with 640 KB of RAM and two floppy drives. (The infamous Bill Gates limit).  Now who says we have to stay at 640 KB of RAM for ever. Baking these kinds of limits into the Bitcoin protocol is fundamentally wrong. The proper solution here is to have market driven adaptive blocksize limits.  

Edit: Now that we have moved from the 1950s to the 1980s we still have a way to go.

Market incentives are not aligned for every participants in the context of an unbounded limit.

To follow your analogy consider that miners are dealing with 640KB RAM boxes while typical nodes still uses 80 bytes punched cards.

That was the situation in 1950 when the Diner's Club Credit card first came out. For that reason it could only be used a very small very wealthy portion of the population. The critical mistake that Diner's club made is that for the most part they stayed with their 1950s business model so by 2013 they accounted for a mere 0.2% of the credit card market share. http://www.nilsonreport.com/publication_special_feature_article.php (http://www.nilsonreport.com/publication_special_feature_article.php). The bank networks VISA and Mastercard started in the late 1960s and early 1970s and saw the mass market potential of credit cards with the advent of the mainframe computer. In the 1990s we saw even wider use of digital payments with debit cards then networks such as PayPal etc. These were each only made possible by further advances in technology. Yet is all of these cases the concept comes back to the original Diner's Club credit card of 1950.

The problem with the small block fans is that they want to bake 5 year old technology into the Bitcoin protocol forever effectively turning Bitcoin into the Diner's Club of crypto-currency. There are alt-coins already that have adaptive blocksize limits for those that care to look in the alt-coin section. These coins have this problem solved. The issue in my mind is not whether individuals will be using crypto currency to pay for coffee and store the corresponding blockchain in its entirety on their devices or computers. They will. Technology will see to that. The real issue here is will be they use Bitcoin or some other crypto currency to do so.

In short who will be the Diner's Club of crypto-currency and who will be the VISA of crypto-currency.

Edit: When one is old enough to have transferred data from punched cards to 5.25 in floppies, I have. One understands that technology simply does not stand still.

we also know moore's law is decelerating.

but for the sake of a sound argument lets cut the crap with the analogies already please.

“Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.”
― Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)

Here are some more quotes. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/doomed-to-repeat-it (https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/doomed-to-repeat-it)

Diner's Club was/is a PRIVATE company. Is Bitcoin a private company? Well, it will be if it will fork to XT.
Then, the shareholders who backup the big exchangers will own the entire Bitcoin XT system.

Blockstream is a private company lol (and Bitcoin Core is now their project), BIP101 isn't (and XT is just an implementation, you can even use Bitcoin Core + BIP101 if you prefer)

A fork to XT? The chain wont fork because of XT, the chain will have to fork for a change in block size limit.

Any effort which includes Maxwell, sipa, and Back working together is totally cool with me.  I don't care if it is a private company, corporation, NGO, politburo. or garage workshop rap session.  These people have proven themselves (to me) over the last number of years that I've been paying attention.

Hearn, and to a lesser degree, Andresen and their shitty Bitcoin Foundation have also proven themselves (to me) over this time period.  In that case they have proven themselves to be completely untrustworthy and antithetic to everything I hope for in distributed crypto-currencies.

A few wild-cards have proven themselves to be a surprise.  On the negative side, Ver, and on the positive side (given his involvement with TBF), Matonis.

so you are basically arguing about bitcoin's development with false analogies and google quotes.. nnniiiiiice. :)

edit: oh and 4G USB flashdrives and credit cards from the 50s or something, which is wayy i mean way too technical for me. ^^

Not for me. They don't fight against censorship but against downvoting of their posts. Very bad.

Yes there are other altcoins. But should it really be the plan to practically give up on bitcoin and tell interested users to use an altcoin? That is so very much against the vision every early adopter had of bitcoin. If we give up here then it is claiming being defeated. It says we were wrong, bitcoin can not compete with fiat money. It's use is limited.

Besides, using altcoins surely is no solution to the bandwith problem and all. It would mean you would have to run another node that downloads blocks and so on. It would be pushed from one blockchain to another if the tech is similar.

No, you don't use your savings account for buy nuggets, you would withdraw a little bit from your savings account and go shopping with that. The same with bitcoin. You take some coins out of cold storage and put it in your smartphone wallet. Then shopping. It is still the same currency.

It would be a clusterfuck if we would have to tell interested users that they need different altcoins now because we built bitcoin into a artificial cage. Out of fear. I mean i can understand why fear is spreading in the community. It is, unfortunately, a hunting place for scammers, inept businessmans and whatsoever. Everyone lost huge piles of cash, probably many lost all and becoming cautious is natural. But being fearful and being too restrictive and conservative was never a good receipt for growth.

Yes, but for one we should not enforce high fees. Why do we need to have a network that is 100 times safer than needed? Leading to one standard bitcoin transaction using the electricity of 1.57 average us households per day? One transaction! Bigger ones use even more.

That simply means we have too many miners and that means the reward is too high. Speaking about a needed fee market because we will lose miners is really not the problem at hand. Miners had to switch off unprofitable mining hardware all the time, there is no sense to try to compensate block halving with higher fees. That is impossible and if really done would be deadly to bitcoin.

Second thing is, yes, with 1MB blocks people would learn to pay higher fees. But it would be useless! You can't win that game. I mean imagine constantly 300% legit transactions than we have now. It would mean constantly 33% of all legit transactions could not get confirmed. Which means bitcoin would be HIGHLY unreliable. And even if you want to beat the system with higher fees... you can assume that all other users will try the same. The fees used might rise exponentially, leading to a very expensive currency. No jokes anymore about the paypal fees, they would be heaven then. No jokes about transaction time, your transaction time would be higher pretty sure. Since even when you think you paid more than enough, others had the same thought and raised their fees. So you have a good chance to have your coins caught in limbo, not confirming.

No, the bitcoin we would have then would be a nightmare.

Then this sounds like you have a very different use pattern for bitcoin than most. Practically every transaction is time sensitive. Be it that the bitcoin price stopped rising and you want to sell it fast to not lose value, be it that you need to pay a product before the price drops and you need to send more coins. Most people don't want to wait. And why should they? One of bitcoins rare plus points that is used for advertising the use of bitcoin is it's fast transaction. I mean bitcoin surely has not so many good points that would be enough to make users switch to using it. Taking one point away can make bitcoin already way less attractive.

1/ there is never enough safety, lets be serious.
2/ we are not enforcing anything but the protocol (read rules) we all signed up for, inculding tx/s, 21M cap, POWalgo etc...
3/ people are not forced to use bitcoin.

If this really would be the optimal vision for the developers then this would be not my community or bitcoin anymore. I would gladly use an alternate bitcoin fork where hearn is not taking part or has a big saying then. I'm VERY sure that many many bitcoiners would chose the same since nobody would watch how bitcoin goes down that way.

Yes, i think Gavin cares about bitcoin but merging with hearn was so incredibly stupid that i wonder if i would trust him again. In fact i'm really wondering why there is not a single independent developer who already released a bitcoin version with 8 mb blocks and who is independent. A pure bitcoin fan, nothing more, no sh... politician.

Wow, what a mindset. Who wants to use bitcoin and has not much money is a freeloader. ::) Elitist view on things. And the complete opposite of the initial vision of bitcoin. It sounds a bit like bitcoin attracted another kind of users who try to claim it for themselfes only. Enemy takeover? Reminds me on the german pirate party. They were undermined at one point in time by a group called antigermans. They have their own agenda and wanted to misuse the party for their targets. We consequently pushed them out when we became aware of the problem and learned to draw the line clearly.

And you vision of the wealthiest... i think you don't realize which persons you really want to attract. Those that don't like censorship? You would drop most legit users and attract users that use bitcoin for illegal uses. Then you don't need to wait very long until critics get very loud and bitcoin will get in real trouble. And it wouldn't help then that bitcoin can't be stopped. Governments can hurt bitcoin a lot if they want. Attacking nodes, forbidding acceptance and so on. It would be a crimecoin only anymore since the biggest part of legit users was pushed out. And if governments act then the price would not hold. All the wealthy bitcoiners would be done. And to be honest, if i would be such a wealthy bitcoiner then i would not use this fork. Or maybe i would, but only for speculation and trading. I would surely not consider it a safe haven since price stability would be even worse with only high amount users. And the risk of attracting more and more criminal users.

That new financial system would be a little system, not really usefull and surely not surviveable.

I doubt it. Gossip is gossip. But the actions and ideas hearn bring to light are very suspicious to me. I think it is thinkable that he was an agent of some kind when he worked at google already. I mean why the heck should he try to implement all this restrictive and controlling sh... into bitcoin? That makes not much sense. Either he is stupid and really don't know what will follow by his actions or... i don't know.

I think gavin is simply stupid to merge with hearn. But we will never know the truth most probably.

What? XT is dead. And that is a good thing. But there is a third way... a developer with visions creating a fork. If he is not a problem person then i would support him.

And bitcoin into visa only because we want that bitcoin is for everyone? ::) I would prefer the factual level of discussion instead such ungainly claims.

Yeah, no offense. :P I only wanted to group the ones that don't want big blocks.

> i'd tend to say lets revisit blocksize once block reward < fees.

This sentence sounds VERY dangerous. Do you honestly believe that it is possible to make up for block halving by fees? Then you should calculate it through. The fees would be so high that i would make one last bitcoin transaction. Selling them on an exchange and that was it.

And for what would we need such high fees at all? See what i wrote about that we have way way too many miners because mining is way too profitable at the moment.

I see what you write about your vision but i honestly can't understand how you think this will be received with a fee market. A fee market would mean bitcoin is expensive and unreliable. Since you can never know if your fee is too low at the end.

Besides... why do you think your vision can not be done with 8 mb blocks? In fact i think we would come way more near your vision with bigger blocks.

Yeah, that was an infamous, troublemaking limit. :D And nobody could understand why the heck he implemented it. There was no real need for it. I hoped bitcoiners would be better. But it looks like putting bitcoin in a cage seems the plan for many.

If you do this with a woman then you will lose her. Give her her freedom and see how things develop. Everone i learned to know who tried to hold his wife away from other mans or tried to take their freedom away did this out of fear and insecurity in himself. If the wife is cheating you then she did not love you and she was not worth your love. End of story. But having a wife you put in a cage is of no real value.

Hopefully the fear doesn't win in the community. :D

I agree to some extend since when hearn is the developer who decides, then the community would surely eat some frogs with new releases. But if that is your analogy then what about the lightning network invested core developers? How do you see them? An independent organization? I can't see that. They invested a lot into lightning network, as far as i read, and if you invest you want your investment back and possibly make more out of it. Then how would you see these devs then? Would it not look like they work for the company blockstream (lightning network) and since the lightning network would be used more when bitcoin is not working perfectly, they use their position as developers to make sure that bitcoin will not work perfectly in the near future. That surely looks like politicians that work in fact for a private company and misuse their position as politician to rule things in their companies favor.

Be honest, if you want to accuse that way then admit that both sides are highly questionable.

The whole thing should be over-secured. That is the unique selling point.


There is still decentralization. Changing the block size will kill that.


Hard drive space anyone? The blockchain is taking up a huge amount of space on my HD.


No it should not. The current system (yes with cash and even credit cards if you wish to give up your privacy so much) is working perfectly well for small transactions, we must stop the government from stealing from us. The mere fact that a huge amount of socialists have joined the Bitcoin forums and communication doesn't mean they should have a say (this is not a democracy for fuck's sake). This is the domain of Libertarians (as is Satoshi! He would hate your arguments and attitude!) and socialists used to make fun of it. Now they want to join! Fuck that. They should just fuck of and DIAF (and they will have no big influence in the end anyway, they are utterly unimportant and non-influential)

Bitcoin is to challenge their dominance of the world and change it for the better, not to let them infiltrate and corrupt the very concept. Just fork Bitcoin and make your socialist coin or whatever, it will die anyway because your economic concepts don't work (Keynesians anyone?  :D). Don't try to drag Bitcoin down with your retarded ideas of how the world should work.

I think even when they now do what you would like to see done, it is never a good idea to trust persons with conflict of interests. Especially when a lot of money is involved. You might be happy now with their deeds but what if they do something you don't want anymore? Then you let it happen that structures be built that prevents you from preventing these new changes. No, conflict of interests should always be watched very cautious. Because they often enough don't act for the general good but for their own good. Matching that with your own good at one time does surely not mean that will be always the case. It is risky to support such actions.

1. Yes, you are right. But it means that bitcoin can be attacked as a not green tech. And it's done, you know that. Besides, it is a statement that bitcoin mining is VERY rewarding. Which means we don't need a fee market because the miners earn not enough.

2. Yes, you  might enforce these things too, that is fine. But the blocksize limit is artificial and was a temporary measure. Acting like it is an important part of the protocol like 21M cap simply is not correct.

3. Oh well, that is a sad argument. You say if you don't like what we do then leave. Well, you are only one side of the bitcoiners. The question is what will the majority want. I mean who has the power in bitcoin? It might be the miners, yes, they vote with their hashing power about which fork wins. And as far as i read the majority of miners already spoke out for 8 MB blocks. But even if they would want 1MB blocks because they are greedy and shortsighted, the real power behind have the users. All bitcoiners. If bitcoiners majority would decide to use a fork that uses 8MB blocks then this will become the new bitcoin. The value is established by trust in the value. And if majority thinks that is the real bitcoin then it would be the case.
So no, it is no question of "I do what i want and if you don't like it then don't use bitcoin."

I agree. Better oversecured than the opposite. But it shows that mining is way more rewarding than needed. Which means we don't need a fee market to support the miners now. And that is the main point i see in that.


Why? Only because in 2 years we might have to constantly download 2 MB blocks since 8 MB surely won't be filled completely then? That argument sounds way far fetched.


How much? Did you check prices for harddiscs? Dirt cheap. And really no argument anymore. Besides that, we have already a solution where not the full blockchain has to be stored on the harddisc. Besides that, the blocksizes will only slowly rise. Probably slower than the harddisc space costs for the same price.


Socialist is who wants that everyone can use bitcoin? Elitist view. And surely no good view since when history has shown one thing then that the people have the power and not some elitists that try to rule.

Bitcoin is not a democracy? And who the fuck told you that you have the saying in the game? This sounds ridiculous. As if you feel some right to make the rules. Well, i tell you what. This is a democracy. And users vote by using the fork they want. You might use your old bitcoin then but you can be sure that the real bitcoin will be the bitcoin who most believe is the real bitcoin at the end.

Corrupt the concept? The concept was how bitcoin worked until now. YOU want to change how bitcoin works. With high fees and unconfirming legit transactions.

Yeah, bitcoin is for libertarians. Though only because you have an elitist world view and thinks you can decide who has the right to take part doesn't mean that you can decide on that. It would only be your opinion.

And no, they don't want to join, the normal users were there practically from the start. Your definition of what happened doesn't change history.

I think this has been discussed to death? It's latency, big miners can push out small ones very easily.


You truly think the common people have the power? That's hilarious  :D (and cute)

I don't have the saying either. Big money does. Everyone will make choices in their own best interest so it's likely to get there anyway (but if it doesn't it will die and be overtaken by a clone which does things right). Majority rules won't be the deciding factor here. Thank fuck for that.

very dangerous? imo its the change of the protocol to please some social media shitstorm that is very dangerous.

and please do provide the data and actual calculation for this last argument: "The fees would be so high that i would make one last bitcoin transaction."

else its just fud and lame noobish projections that i would not give a heck about, for i do not have such certitudes but am simply curious as to how the fee market will develop once the block will be full.





the vision of a decentralized, trustless and censorship resistant netowrk (which i'd happily pay an extra for) which would only be empowered whilst preserving the possibility of running a home node, for normal people to access the blockchain (ergo run a bitcoin client) without TRUSTING and giving it all to AWS and other big centralized data mining corporations.


@wachtwoord very fine and serious points

Anyone who does is immediately branded as non-reputable by those that disagree.

mhhyea, seems there is a wide consensus after all. ::)

Such testing should be done with altcoins. Actually, you dont need much imagination what will happen, SebastianJu summed it up nicely




Pretty sad Satoshi agreed to change his 32MB max blocksize limit (application limit) to the 1MB "security" max blocksize limit. It was no big deal back when Bitcoin was not used much, but now it limits further Bitcoin adoption. The adoption Satoshi and many current Bitcoin users want - one popular and widely used coin, aka Bitcoin.

I'm not sure that there is anyone doing anything which is NOT a 'conflict of interest' in some way.  I, for one, tend to get a little bit suspicious when someone is doing something out of the pure goodness of their hearts, or wants to give me free shit.  Also, it is impractical for most people to spend all of their days doing high quality work with no means of support or hope of a reward so when that it happening it itself can be a warning flag.

Some people have an earnest interest in doing things because they feel that doing certain things is interesting and cool.  The best way to gauge that is to pay some attention to their work over a long-ish period of time.  The level of transparency that people are willing to provide is also a meaningful factor to me in trying to make good choices here because, as you say, it is appropriate to 'watch very cautiously' for certain things.

From my perspective, Blockstream is undertaking a track of what I used to call 'subordinate chains' to make Bitcoin scale, and I've been of the opinion that this has the best combination of practicability, safety, and auxiliary advantages for about 4 years now.  This makes me naturally positive to their undertaking of course, and as I've said before, I am delighted to see this particular group of people engaged in this undertaking.  Dr. Back has a very long history in working on empowering technology from back in the cypherpunk days and crypto wars several decades ago.  Maxwell and Wuille or a combination of the two have been doing some highly technical and impressive work on crypto-currency more recently (including being central to getting Bitcoin where it is today.)  They have earned my trust, but I would/will always have my eyes open and would be surprised it that bothered any of them.  If it does, my confidence in them would be severely diminished for that reason alone.

I'm also glad to see that Peter Todd seems to be on the outside of Blockstream.  His value as an outside critic has been very good for Bitcoin and crypto-currency development in my opinion.  My guess is that certain of those who've been on the rough side of his criticism over the years would say the same thing.

Do you speak about the propagation time? That is no argument since a long time anymore. You know the miners that create empty blocks to have an advantage in propagation time and maybe even orphan big blocks? Some built a network, i'm not sure about the name anymore. Maiks Propagation network or so. If you are a miner and take part there then your full block gets propagated in 2 seconds or so. That will outperform any normal zero transaction block that is normally propagated.

Your argument, when i understand it right, is something like, "we have modem speed internet, we only can have 1kb blocks because otherwise someone with isdn? has an advantage." Though you totally forget that internet speed is developing constantly with time.


I think the possibility to create forks is there all the time. Then the question is which of the fork will be seen as THE bitcoin. And who decides that? The users. If 90% of bitcoiners decide that a fork is the real bitcoin now then it is the case and that bitcoin will have the value because they trust in the value.

Though one might ask what happens when the users on both sides sell the coins they own on the other side to push the price of the enemy bitcoin down. Might be that the one with many bitcoins can do a lot more damage then. Or maybe they would not. Because when they sell all these coins and this chain still wins, then they have nothing anymore. It's a gamble.

At the end the bitcoin value is based on trust that it has a value. And that trust gets decided by the users.

"lame noobish projections" Um... says november 2013 to june 2011. :D

And why the heck to you denigrate those that see the problem with small blocks and want a change as social media shitstormers? That doesn't sound like arguments but like something less worth.

If you try to make up the 12.5bitcoins that will be lost in next block halving with fees then calculate for yourself how high the fees for the transactions must be. Or see here: https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000014d2a3a95fcce5d6a884f0f9dd37fe0c91d3926f0481adf

Big block, nearly full. Fee 0.5 btc. If you want to make up for missing 12.5 btc in block reward you would have 13btc fee. 2713 transactions. 13 / 2713 = 0.0048 btc. Which translates to pretty exact $1.5 fee for every transaction. milk maid calculation of course. But expensive like paypal. You would lose the next positive point that speaks for bitcoin.

And regarding your fee market. You realize that the last days and weeks we have delays in confirmations because LEGIT transactions are so many? Bitcoin price is dancing and everyone wants to transact. I lost yesterday some money because my transactions with a really not bad fee were hanging in limbo for hours while the bitcoin price dropped even further in the meanwhile. If that is the great fee market then the future doesn't look bright.


Well, you already lost the miner decentralization. And it won't come back. Interestingly satoshi has foreseen that and he was not concerned.

But your fear of normal people not being able anymore like they can do it today sounds slowly like fud for me. There will be no 8mb blocks the next day. And even when, you really argument like running a full node is making a normal computer work at his limits. The truth is far away from that. Why always referring to computers built 10 years ago? Or to developing areas that might bring out another 0.1% nodes if we hold it at 1mb blocks. It simply makes no sense to claim everything will break only because we have to work on 1, 2 or some additional mb of transactions everyt 10! minutes.

Maybe it would be easier when you describe which computer setup you think has to have problem with constant 2 mb blocks. Or 8mb blocks. Please explain which group of computers and or users we would lose then.

And i can understand it even though iam for bigger blocks because they are inevitable for a healthy grow of bitcoin. Ok, most XT-Fans did not want hearn and only wanted to make a point by support bigger blocks with it. But hearn and his stupid ideas and acts really destroyed a lot. Stupid person. ::) Either he doesn't know what he does or he does and has different plans.

I only hope there is some independent developer who can offer a solution. Why gavin did not do his own thing even though he was critical of hearn... that's out of my understanding. He could easily have changed this topic if he would have acted smarter.

:D I had to laugh. Since yes, this is something you, unfortunately, learn in the bitcoin community. The fact that bitcoin is money tends to bring out the worst of some humans. Well, not much can be done, i was scammed often enough and decided i might help others by providing escrow service. I like to think that i safed a good bunch of people from being scammed that way. In fact i know it.


I agree.


Agree again.


I did not watch them so closely but i will take your word on this. I myself think that blockstream is an interesting thing. It very well can have their share. But i believe it would not be much more then Ethereum or NXT... WHEN bitcoin would work fully fine. IF bitcoin would not work, then blockstream might prosper. And that is the whole problem i have with this. It's like they decided to have their own private "bitcoin" and in order to let everyone switch to their coin they misuse their position to stop the changes that wanted to be done by the other developers.

Well, i might be wrong and they really have no such motives and they really believe all this... nonsense... of centralization, because some old computers cannot be nodes anymore, or that we need a fee market for some reason no one than they can understand. But these arguments seem so far fetched that you ask yourself if they did not find better ones at all.


I really really would like to see a idealistic coder who develops an alternative client that can not be attacked so easily like bitcoin xt. My impression might be wrong but i have the impression that the majority of bitcoiners see that pressing bitcoin into that 1mb cage can in no way be a good thing for future development. And i'm sure many would switch. I mean value of a chain gets established by the trust and believe of it's users. Majority should win i think.

I don't understand why you cannot grasp it. Nevermind that 'old computers' strawman, it's quite simple.

Larger blocks create centralizing pressure on nodes by raising the cost of creating and running them. Do you argee with that? Do you agree that we must consider it as a part of security-scalability tradeoff? If yes, then you are much closer to Blockstream guys than you might think.

I don't know.  It seems like this debate all comes down to the economics of scaling.  We all agree that it would benefit the bitcoin project if there was a mass adoption.  However, there is no incentive for the masses to adopt the technology if the current protocol cannot handle an adoption rate that would overwhelm the system.  If big business decided tomorrow (which they couldn't due to the current state of the technology)  to adopt Bitcoin as a payment system, the system would break, so why would big business even consider the prospect?  However, if the system was prepared to handle the traffic, the project would become more attractive to big business.  Right?

Right. So, which of the proposed scaling solutions addresses the issue so comprehensively? Which has the capacity or potential to scale up to 7 billion users?

Well, the answer to that would require inside information, I believe.  If there were some inside information that the general bitcoin public were not privy to, then that answer would be elusive.  I mean...there ARE backroom talks of regulation and there ARE big banks investing in blockchain ledger research....One has to ask:  What part of the core group of developers, responsible for keeping the blockchain healthy, are in the loop of these backroom discussions?  Too much too soon would be precarious, but too little too late would be detrimental.

Um, no. All the proposals for scaling up are available publicly, you can peruse them at will.

There's 4-5 blocksize scaling BIPS in the bitcoin github, and the lightning hubs stuff has 2 main white papers.

I understand that there are several proposed solutions; however, which solution fits best seems to be reliant on whatever is being negotiated in backroom discussions with those entities which have the numbers that could potentially saturate the system. It's a question between the economic powerhouses and the general consensus at this point....only, very few are in the loop about the information being discussed behind closed doors, it seems.

It literally doesn't require any inside information to answer that question. And that's the question that's actually on the table.

Well, if the blocksize is increased too much and the adoption rate remains stifled, then it would disadvantage the miners economically,  right?  But, if the blocksize isn't increased enough, then it wouldn't make sense economically for big business to adopt the existing technology, right?  However, if there were some inside information that some sort of big business opportunity was dependent on the state of the blocksize, then that would determine which proposal would be best suited to meet everybody's need.

The thread topic states it best: "Why Gavin is so desperate about his fork? Is he hiding something?"

Miners have full discretion of whether to include a no fee transaction, or not. Forcing a fee market from "on high" is central planning, which can often have the desired effect, in addition to several other (unintended??) side effects.

What's the alternative to central planning when it comes to developing the software? I've not heard one, and I am certain no credible alternative has been proposed (or could logically exist).

Remember also that the dev team isn't set in stone: it's self organising. Gavin Andresen voluntarily ceded control of the github repo commit keys to Wladimir van der Laan, and there's no good reason why something like that shouldn't happen again: Wladimir moves onto other things, so he hands the keys over to someone he finds trustworthy.

I fail to see any other possible way of doing any of this, although I'd certainly be happy to hear it if a good alternative is suggested. I'm not expecting much, though; many, many people much sharper than me have come to a similar conclusion.

I agree that there might be a centralizing effect. But that effect is not even high enough than the technical development. The harddisc spaces doubles how often for the same price? The cpu-power doubles how often for the same price? Internet speed grows constantly too. And so on. If some old computers has to be replaced then this is the natural way it went all the time till now. Why should bitcoin be different there?

And be honest... what pressure? Even when we would have 2 MB blocks in 2 years... that is nothing each 10 minutes. This is like some spook that is painted on the wall... but it simply has no substance.

So i see that there might be an effect but that effect is easily eaten by the technological progress. In reality it will not be a problem. Of course when one thinks the way that we will use the same old tech in 2 years then it might be that there is an effect. Though that is simply far away from reality.

I think if most really fear to drop the limit completely, which looks like it is the case, then there should be enough space for a relatively big adoption wave. Not sure in which amount of transaction raise. And new forks need to be ready to being rolled out in case that is not enough.

In the recent price rush of bitcoin and following price drop we already had legit transactions filling all the blocks. Which led to me losing money because my decently feed transactions didn't reach the exchange fast enough. Or not in the normal speed. Took hours. Which can be deadly with volatility of bitcoin price.

So it is not a hypothetical problem, it is live on here. Legit transactions, no spam. And the system is not enough unlimited to be reliable. Imagining that this should be the normal state and a high percent of legit transactions will never confirm can only mean death to bitocin.

It wouldn't affect the miners negatively when the limit would be higher. Because mostly the blocks are not full now too. If there is 50% free space in blocks or 500% doesn't change the fees the miners will get. And since the blocks will only be as big as the real amount of transactions, there will be no speed problem too then. 8MB blocks will not be filled immediately.

So you simply disregard that concern, because you think it's nothing. Do you back it up by numbers, maybe?

Your beloved Moore's law (which is not a law actually, just an observation, which is not guaranteed to continue) is already failing (http://www.forbes.com/sites/tiriasresearch/2015/07/30/the-slowing-of-moores-law-and-its-impact/), with CPU performance doubling roughly every 2.5 years. Internet bandwidth is increasing 30% per year on average at best. Meanwhile, actual blocksizes have risen more than 4-fold in the last 2 years. Don't you notice the large expanding gap here? Where does this gap stop expanding?

Off-chain transactions and side chains.

Neither the Internet nor the 'Internet of Money' (Bitcoin) need central planning. Development is based on competition.

Right, I also see this inevitable. ;)

Right, except that when one internet standards body tries to develop a new standard, competing teams compete by proposing their own system, not hijacking the system of another team so as to change the way that standard works. Get it?  ::)

I might be amateur to this but I think a larger blocksize will eventually be needed. Perhaps not forcing the network, but later on adopting it.

Of course the longer we wait the harder will be to convince miners, so its a big organization problem.

C`mon it's 2015 everybody has atleast 1 mb/s internet, they can download those stupid blocks in 10 minutes easily.

Probably +95% share that view.

The difference is that: some think that we should use blocksize to solve all scaling problems (when that's not even possible), the other camp wants to do everything possible to increase the transaction rate before increasing the blocksize.

I'm in the latter camp. The former camp likes to mischaracterise this as 1MB4EVA, but it's as obvious to me as to anyone else that the limit will have to go up, but let's minimise that.

I want to see fees > block reward (at least getting close to) before reconsidering the blocksize.

It is a pretty simple equation imho, and it gives us the Time to investigate and balance the whole ecosystem (nodes, Blockchain growth rate, Miners, sidechains, etc) and monitor the fee market whilst the block rewards shrinks.

Hmmm, I see where you're coming from there. It's possible that could happen next year; once we're at 12.5 BTC for the block reward, getting up to, say, 10 BTC in fees might not be so unrealistic. I'm sure the miners are aware of that possibility too, no wonder they rejected BIP101 and XT also.

Yes, a company hijacked the team to establish a new standard (full blocks).

Lol, I seem to remember Gavin volunteering to leave, and voluntarily joining the (fraudulent/failed) Bitcoin Foundation. Any more jokes?

Yes! me! me! I got one...


https://i.imgur.com/wIG0Gjv.png


;D

Everybody knows that there is a company that bought a team. That this leads to a fork of the dev team shouldn't surprise anybody.

The evidence.

Evidence exists that Hearn and Andresen intend to take Bitcoin over, they state it themselves openly. Where is the evidence that Blockstream bought the Bitcoin dev team? (there is abundant evidence to the contrary, but none that supports your claim)

Gaving is paid by the US government (MIT gets most money from gov). XT is therefore a plot by government to take over Bitcoin.  ::)

No I dont believe the above but I am just trying to use your logic back at you.

The poisonous attacks on Blockstream and the core developers doing their best (and what they believe is best for Bitcoin), is unhelpful and divisive .

Good joke.

Not to mention: my joke. Are you actually stealing my own lines from me?  :D

It is no problem that one developer works for the MIT, for Circle, for Blockstream or any company. It is a problem when several developers work for one company.
Then it is time that this company gets competition.

that was a funny ending to that post

Blockstream employees are only but a minority of Core developers

First, I urge anyone trying to understand the fee mechanism to take a read at this: http://bitcoinfees.com/

Secondly, according to network deficit, fees are not sustainable as of now: https://blockchain.info/charts/network-deficit

Thirdly, lets put some actual number on this : nowadays, with half full blocks on average, fee/block = ~0,15BTC
https://www.smartbit.com.au/charts/transaction-fees-per-block

So even after the halving, and unless there is a huge transactio and thus block space demannd (which is different from adoption as people might simply buy and hold - hence not transacting/spending), chances are that fees will stay far far behind the 12,5BTC block reward (also not taking into account the spam and/or bloat attacks, for which the block limit is perfectly justified, yet again, and all over again).

So there is no point discussing the blocksize limit, for it is economically and technically relevant to sustain the order and the security of bitcoin's network.

Besides, again, blocksize is not a solution to scaling bitcoin.

But the intention is to make XT a reference client and Gavin as the chief developer (benevolent dictator) of Bitcoin protocol.  Coinbase said they want to make Gavin the boss of Bitcoin development.

The future trying they are trying to create is more centralised development then is now. In hypothetical scenario core-developers will be frozen out, xt 101 will gain support from majority exchanges and services and a single person (Gavin) will be in charge of reference client to enable easier decision making.

That person(s) (Gavin also Hearn) happen to be more compliant towards boot-licking centralised services corps and government,  then core-developer cypher punks.

http://www.thecoli.com/media/robert-redford-nodding.35/full?d=1390427002

Prolific posting gentlemen

Veritas you're as usual invited to fork off and kiss the ring on the way out.

Didn't realize that there is a gap like that. Well, what should i say? It looks like a problem that might come up in the future.

Though something that is pretty sure is that a restricted bitcoin is a real problem. Imagine the currency of a country has a daily transaction limit. Only a certain amount of transactions can be done by the people of that country. The one who pays more might get his transaction through, others will never be able to get a transaction. The result would be that the people would be forced to abandon bitcoin. And even the ones who still want to use it would have to deal with a high amount of uncertainties. Will my transaction go through or will it stuck? Everyone would only use it if he needs to use it. Because time is essential on bitcoin especially. If you are unlucky you have 10 or even 25% less value the next day. Bitcoin would be risky then.

Do you say those who want to make bitcoin able to keep up with the rising amount of transactions are hijackers? I think they are the normal users of bitcoin. Though maybe i misunderstood your sentence.

I did some studying and found out that the fee will increase anyway.

-If you keep the 1 MB limit, then TX will compete for that 1 MB space and only the ones that pay the most will get through => AVG FEE INCREASES

-If you raise the MB limit, then you need to put in a minimum fee (which has to be increased again with further blocksize increases) to get rid of spam transactions => AVG FEE INCREASES


So the AVG FEE increases anyway.


So although I think blocksize should be increased, I advocate a very slow increase of fees, for example, following some sort of logarithmic curve.

So especially you, what do you want? Raise the blocksize limit once we are at an average of 95% filled blocks? Or do you want to go over the 1MB with legit transactions? I think when this happens then we already have a big problem. Bitcoin will lose credibility since obviously bitcoin can not be trusted anymore as one could before.

The fee market is not needed as reward for the miners, mining is obviously so rewarding that we are way more secure than needed.

So the risks bitcoin would be placed into are real, but the advantages not really important. I mean why doesn't game developers think that way "if we would develop battlefield so that it could be played on an pentium 2 then we would raise our userbase and would have more sales" They don't think that way because the game would be inferiour then. Nobody would want or use it. You can't deliver work under these premises.

Question:  Why Gavin is so desperate about his fork? (increasing size)

Answer (for who has missed it): http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bitcoin-giant-btcc-launches-priority-blockchain-transactions-its-customers-1529730

Just wait for the others.

Why the h... would you want such thing? Expensive transactions for what purpose? We have no poor hungry miners that need the money badly. And even if you manage to make up for the next block halving with fees then you would only make it more rewarding for big mining corporations to create a couple thousand more miners. The small miners would not earn much more at the end. Their miners worth would be diluted by those who can create miners cheaply.

I think you might be a miner. But i think you are very mistaken if you think that raising the fees will lead to more income for you. It would lead to more miners going online, diluting the additional reward to the level it was before. Because that level would be the level where it did not make sense to create more miners because the investment probably would not come back.

I was of the impression that the bigger miners spoke out for changing the blocksize limit to 8 Megabytes. Which looked interesting to me since they did not set the shortterm income over the longterm development.

At the end high fees will lead to less transactions, which leads to less total fees again. Well, i hope miners are thinking longterm. Though the difficulty is not really promoting this way of thinking. If you don't have your investment back in the first 2 or 3 months then you most probably will never. So the shortterm income is everything, nearly like trained into miners. ::)

Maybe users will just prefer to pay directly big pools to be sure to get an earlier confirmation.

Yeah, it's a pain that the idealism from the beginning of bitcoin seems to be lost. All developers act like politicians that have their side job at a bank or insurance company. Effectively not working for the people anymore but for the company.

Not bought but it was always said that the developers in question invested in blockstream. So they own the company partly and obviously that means they await to get their investment back with profits.

Well, this is all so dark that you can't really tell what is true and false. :/

I think their intentions aren't questioned without good reasons. If someone wants to save bitcoin then he would save bitcoin. And not come up with a solution that practically means not to use bitcoin.

The phraseology makes it sound like Gavin's role in TBF was a bit more passive than it probably was.  Remember that it was Gavin himself who floated the idea of such a foundation pretty early on in this forum.  The organization didn't even have a name.  There was a thread on this forum about the possibility, structure, etc.  I remember it because Theymos and I were among the distinct minority of voices warning that there were risks.  Almost everyone else was all rah, rah, rah about the idea.

It's a real cunt trying to find these old threads so I won't bother.  I've called attention to it several times in the past.

Though they are the ones who can deny changes to the code, isn't it? There is no democracy where the majority decides which code parts get into the next release or am i seeing that wrong?

Just to remember that the only thing that Gavin wanted was increasing the block size, from 2/3 years ago.
All other things about the fork are after he saw that it wasn't possible with the current Blockstream team.

It weirds me out that these guys don't even admit the possibility of a conflict of interest. Or they do, but only on one side. Personally, I think the Blockstream employed contingent of core does legitimately have these concerns about relay node incentives, and for good stated reasons. Legitimate concerns don't necessitate complete stasis though. I see potential conflicts of interest on both sides.

Remember Hearn's quote about 'no difference between freezing coins and keeping them from being spent for 20 years.'  I see no indication that he has not worked toward that goal (extreme miner consolidation far beyond what is practical at 1MB) since that time.  All the while fostering other potential attack vectors as well of course.

What's the point about mike here? I'm totally missing it.

Now that the space on the blocks is becoming a very rare resource, then it will be the same for the confirmations.
So it's logic that who manage this space (like pools as BTCC) is trying to get more income from it.

The Blockchain is secure thanks to the avidity of the miners, it can't be otherwise.

How is that deficit calculated? By the current hashrate? That would be nonsense to do because it would look like we need to keep the miner rewards stable. That is not true. Miners switched off nonprofitable hardware all the time and no one was crazy enough to demand we would need fees to make up for the first block halving.

What do you fear will happen when a chunk of miners will drop off their unprofitable miners? The network is more than secure and nothing happened in the past either. I think your fears are unbased.


Economically that is nonsense. You sound like we need to raise the amount of miners all the time but it is not allowed to drop. In fact mining momentarely is so rewarding that we have this sheer amount of hashpower that we are 100 fold more secure than needed. Shouldn't that be a good sign that we don't need to feed this useless overhead? It's like a overboarding bureaucracy in a country. Eating a lot of money but politicians say we need all that.

Look at the past, maybe you will see that your fears are unbased.

Well, this business idea was awaitable. If you have such a big part of the networks hashpower then you get such ideas i guess. But 13% is not so much. The speed advantage is not really big. It sounds more like a advertising idea.

But why do you bring Gavin into this? Priority transactions would make way more sense with 1MB blocks because the blocks would be constantly full and you would have no luck getting included often. Then you can easily sell such service.

I'm really puzzled what you want with Gavin at this point. What he wanted to do would make this business model useless.

Or did i misunderstood and you are in favor of increasing blocksize limit? :D

The small miners will not get much from higher fees. Big companies would simply scale their operation to squeeze the last bit of reward out of the network. Small miners are a dying species.

But why the h... did he join forces with hearn? Someone he criticized all the time already for his dictatoric style and dangerous ideas. That was incredibly stupid. No he lost his credibility. I can't understand him.

Yes I'm in favor, and Gavin was probably "desperate" because he wanted to avoid even the situation/solution that BTCC is going to do (and I'm sure that it will not be the last)

I don't think that it was stupid, but just the last possibility to save Bitcoin from the corrupted team.

It was just a way to show to the community that it's possible to fork if needed.

Discrimination in mining, and Mike being early to realize the 'utility.'  Sorry to have lost you...

If you need it tied back to the tittle of the thread, I don't supposed it has escaped you that Mike and Gavin work as a team now...with an obvious and and amusing hierarchical structure.  Probably when Mike was postulating about mining consolidation and the nice things that that could accomplish Gavin's head had as many question marks hovering around it as 95% of the rest of the readers here.  Things have 'evolved' in the interceding four years.


In theory, sidecoins are a nearly perfect proxy for native Bitcoin.  And in practice, the Blockstream dudes seem to be making great progress as I see it.  Scaling problem solved.  It is certainly possible that 1MB won't be enough for Bitcoin in a backing roll at some point.  Everyone recognizes this.  It will become more clear how many years off that is once the sidechains ecosystem blossoms.

I don't care if individual side-chains are centralized and consolidated.  I'll balance my risk between whichever ones I choose and draw off my stake in any that I dis-agree with or don't/cannot trust.

I care only that I have one trusted option at the pinicle.  That would be native Bitcoin (currently, and hopefully going forward) as a base store of value which I can use on the irregular instances where it really matters.  Keeping that (and just that) 'free' is the most important thing to me.  I am nearly completely sure that Mike and Gavin see things similarly except just the opposite.  The most critical thing is to contain Bitcoin and hand it over to the mainstream banks.  Why is less clear to me.

Anyway, the mining thing is probably a canard and not really that big a problem.  If the miners became to obnoxious a hard-fork would totally fuck anyone doing sha256 on ASIC so they probably would not dare.  If it came to a hard-fork for that reason a whole lot of other loose-end type things could be rolled in as well.  I've petitioned the Blockstream guys to work on such a thing as a background task so that if such an action is unavoidable (for this reason or others) the outcome will be more positive than negative.



Bitcoin would work just fine with me running one CPU miner in the background...as long as nobody attacked it.

I notice that the Blockstream guys were very clever insofar as they started out setting very long expectations.  In the days-range as I recall.  What this means is that a superior resources attack would need to be sustained successfully for a long time and it would be quite expensive and the probability of success against countermeasures would be relatively low.  Smart folks!  (I tend to bet my money on smart folks, BTW.)

Do you understand that the discrimination is only possible with a situation of a limited size?

If there is a space for 10 tx on a block, and the block is always full, the entity that makes the block (the pool/miner), then can chose to give a preference to some tx.
So, it can ask for a fee paid to him directly.
If the block now has the space for 100 tx (example), the miner/pool can still try to ask for a fee, but no one is going to pay it, because there is a very high probability that another miner will incluse all the fees directly.

This simple logic doesn't need a genius evil mind. You should see that mike was already clever on giving this warning a way before this has happened.

There are many ways so that banks can find the Blockchain as something useful.
And it's useful because it's trustless, and it is trustless because it's decentralized. (banks don't trust each others)
Banks doesn't need to centralize it to make it useful to them, so there are many people with a more open mind that are very happy to make money by helping banks on using this technology (and maybe then converting them in Bitcoin)

If nobody wants to attack it, than it has no value. You can't have both.

All the things that you say about sidecoin/chain are your personal expectations.
While you hope for something, you shouldn't stop looking at the reality.
Expectations can become failures.

But he easily could have been able to bring out his own version with 8MB blocks. He is one of the main developers so it should have been no problem. He had high prestige and now he wasted it.

Well, it's his decision. But it's too bad that we now are in this situation. Would he have been created his own version then many many would have trusted him. But so... even when we know a fork is possible, it is useless when there is no integer developer who creates such a version. No one questionable.

What? Maybe you have missed a lot of the history of this problem or even you are trolling me.  ??? ::)

What are you even talking about?  Block size has nothing to do with the ability to discriminate transactions.  Discrimination has to do with whether there exist the means to engineer effective discrimination (by limiting the set of potential miners and/or filtering transactions which reach them) and whether there are pressures to do so.  e.g., Political, economic, social, etc.

Block size is mainly related in some degree insofar as it impacts the makeup of entities who can mine.  For instance, large block sizes could increase the technical hurdles to a point that only larger and (at some point) politically favored operators are viable.  Economics plays a similar role due to economies of scale and the threshold at which monetizing alternate revenue streams (e.g., intelligence) is practical.

I will again point out that tapping into the intelligence that comes from monitoring an exchange currency is of very high potential value.  Much more so than, say, reading people's e-mails or cloud storage or watching their web searches.  Imagine the value a wallet service could have if, when a user tried to make a transaction, the service could say 'Hey, one of our partners can sell you the same thing at a 5% discount.'  The only miners who would be economically viable would be those who are large enough to attract a good set of partners.  I would be very surprised not to see 'cash back' for using {internet monster corp here}-wallet app.  And, of course, these massive corporations would mine themselves or any miners they contract with would dance to the tune they play.

The best that could be hoped for in the above world would be that there would be perhaps 4 or 6 choices of what wallet app to use.  I suspect that is what Hearn was thinking when he suggested (correctly) that Bitcoin could work fine if there were that small integer number of copies of the Bitcoin blockchain worldwide.  Anyway this is not the type of Bitcoin I care very much about...after I drain down the profits it has made me...

Yeah, so it's a very unlucky case that BTCC has come up with this "new service" exactly at this time that we have the problem that blocks are becoming full.

Au contraire, for those of us looking forward to the results of Bitcoin's ongoing experiment with fee markets, BTCC's plans are a natural turn of events, and we are lucky to have the antifragile system presented with this (potential) adversity ASAP.

It is bad science to prematurely change a control variable like block size before gathering all relevant data (EG what happens when blocks are always full and fee backpressure ensues).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_variable


Changing the block size before we know how Bitcoin reacts to full blocks and fee backpressure is as foolish and wasteful as changing (absent a justifying external crisis) the 21e6 emission limit, the 10 minute block target, or the SHA256 proof of work.

Please accept that you will *NEVER* get socioeconomic consensus for wanton changes to those key, non-negotiable aspects of the social contract, especially when you use fear to push your calls for defections.

Ridiculous. You know very well that the temporary anti-spam cap has not been implemented to enforce fees by blocking the txs stream.

We need to strongly stress this 3tps fee market when block subsidy is going to be a minimum of 12.5 btc per block for the next 4 years. Socioeconomic "majority", i.e. not you, says so. #1MB4EVA. #gavinREKT #digitalGOLD #tuckawaydemwallets

The system ossified around 1MB blocks and nothing is going to alter it until there is such a good reason that the socioeconomic majority supports a change.

"Because I really want to" isn't a good enough reason.

Max block size may change eventually but "Sorry, Not Tonight Dear!"

Then i have missed a lot of the history. Care to explain? My knowledge about the developers is not even deep enough to connect faces to them or big background stories. I only can say which position a couple of them are in.

So you say Gavin made a lot of problems before already? That passe me completely. Probably most of the other bitcoiners too then. The controversy suggestions like tainting and so on only came from hearn all the time isn't it?

I'm saying that the block size topic was always avoided by the rest of the team on the mailing list/chat/github while both gavin and hearn were trying to find how to increase it, and this is the only reasons so that they have chosen to make the fork. The last chance.

Sure... and it is bad science to try to protect the earth from climate change. Because let's first look if we maybe like the climate change. ::) Sometimes you write things... ::)

The reason why we should change the limit immediately is because we can guess pretty good what will happen. There is no need for a fee market at all. It only needs that legit transactions won't confirm. And who in their right mind should use a currency where he can't be sure that his transaction actually will go through? That would be a waste of time and effort.

And your second claim, not far away from the level of your first one, the 21e6, 10min block target and so on are really important settings. The blocksize limit is arbitrary, artificial and was never an important part until some people decided we need to experiment on bitcoins open heart to see what a fee market, that nobody needs, would look like. It's like bad scientists who experiment on a patient and don't care if the patient might die. We have alternatives, look, blockstream is there. ::)

Because we did not do this when the previous halvings happened and bitcoin nearly died at these points in time... ::)

Where you this strong need take from is a mystery.

What is the socioeconomic majority to you? At the moment it looks like the only one who decided singlehandedly that we don't get bigger blocks now are the developers that have the power to push their will through. I don't see who else decided or could have decided yet.

Yes, that is what i knew too. Don't know why you thought i'm trolling then. Even when hearn tried to solve it, chosing him as the partner, knowing well how controversy he and his ideas is was not a smart move. Gavin should have know that hearn would misuse his position to implement something stupid that could bring up critics. And it did so hefty that xt died. Now gavins fame is in trouble...

It's bad science and bad economics to try to protect the earth from "climate change."

You are afraid of ManBearPig, and thus obviously scientifically illiterate, so of course you think changing a control variable in the middle of an experiment is a good idea.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/

Oh right... a climate denier... well i should have awaited. It matches you. And the people moving from places they know will be under water in some years surely can understand you fully. I mean it's not as if the results already can be seen. Well, i won't discuss that. I already lost enough time to discuss that topic with smart guys that follow corporation advertising for cheaper production costs. ::)

The block size limit was never a control variable as it would be in a scientific experiment. It's completely hilarious that you lift that limit in that level. It was always only a precaution against spam. And you now come here and claim it was a long planned scientific experiment for a fee market. *rofl*

"Denier?"

You mean like a holocaust denier?  What a nice cowardly way to commit Godwin-by-proxy.

In science, denial (aka skepticism) is the default position, as the burden of proof is on the hypothesis being tested.

By not understanding that simple concept, you once again demonstrate what scientific illiteracy looks like.

Did you even read the linked Climategate: Why it Matters article?

I guess since your mind is already made up, you don't care the data was massaged and the model literally used a "fudge factor" designed to produce a hockey stick output no matter the inputs.

I've on top of the warming/climate (and related Malthus) controversy for longer than you've been alive; I can stomp you into the ground in any fact-based debate.  No wonder your only available option is to close your mind and say 'Shut up you Nazi, ManBearPig is totally cereal!"

You know nothing about economics, the scientific method, or software engineering.  In other words, you are the perfect candidate to be a useful idiot for Mikey and his puppet masters at Team Goldman.

I like your way of communication. You give me every time a laugh when i read how you attach something to what i said so that it sounds like i wrote something indecent. :D For example... you making me making misusing the holocaust. Great idea though a little bit inappropriate i think. Well, i forgive you since it shows that you think you can't solve the conversation on a factual level.

Which hypothesis? Only because you claim the blocksize limit was implemented for checking out a hypothesis does not make your statement true. In fact it is utterly wrong. So you can come up with that argument all the time, it doesn't change the fact that you made that argument up. The blocksize limit never was implemented to test a fee market.

Well, i know all these "arguments" against a climate change happening. It is pretty simple. Go to wikipedia and search the corresponding article. Pretty much every of these nonsense claims are dissected there. Well, some people seem to want to believe what they want to believe. Maybe it feels better to "know" that you are part of a small group that really knows what is going on. ::)

Shut up you Nazi... *rofl* you know, i can't get myself to being angry at you with having to laugh so much. :D

Yes, Wikipedia, the indisputable bearer of scientific truth  ::)

Or truth on any matter that threatens the establishment's narrative. Although, amusingly, even Wikipedia can't hold that particular tide back.

I did not say that wikipedia does not get manipulated. We know that media agencies have their people in there, even admins, that can change the text slightly so that the products or companies they have to advertise look better.

But even so, wikipedia is a try to decentralize knowledge. If you don't want to use that you have to trust other parties, like government or whatever. I think bitcoiners should be able to value decentralized efforts.

That is just about the most stupid thing I've read on this board this month. Congrats.

As if Wikipedia has any ability to refute the voluminous primary evidence of corruption of science disclosed by the heroic Climategate whistleblower.

As if there is a good explanation for an array called "fudge factor" in code comments which distorts given inputs into a hockey stick.

SebastianJu lacks basic literacy in science (IE fails to understand why you don't change max_blocksize control variable in the middle of Bitcoin's experiment with fee markets, and fails to understand why it is invalid to manipulate climate data until it fits predetermined politicized ManBearPig hypothesis).

He belongs to the pre-Enlightenment world of magical thinking, where his bigger block fetish can work miracles of scaling Bitcoin and the Climate Gods punish wicked mankind for the sins of industrialization.   ;D

Sebastian, go back to your cave you ignorant superstitious caveman.  Or go back to swinging in trees and eating bananas if caves and fire are too much technological progress for your delicate feelings to cope with.   :D

*lol* So you add a word to my sentence and make it another sentence only so that you can claim that it is now a stupid sentence. Congrats back to you then. ::)

What i meant is that you either trust a decentralized approach of collecting of knowledge or a centralized one like governments, companies or whatever.

I think it was more the part where you suggested that trusting government information was a useful alternative to trusting Wikipedia. I can see how you are the sort of person that trusts government information and Wikipedia.


No surprise, then, that you've sided with the corporate/government bootlicking contingent. Team Cypherpunk FTW, I'm afraid, this is the 21st century.

Well, at this point it sounds stupid to repeat myself. You claim again and again that the max blocksize limit is part of a scientific experiment. Only because it is one for you doesn't mean that it was intended as one. In fact there is no hint at all that it was meant that way. You circumvent that fact by repeating your opinion that this is a scientific test. Sorry, but on that base discussion can't take place. It would be a waste of time with forseeable result... which would be none.

I agree with you, IF this would have been a scientific experiment then you would be fully right. But it isn't and was never. And even when you and a couple of other people believe so, it doesn't change that fact.

I know about these manipulation accusations. The thing is everyone can see that things change already. Yes yes, i know, it's the sun or some natural rhythms... ah... i'm tired of this. I suggested wikipedia because one can easily see at least the common answers to all these claims of falsification and so on.

*lol* At the end you made me laugh again. Ignorant caveman. Well, i think i don't need to explain to yourself what it means when someone, in a discussion, turns to personal attacks instead answering with facts only. Though i like your colorful fantasy, so i prefer to take it with humour. :D

This obsession you people have with sticking buzzwords to your statements absent of any relation whatsoever with its content...

Wikipedia, while open-source in theory, is obviously not "decentralized".

Speaking of Wikipedia, this article might be relevant to you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify

Yes. Maybe a Wikipedia article can help him? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Um, were exactly did you read that from? I did not write that. brg claimed that wikipedia is unreliable and i answered that wikipedia is the equivalent of a decentralized approach of collecting knowledge. If someone doesn't want to use that then he has to trust centralized approaches of knowledge providing. Where you read from that i would prefer the latter sounds a bit strange. I mean you realize that i suggested wikipedia, right?

And it's funny that you claim i side with corporations. Which would that be then? The bitcoin-xt corporation? I never supported it beside the need of bigger blocks. Or are you of the false impression that iam a fan of blockstream maybe? I can assure you that is not the case, be at ease.

Wikipedia is the try to let everyone take part in collecting and providing knowledge. It's not a company or so that provides it. So wikipedia is obviously way more decentralized then other forms of knowledge providing. I did not state that it is perfect, it is not. But they tried to go in that direction.

Seriously...you need to stop with this decentralized vs. centralized nonsense.

So if I don't trust Wikipedia to provide me with their cherry-picked presentation of facts then that means I'm stuck...... reading a book? actual scientific research? use common sense or my own judgment?

To hell with that! Why go to such effort right...? Let's just defer to Wikipedia, they seem to have gathered "consensus".  ::)

In your post. The one I'm replying to. It's the post two before your last, on this page. You wrote it. In English. Presumably with your keyboard. It's up there ^^^


No, that would be the Goldman Sachs banking corporation, Accenture investment, Accel Partners etc etc. Who were all glove-puppeting Circle, Coinbase, Bitpay et al who were promoting BIP101. So you were/are supporting their startups.

Those corporations. So keep talking.

great point! I said the same a year ago and nobody believes that :)

BTC is already centralized. All the BIG exchangers and big BTC media websites are owned by the SAME shareholders! Check yourself.
Coinbase, Bitstamp, BTC China, OKcoin,Bitfinex, Coindesk(media) and few others are back by the same people.

There are so MANY blinded people on this forum.

Nothing is without control. It appears to be so but it is not :)

Yup: http://dcg.co/network/

What can we expect from the Front National? Ad hominem and science fiction. That's all.

Nassim Taleb:

Climate Change.

I am hyper-conservative ecologically (meaning super-Green). My position on the climate is to avoid releasing pollutants in the atmosphere, on the basis of ignorance, regardless of current expert opinion.
.............

We have polluted for years, causing much damage to the environment, while the scientists currently making these complicated forecasting models were not sticking their necks out and trying to stop us from building these risks (they resemble those "risk experts" in the economic domain who fight the previous war) --these are the ones now trying to impose the solutions on us. But the skepticism about models that I propose does not lead to the same conclusions as the ones endorsed by anti-environmentalists, pro-market fundamentalists, quite the contrary: we need to be hyper-conservationists ecologically, super-Green, since we do not know what we are harming with now. That's the sound policy under ignorance and epistemic opacity. To those who say "we have no proof that we are harming nature", a sound response is "we have no proof that we are not harming nature either" --the burden of the proof is not on the ecological conservationist, but on someone disrupting an old system.

http://www.blackswanreport.com/blog/2010/01/opacity-3/

But Zara, Taleb is saying that he doesn't believe the climate scientist global warming alarmist nonsense. But, simultaneously, he is also saying that releasing fewer waste exhausts into the atmosphere is a good idea anyway, despite global climate change being bunk. Did you actually read your enlightened come-back quip before you posted it, or did you just search for "superior climate change opinions".  :D

No, what he is saying is not the same as what you want him saying.

Well, people  that actually can read/comprehend what Taleb said may disagree with you. I fully subscribe to the Taleb view of environmental pollution: a plague on both your houses.


The is the usual unimaginative irony from you Zara: like all inexperienced debaters, your only recourse when you know you cannot rebut your adversary's claim, is simply to turn the claim back on the adversary. And it doesn't seem to matter to you how implausible that is!

i.e. "that's not me that's you. You're that, not me"

This is how very young children/teenagers handle unresolved arguments, not mature adults.   

Ad hominem again. But it's pretty clear that you've been lying again. He doesn't say global climate change being bunk. He essentially says that we do not know how the old system will be disrupted, since it is not possible to model it exactly.

To claim that the climate of the athmosphere won't change when we change its components, is the greatest Bullshit ever. That's something for the truthers, the cheerleaders of the Front National and alikes.

Except that my assessment of how you conduct your arguments just so happens to be true.


Who made that claim? Not me. Taleb says the arguments of both sides are bunk, that was his point. And so what your point is supposed to be, who knows?

You're so desperate to pick holes where none exist, try improving the water-fast properties of your own arguments to begin with, it's a necessary pre-condition to being able to take part meaningfully.

You claim that he is also saying that releasing fewer waste exhausts into the atmosphere is a good idea anyway, despite global climate change being bunk.

That's an outright lie. Taleb would never say global climate change being bunk. He is not an idiot.

No it isn't, I was paraphrasing. "Bunk" is an exaggeration, he said something closer to "unknowable".

Exaggerating what Taleb said is a little different to "all neo-serfs must bow to the solar-shielding/carbon-credit overlords", which is presumably an exaggeration of your point of view?

Are you crazy?

Are you blind?

Those sentences literally sum up my position perfectly, and you're still all "global warming will kill us all"

If being crazy is necessary to effectively mine an accurate picture of reality from the sea of media (including social media) propaganda and deceit, there are some of us who fit that mold.

There are probably many others who have a nagging sense that the eco movement who were responsible for amazing progress in helping halt and turn back the destruction of the planet have been taken over by ugly power players, but are not ready to admit it at this time.  Every day more and more people cross over this line and are willing to call a spade a spade.  In my case, the importance I placed in the need to stop fucking up the planet is proportional to the disgust I have at this new corporate-green leadership structure.  I doubt that I am atypical in this.

I hope this isn't too off-topic for a thread about Climate Change, but I just wanted to point out that you seem to be a bit of a Frontaphobe. I don't want to be too judgmental, because maybe you've had bad experiences with the French. But you shouldn't give in to fear-mongering lies. The vast majority of supporters of the Front National are peaceful people who are proud of their heritage.

Unbelievable. You can't read. I didn't say 'global warming will kill us all'. Another outright lie. I said we do not know how the climate of the atmosphere will change when we change its components. Your discussing tactics are among the most dishonest here.

Rightwing socialists/collectivists/frontists/statists.