Bitcoin Forum

Fuck Mike and Gavin and fuck the core-team too.
We need a third and fourth devteam to push different forks on us. Not enough dev competition.

Community should start pushing their own softwares and not use any of that crap these puppets try to push on us.

None of these assholes has any say if nobody listens.

Very true. Now where's your code so we can see if it is better than Core and XT?

There is very little incentive for developers with the right skill set to jump into this role. Besides, what guarantees are there that this new group would better align with your particular needs?

Of course a large btc bagholder would need to hire the devs.
More choice is always better and increaes the chances of something worthwhile produced. With all these dev basically being muddled into one pile attacking and backpadding each other, there isn't enough competition for them.
Gavin and Mike even getting any attention shows there is a real lack of good developers otherwise people wouldn't pay so much attention to these washouts.

well the ones that need incentives arent the ones you want for this kinda project  8)

Talk is cheap. Stop saying x is not good and telling others to make it better. What's stopping you?

perhaps they were still busy with their own affairs
stay patient, and do not say rude

It is kinda broke, look at all those dust attacks, the tx spam... Plus tx fees are going to get too big if the block size doesn't increase
I wish people would stop crying foul about this
Just get btc-XT when it's released and run it
After we hit 75% using it, a week later no one will care

IF more developers come and release their own forks, Bitcoin becomes an Altcoin.

if they have otoryti in the community, may be there are can to takeover community moreover...
so, just the society should to have desire to wont it or not, if not if for they its will make harmfull,
they can to dont want it, and thingking the way to out from this situations.

How dedicated are these developers, if Gavin did not work on Bitcoin for nearly 2 years, and Mike worked on "The Lightning Project" to win a $40 000 bounty from Oliver and also developed a competing fork for Bitcoin?

We should have a dedicated team of people, who work on Bitcoin 100% of their time. Not as a little side project.
Wladimir seems to carry on at his own pace, and is willing to kick the can down the road, as he put it.

Nobody is really 100% committed to making Bitcoin work. In my opinion these guys are being paid to sabotage and slow down Bitcoin.  ^hmf^

 

http://s16.postimg.org/5dsnllni9/image.png

That looks like an Altcoin to me?

This has been a community takeover since Satoshi left anyway, but really, please don't change the logo or the branding. Leave the basics alone. Block size, whatever works, who cares? You think we won't have computers with more storage in the future? Yes we will, so it will not impact decentralization either way. If Bitcoin ever gets big, storage problems will likely be a thing of the distant past by then.

Funny how things change. Four years ago if Gavin asked for a blow job 90% of the members of this forum would pucker up. Now, half the threads on the first page are "fuck Gavin" threads.

The strength of bitcoin is its size built on its strong and unbreakable codebase that has been tested numerous times. If you think that attempting to fork bitcoin's blockchain not one but several times, then I think you've misunderstood a lot of the fundamentals.

Like these guys:  https://blockstream.com/team/ ?

Let have a broader look at all the bitcoin "expert" to see where the problem lies , ok? :

Developer	Employer	In favor of
Gavin Andresen	MIT	8mb+
Mike Hearn	Google, now Vinumeris	8mb+
Meni Rosenfeld	Israeli Bitcoin Association, Bitcoil	tentative 8mb+
Jeff Garzik	Bitpay, now Dunvegan Space Systems, Inc.	2mb+
Peter Todd	Viacoin et al.	1mb
Luke-JR	Subcontracted by Blockstream	1mb
Adam Back	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Matt Corallo	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Gmaxwell	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Peter Wuille	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Mark Friedenbach(Maaku7)	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
laanwj	MIT	1mb

See any pattern? Remember Blockstream got tens of millions from investors. VCs dont just invest to have a fair game with competitors, they invest because they want to jump ahead of the game.

how about google Group comunity ?

Take away the Blockstream crew and you still have an undecided split. Plus, some questionable experts on that list and others not even listed.

what about proposing something better if you really want to say fuck that fuck this?, the point is that there isn't something better there is no good alternative to increase the block size, and blockstream isn't one of these for sure

I'm not gonna argue about that but this list include all the people that this forum consider "consensus network" (5 person from the list)

That in itself is a centralized issue but everyone ignore it.

Yes, inheriting a second hand open source project and cleaning up the mess in a contentious environment requires a special type of soft skill that many lack.

The development is about much more than just this block size debate.. Security patches are also a major thing, as well as any other improvements to the wallet and network.

If you can do all that, please go a head and code a better proposition for a fork.

Very angry my friend. You don't need nor the one and nor the other. But if the others in a certain point disappointed you what can be made? The solutions aren't easy to find and the key is to talk and not to complain. The collaboration can solve everything and not the war. So it will be better to put all the people in a round table and force them to hear each other. Then to decide in the best of the all.

Sure, one cannot but wonder if 5 developers have personal motivation for not wanting larger blocks but....

Why did Gavin and Mike decide to bring up the block size "issue" now? (which isn't an issue as we have 0.4 - 0.5 mb blocks)
Since they knew that their co-workers on Bitcoin have handled it with the use of Blockstream and there is NO immediate need for larger block sizes anyway,
doesn't it seem a bit odd, or convienient if I may say?

If I was to attempt to take over then that is exactly what I would do and blame the other devs for having personal motivation.
There is no immediate need for larger blocks, and since it would have been handled by Blockstream, then what is the deal with Gavin and Mike?
The fact that they have blacklisting code doesn't make them very credible to me, and of course the way they are attempting to take over.

Personally, I do not agree that ANY member of the core team should be in the core dev team if they have personal gain by doing or not doing something.
That includes both sides of this circus we are seeing lately.

And to be honest I agree with the OP.
It is time the community stepped up and removed them from their "thrones" because their are not working for the good of Bitcoin and the community anymore.
 

That's one point. The coding language is really not easy. I'm a good coder, i think about myself, but this language is really no fun. On top the code is not easy. So finding someone who is able to do this is hard.

Theoretically we only would need to take xt and drop all shit hearn's dictatorical mind comes up with. Then spread this version. Or take bitcoin core and add the 8 mb part.

It's a pity that instead something like this happens, we get bitcoin cores that look like xt's. There is no reason for it's existance except claiming that all xt nodes are fake.

Really stupid that no community member is able to handle this.

I don't think so. Bitcoin has no future without a blocksize increase. That is pure logic and not disputable. So giving bitcoin a future is the way to go. Of course some people spread fear but it doesn't matter which coin wins. When you held bitcoins when the fork happened then you would have bitcoins in core and bitcoins in the fork. You can't really lose with that.

Exactly. And this is a pain. It seems bitcoin development is not rewarding enough so some developers search a side income. This wouldn't be a problem when there would not be an incentive to hurt bitcoin by doing so. Since that way you can draw more power and money to your side.

F...ing politics.

I think the idea was more to build a version that is something like bitcoin xt to include the bigger block size but drops all the controversial ideas that hearn comes up with. I wonder how tempted he feels to include tainting. ::)

A version cleared of this would surely become the hit since i don't know any bitcoiner who supports bitcoin xt and likes all these things he wants additionally.

There's nothing stopping you making your own changes to Bitcoin.
It's just that most people that do try to get their changes into core.

I might be wrong but it only would need someone who drops all the code that is unwanted. Let the core devs create the patches and include them then. Adding code should not be that hard if you at least understand the code.

In the case this software actually wins the race then surely developers will flow to that versions development.

Um... with the use of Blockstream bitcoin gets fixed? That is not a solution. That is NOT using bitcoin. Nothing more. It's avoiding it's use and tunneling transactions into an altcoin.

And Gavin came up with that because we already know that at the end of 2016 we will have full blocks. It would be too late to act then. Not to mention that bitcoin would die instantly when amazon would decide to accept bitcoin payments tomorrow. Because bitcoin could not handle this amount of transactions. The new users would have a terrible experience and that would be a huge hit for bitcoin.

No, there is no way around raising the blocksize limit or even dropping it completely.

I'm no fan of hearn for sure. And i don't like that gavin went to hearn. But as far as i read nearly no one supporting xt wants all the other stupid things hearn wants. So it is only a vehicle to get the 8mb blocks. Then they would use core again.

Thanks for sharing that hitler. Thanks to your interesting and valuable thoughts, the community has now a clear path to scale Bitcoin through consensus.

Well we all have power to do it. Nothing stops anyone of us to implement changes, write code and release the client. If it's a superior solution, the users will accept it. At least this is how all this decentralization system should work.

Now I cannot do it since I don't know how to code at all. I am also not that smart to start doing stuff like this! :)

This is the problem that people don't consider, these people have committed most of their time towards debating what is best and developing software. That's not cheap or easy.

More developers would be good, but I doubt there are so many people with the right skill to get a step ahead.

Probably we will have to be content with core or XT solutions.

This is what is already happening, they're called alternative currencies. And they are beginning to take hold.

In my view, the only way for bitcoin to remain competitive is for the core team to 1.) mature, 2.) put their ego's aside, and 3.) do what's best for the community.

I give this post less than a day until it becomes a XT bandwagon and it's moved into altcoin discussion.

But we want bitcoin. A forked xt only could become bitcoin when everyone believes that it is the true bitcoin that forked. Using altcoins instead bitcoin surely would be no alternative to many bitcoiners.

YES to your last paragraph. I would add 4.) Don't let your side projects and possible incomes change your decisions. Though that is probably too hard when you are already involved. So maybe "Don't get involved in a project when you would have a financial advantage when bitcoin gets worse."

Everyone is free to create their own version of Bitcoin. If you manage to get enough people supporting you you can have a chance.
But there's no need to be that ambitious, contributions in BIP form can be made.

The contributions can be made. Though it is the next question if they get implemented. For example the current discussion about bigger blocks. I have the feeling that the majority wants them, still they did not get implemented. There simply is no real voting system for this besides forking and let miners vote by mining.

Hmm, let's see how your BitcoinObituary.com FUD has aged over the past two years. :D

UPDATE:

MAX_BLOCKSIZE=1MB (no change)

PRICE=$20,000 (up 10,000%)


So much for your "not disputable" "pure logic."  If you're going to write such specious pompous nonsense, expect to be held accountable and made the subject of mockery.





UPDATE:

BLOCKSTREAM=STILL HERE
YOUR FUD = BTFO & REKT

I too have the same doubt from the days when bitcoin started to get challenged from BCH.They are not dedicated at all.No progress.Even segwit was also not popularized among the community.It clearly seems that they are actually against bitcoin progress.Some thing suspicious.

:D iCEBREAKER, somehow I'm glad to read something from you. Bitcoiner of the first hours. :D

Well, back then I didn't speak about bitcoin as an investment, it surely was a nice investment. I was speaking about the original ideas of bitcoin. Most important points everyone can use it for low costs, fast, adoption and so on. However these points can not be met anymore. When we passed paypal fee level it wasn't already funny anymore. Now we are competing with WU already it seems. Back then we made fun of them. Now we slowly get worse than all of them. Which leads to the next point. Adoption. As an investment, fine, but that wasn't the original idea. No poor farmer in some third world country can use bitcoin anymore. And a currency lives of adoption and usecases.

Some weeks ago I tried to order food with a german delivery service. Payable in bitcoin. I wouldn't do it anymore. The fees for the tx were so high that it makes no sense. And the documentaries showing how easy it is to buy a cup of coffee with bitcoin leaves the informed user back with a smile and a tear.

I have to say, since some weeks bitcoin is practically dead for me as a currency. (not as an investment) For very high priced things the tx fee might not be as bad but the usecases of a currency that expensive is very limited already. It simply makes no sense anymore to pay things worth less than $1000 with it anymore. One has to use other currencies.

No current plan I am aware of has the potential to safe bitcoin compared to the tech of newly created coins with way higher performance and scalability. Why use bitcoin as a currency now when bitcoin got childs that let bitcoin look like a slow, expensive whale? I think bitcoin surely will survice as an investment. As a currency it will be left behind.

Segwit is nice because it scales with the amount of transactions. Still the potential is way too low to make a huge difference.

LN, well, for me I do not have a usecase and I would disable it in btc wallets to prevent coins being blocked in some payment channels since there is no service that I use that would make this useful. However, if others adopt it so hard that tx amount on the bitcoin network go down then it might make bitcoin itself useable as a currency for me again. Not sure if achievable. I wish blockstream the best of luck. I only think they took way too long, the whale was sitting watching his childs growing stronger in capability, fees and so on and was unable to move.

I think currency use will move to other faster and cheaper coins. Investment might still stay strong in bitcoins hand.

At the end satoshi can be pleased. He gloriously managed to achieve what he wanted. The idea he brought to life changed the world and still changes the world. It's unthinkable to bring satoshies idea down again.

Hope you are doing well!
Sebastian

Why won't you start learning programming and then create your own fork of Bitcoin? We do you follow Bitcoin Core developers' vision of Bitcoin? Bitcoin Gold, Bcash are your altenatives. You don't like their devs? Make a hardfork of Bitcoin hardfork! You don't have to follow Bitcoin, there are hundreds of altcoins available on the market which are faster and cheaper than Bitcoin.