Bitcoin Forum

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong calls the industry to fork Bitcoin Core by the end of December


https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/coinbase-ceo-brian-armstrong-bip-is-the-best-proposal-we-ve-seen-so-far-1446584055

x-posted: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg12876312#msg12876312

Someone please tell Coinbase that XT is dead in the water? Last time I looked Coinbase is not mining so what they want matters not.

https://bitcoinnewsmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/screenshot-data-bitcoinity-org-2015-11-03-20-51-11.png

I say this with all sincerity to those who want bigger blocks now. Please fork already instead of this constant posturing! Fork the code. Mine your fork. Trade your forked coins. I wish you all the best, and would prefer the community split along these irreconcilable lines.

Do it! Let the chips fall where they may.

Stop talking. Do.

That guy is a puppet for Paypal.
BIP101 is DITW.

There will be no peace. There are two sides with irreconcilable differences. The only solution that will please everyone is a fork.

Both sides can get exactly what they want with a fork (unless what they really want is to drag the other side with them kicking and screaming).

When will these forkin' issues finally be settled? Hasn't this gone on long enough?

You've been here long enough to know how Bitcoin works, there are no forked coins to trade only Bitcoin. And only Bitcoin on the longest chain is valid.

When small block cause Bitcoin to fork Bitcoin won't become an altcoin.
.

Well technically the old fork will still be usable but I fail to see why would anyone use it if the coins can't be traded anywhere.

If there is a client coded which creates blocks that other clients do not accept as valid and there is mining being done using both clients, there will be a fork. If mining continues on both sides of the fork, both sides will continue to exist. If you create a transaction with an input which is only valid on one chain, and the rest of your coins, you will have separate coins on both chains. If someone is willing to trade other things of value for coins on both sides of the fork, there will be an exchange rate between the two.

I don't care which side of the fork gets the name Bitcoin and which side of the fork gets the name "random altcoin", I only care about the rules of the protocol.

I'm hoping that someone creates this client (which has happened) and starts mining on it without getting any percentage of consensus from other mines/users (which has not happened). If they are so sure of themselves, I don't understand why this hasn't happened yet. If you build it, they will come. Then we don't need to argue about the merits of small or large blocks anymore, we can simply vote with our wallet.

I currently control funded Bitcoin private keys. If XT ever happens, I will then have XT coins. You posit that these XT coins will have value, no? I will offer them (post XTainting) in exchange for non-XT coins. Since XTcoins have value, my offer will be accepted by someone. It's that simple. If I'm not the only one willing to make this exchange (and I am guessing that I am not), we will have a market and an exchange rate. Miners will find a way (possibly even through merged mining) to mine both coins to their profit.

Because those running the show right now is the economic majority which means big market makers, those who sell the biggest amount of coins to the public. If they do a move, miners will follow, there is no doubt about that but these guys are being cautious and therefore slow to move. A bunch of them have settle December as a dead line back in August and now, as we approach this deadline and as the block are being full and the economic pressure is building up, Coinbase (which have received the largest investment) is now stepping up stating they will lead the move keeping the same deadline. It will happen, one must get prepared.

There are people running Bitcoin Unlimited today.  Bitcoin Unlimited is Core without the block size limit.  It will follow the longest chain composed of valid transactions, using the consensus mechanism described in the Bitcoin white paper.  The reason it is not forking with respect to Core is that the longest chain presently contains only blocks smaller than 1 MB.  In the future, if the longest chain includes blocks larger than 1 MB, then these nodes will follow that chain thereby forking off the Core nodes (assuming Core doesn't increase the block size limit too).  

https://i.imgur.com/KDPD7yu.png

At the moment, I don't think any miner would dare to publish a block greater than 1 MB because it would almost certainly be orphaned (even by nodes running Bitcoin Unlimited).  It would only make sense to publish large blocks when miners are confident that the majority of the network hash power would build on top of them.  

How much of Coinbase's liquid assets are actually in bitcoins? If I had to guess, I'd imagine them to be a company which functions fully on fiat besides their operational requirements.

I suppose Gemini, with the information I have (twins own a lot of coin), is actually part of the economic majority, but I'm not so sure about other "Bitcoin" companies. It would be interesting to know how many of them are actually part of the economic majority.

Near enough every altcoin out there is a fork of the Bitcoin codebase, so your assertion is better applied to you in the inverse: you've been here long enough to know how cryptocurrency works, there are no wholly original coins to trade, only Bitcoin forks.

Yes, I'd like to see someone start mining a fork with > 1 MB blocks. If everyone who wants big blocks now invested some money into mining hardware and just went ahead and did it, I'm sure some existing miners would join and we'd have ourselves a fork and an end to these seemingly endless discussions.

In fact, to make it easier for miners to decide (or remove them from the decision entirely), Bitcoin unlimited should be capable of being merge mined. ;)

i'm all for not hindering adoption, but not with xt, something like bip103 is better for the feature, because it should mintain the current block limit, until the increase is actually needed

or 101, if 103 reveal to be problematic in some way

Fork Bitcoin Core? No problem. Fork to XT? No, thank you. Stop with the propaganda. This is an appeal to authority, not an argument nor the right way to start a discussion. If you go down this path, we will end up in infinite circles of nonsense again. Wait for Hong Kong, and stop provoking each other.
No limit? There are people who want to see Bitcoin burn, and you're one of them. You keep pushing the limits of our tolerance.

There are people running Bitcoin Unlimited today.  Bitcoin Unlimited is Core without the block size limit.  It will follow the longest chain composed of valid transactions, using the consensus mechanism described in the Bitcoin white paper.  The reason it is not forking with respect to Core is that the longest chain presently contains only blocks smaller than 1 MB.  In the future, if the longest chain includes blocks larger than 1 MB, then these nodes will follow that chain thereby forking off the Core nodes (assuming Core doesn't increase the block size limit too).

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1236879.msg12877811#msg12877811

Armstrong should stick to what he is good at, shuffling money around, schmoozing up to political power brokers and extracting personal financial data for reporting to authorities ... and leave his limited technical ability out of the public spotlight, in case people begin to doubt the wisdom of investing in his company.

What is the current status on different proposals for this matter?
I haven't looked into it for a while. Any code for the other BIPs, any decisions in sight?

Yeah ok, lets fork bitcoin during this huge pump. That would in no way fuck up the market at all  ::) ::)

He can do what he wants to do. Bitcoin is not a darkcoin. If you need a darkcoin, you can change your bitcoins at any time.

Coinbase? Isn't it that company which practices tricks bordering with scamming? Like not allowing to sell BTC to realize profits or delaying purchases to make the deal unprofitable for the customer? No, thx.

XT and BIP 101 FTW.

It's time for participants to rise up against the tyranny and lies of Blockstream/Core.

You are right! BTW you can't prevent people from changing the code and thus forking the network anyway.

Maybe not; otherwise they wouldn't attract so many bitcoiners. It's up to you, MOA and alikes to build a better business for the community.

... it's already being built. There are none so blind than those that do not want to see.

At what date did you wake up today? Darkcoins hasn't been called Dark in ages, they are called Dash now.

Coinbase just exploits its dominant position, this doesn't make it a good company nor adds credibility to that CEO guy words.

what will happen otherwise? they will simply continue to use core? because i think they don't known how consensus, work if they think they can instigate a change in this way

nothing will happen by december, and certainly mainers are not in favor of XT

Everybody knows that. I wrote: ' a darkcoin'. That means any dark cryptocoin.

It's up to you and MOA to build a better business that is more trustfull to the community. The more bitcoiners trust your business, the more dominant you become.

you are so lost in the rage of your vendetta you do not see how far you have strayed. Because bitcoin is all about putting your trust into dominant central institutions like coinbase with your wealth and financial data in Brian Armstrong's hands?!

Please just try to leave the politics at the door and contribute to the technical solutions.

You know very well which side represents the vendetta and enforced domination: The cheerleaders of the Totalitarians and the Censors.
There is only one real central institution: The core developers. But this centralization will soon be history.

Since nobody answered my question, I guess, that nothing changed in the last 2 months. Just another hate against hate-thread.
You guys are ridiculous, but thanks for the reminder, why I haven't been active ...

I've never really heard anyone call altcoins for darkcoins except if they meant the actual darkcoin. But yeah, that was the only confusion.

Any specific altcoins you call "dark" or just all of them?

BIP101 is the only proposition which is more than a concept and has actual code.

I think participants will re-evaluate if we bump into the limit and it causes some inconvenience.

Miners cannot afford unhappy users, their business would be ruined quite quickly.

Wrong. This is a simplified version of a possible scenario based on (nearly) zero evidence. To clear up: 1) Miners don't really care about you; 2) Businesses would not be ruined because of a backlog of transactions, certainly not quickly; 3) People who want their transactions processed sooner need only to include a higher fee; it is that simple. Anyone saying that the fees are going to become $1+ instantly is spreading nonsense. BIP101 is one of the worst possible "solutions" that I've read about. It comes close to the 'no limit at all' idea.

---

---

Tl;dr: Nobody can predict the future, so stop trying to predict the block size.

If nothing is done by Core before the end of December, the industry is planning a fork with BIP101 probably done with XT. That is something we can be sure of.

Be sure of? No. Is it a possible scenario? Yes. Just because we might not be using Core anymore that does not necessarily mean that we are going to be using XT.

X-POST

I doubt there will be another workable implementation ready by December. The only other one that I am aware off is Bitcoin Unlimited but I don't think it will be a popular choice.

A hard fork to XT is solely at the discretion of bitcoin miners and miners have shown they are opposed to XT and BIP 101 with their Coinbase votes.

Changing the blocksize to e.g. 2 MB required less than 5 minutes of work unless you're really bad at what you're trying to do; thus a workable implementation does not take much time. Implementing a BIP is something else. I also think that there is enough time to implement a working BIP in Core before Hong Kong, or something else. Don't listen to what Mike is feeding you. Just because he would not be able to finish it in time, that does not mean that someone else would not either. We should all be patient. We shall see where we should head after Hong Kong.

---

---

Update: Slight corrections. Waiting for a reply from someone who is not on ignore.

Don't listen to what blockthestream is feeding you.

I didn't really want to go into this discussions since I already had them with you at least 2 months ago.
I took a break from that, so I am not sure, if you have been still arguing all that time. For someone who is discussing this topic for such a long time, the statement "Changing the blocksize to e.g. 2 MB required less than 5 minutes of work" is just plain stupid. You should be aware, that it is not about changing the code, but also getting it to the nodes/miners, which is not a trivial task, everybody who works in Software Engineering knows that. I might even have pointed that out to you personally in the past.
So, could you explain to me, why you are making such a stupid statement? Are you really just an idiot?
Or maybe in your quest of kissing the core devs asses you just don't care of how stupid your statements are, as long as they show the greatness of you masters? Don't you see, that you lose every credibility with such a statement? Or maybe you are just trying to fool your sig-campaign employers into thinking that you are not just spamming the forum?
This are the only 3 possibilities I can think of.

I'm not saying that I can predict anything, only my opinion. (mind the I think part)

As for your opinion that miners do not give a shit about users is obviously wrong. Without an userbase/satisfied participants they have no bitcoin mining business.

Too big of a backlog certainly affects transacting entities negatively. Saying otherwise is BS. I think in a lot of scenarios it does matter how fast the tx gets included in a block.

Higher fees will lead to people searching a cheaper alternative. As for the amount of fees, it depends on the backlog and number of transacting parties. I think everyone shared goal is to have as many participants as possible, that will lead to more utility, more robust and stronger network and markets.

I think BIP101 is the best solution as it does not give more power to miners than necessary like bip100 (that would open up an other can of worms). I would love to see actual tests (testnet?) with unlimited blocks .

Mind that I'm open to alternatives, but the keeping of a crippling limit.

No, there is no significant progress. Other lateral progress could include CheckLockVerifyTime opcode has made it's way into version 0.12 of the core client, so the last of the barriers to using Lightning will soon be gone.

So, no substantial progress on the blocksize issue, but progress is being made on scaling solutions. Scaling solutions that are going to maintain mining decentralisation.

hopefully this will come to an end in december or january...  ::)

Your writing style suggest that your sentences are not connected. Thus the statement from the 3rd row was interpreted differently compared to the 2nd one. Yes, the people with the wealth care about the random peasants. It's always been like that. ::) I never said that a backlog of transactions has no negative effect. I said that it would not ruin businesses and definitely not quickly.  If someone is willing to sacrifice security because of being cheap enough to include $0.2 (random amount) in fees, then they can go ahead.

Unlimited blocks -> easy attack vector. With BIP101 blocks could become either too big or too small at any point in time which would cause harm. Have you not watched Montreal?

https://i.imgur.com/borwgER.jpg

The funny thing is that none of the alts have fixed this either!

Bitcoin XT has!

Unfortunately no one gives a f*ck about it  :-\

You are wrong.

Agree Bitcoin XT is the best option,the problem is evident 1mb It is not enough to provide a smooth operation

1 MB.. 1!..  Just 1!.. for a global payment network!!?? jesus christ..

Come on.. This whole situation with Core vs XT, all the bad blood etc, could have been diffused completely with ZERO risk if the core boys had simply bumped the min block size to 2 or (dare I say it 3) MB.

That's it. End of story. Finished.

Then they can take another few years on the REAL solution.

It is, IMHO, 'completely' an issue with the way CORE has handled this. XT is a symptom of their dithering..

' Geordie! - It's time to EJECT THE CORE '.. You can't have one in a decentralised system. Makes no sense.

..

This whole situation reminds me of the beginning of RAMBO : First Blood.

They could have diffused the situation, diffused HIM, let him slip through the net, and picked him up working in a gas station a couple of months later.

Instead - they chose to bring a LOT OF BODY BAGS.

Bad choice.

 ::)

Won't you stop getting your panties in a bunch and wait for responsible adults to weight the proper alternatives and analyse the best decision moving forward?

If you expect Bitcoin to grow exponentially and are afraid blocks are going to get filled up too quick what good is a linear 1mb increase?

By the way I'm pretty sure they are going to come up with a proposal that involves something like 30% growth YOY.

Be patient.

Not tonight dear

Waiting forever is irresponsible from a business perspective. End of story.

Enough patience, the deadline is December. Deal with it.

XT has code which blacklists IPs. Until that is removed, it can keep sinking to where it deserves to go.

EDIT: This is another unfortunate desire of Coinbase. They have a history of rejecting accounts due to tainted Bitcoins. IMHO this destroys the fungibility property of Bitcoin. If your BTC can be rejected because it was used for undesirable activities in the past (even if you had nothing to do with those activities) then your BTC is not worth the same as other BTC. It's also a form of censorship.

KNIGHT22 vs BURGER44!!

I love you guys..

..

I rest my case.

Bitcoin is not a business  :D

https://i.imgur.com/z5fxi5g.png

Deadline according to who? Brian Armstrong? Lel

IKR?  Armstrong the Pointed-Headed CEO needs to stop assclowning and go back to shitlording, his true area of expertise.

And why does he still like boring old XT, when "Bitcoin" "Unlimited" is all the rage (https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3rj8xl/i_forked_xt_and_removed_the_block_size_limit/) in Gavinista Circles?

He really must avoid interfacing with engineers.  It doesn't turn out well when that happens.

https://i.imgur.com/KHeQQhF.gif

https://i.imgur.com/Ai4QYWT.gif

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-technology-worth-nothing-interview-dark-wallet-front-man-amir-taaki-1412722833

Taaki made really good points in this interview.

Resembles a software engineering problem to me. "Rambo: First Blood", not so much. Who's John in this scenario, Gavin Andresen  ???

All you hand wavers are forgetting that the Core team are doing something about this. They're going slow. For a reason.

This is a consensus based network. It takes time to re-design a consensus network that's running 24/7/365. There's near enough zero room for screw ups.


The most simple feature to help handle increased transaction rates has been worked on for months now: the mempool limiter to mitigate spam attacks. Several different programmers went through several different design approaches, and finally arrived on an amalgamation of a few of those ideas some weeks ago. It takes a long time to get it right, and they took a long time. And the right solution will be version 0.12.

So be patient, bitcoin brings good thins to those who wait. We should all know that by now.

Well if they want to promote and stay on bitcointalk and r/bitcoin they are gonna have a hard time
Quote from theymos, reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3rejl9/coinbase_ceo_brian_armstrong_bip_101_is_the_best/cwo5okx

Actually, in this metaphorical scenario, John represents the 'Block Size Debate'.

The Cops / Military are the CORE team.

Just as in the movie, the cops handled Rambo badly, the CORE handled the 'Block Size Debate' badly.

Who's Gavin ? Hadn't really reserved him a spot.. Troutman !? As Rambo's original mentor.. (And the Original Bitcoin mentor, post-satoshi, as chosen by satoshi)

..

Hope that's all clear now.

Not really, haven't seen the movie. Address the part of my reply where I wasn't joking if you like.

You're saying "why not bump the size a little", but you've got no answer to the question "why not hit the spam more directly first"

Yes, core will be forced to raise the limit at least to 2 MB within the next 2-4 month.
They won't be able to prolong the stalemate ("which is their preferred outcome" iCE) by doing nothing and endlessly talking.

So, if Coinbase promote XT on their own website, they get banned from reddit? Has theymos gone completly insane?

For once, you're right. I think the above is a highly likely outcome, and combined with the mempool limiter, we should see the transaction rate become less pressurised. Next stop lightning hubs.

I doubt that a 2 mb kick the can down the road will satisfy the big boys enough to not fork on Core. Time will tell. Shortly.

Even without those features XT stands for 8 GB blocks.

In 20 years...

Remember that you're not misquoting me, you're misquoting your friend.

Theymos is being logically consistent with his previously stated position w/r/t moderating off-topic XT altcoin shilling.  That is the opposite of "completely insane."

Fuck Coinbase, fuck Circle, and (most of all) fuck Goldman Sachs.

Fuck the King.  Kill the Masters.

Peter R. Rizun at Scaling Bitcoin Montreal 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad0Pjj_ms2k

Peter R's mojo is made potent by an economically and technically illiterate audiences who lack critical thinking skills and the ability to generate unique thoughts on their own.  And to the fact that some segment of the population is drawn to shiny and colorful things which itself is an artifact of our simian ancestry where nature selected individuals who were able to identify fruit which was ripe.  Fortunately for Peter R the world is full of such people.

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

I see a lot of name calling, but can't see any actual arguments...

Name calling is the best argument small block proponents have in their pocket. 

Peter's "spherical blockchains" theories have been thoroughly debunked throughout various forums, mailing-lists and irc chats.

Don't blame it on us if you're late to the party.

It's great that the small blockers expose themselves over and over again.

Funny, that is how I perceive things as well when I present a risk mechanism.  Blank stares follow.  But I'll pop one out again.  I (unlike Peter R) will not waste a lot of time going over econ101 material.

Economies of scale favor those who are positioned to monetize various aspects of a crypto-currency ecosystem using the very same tools and techniques which have been used to support other communication modes (e-mail, web search, etc.)

Such entities will force all other infrastructure support actors who are driven by a profit motive out of the market.  This will leave the entire infrastructure support in the hands of a few entities who are themselves completely dependent on the pleasure of the state to operate.  Long-sought items such as black/white-listing and intensive tracking are almost certain in such an environment.  This will kill one of the only practical advantages that Bitcoin as a native system has.  (And for Peter R, Hearndresen, etc it will be 'mission accomplished' I strongly suspect.)

I've never seen any effort to address this danger from the Bloatists at all, much less engineer against such an eventuality.  That's one of the main reasons for me to believe that such a failure is 'not a bug but rather a feature.'

"Peter's "spherical blockchains" theories have been thoroughly debunked" they not his theories. They are part of Bitcoin's intensive system as designed by Shatoshi! He just showed them to you.  

Satoshi's Bitcoin intensive structure is not yet broken dispirit all your name calling.

lots of ignorent people call bitcoin's incentive structure broken and say Satoshi was wrong.

the reason your debunking stays hiddenin obscure forums, mailing-lists and irc chats is it wont stand up to the cleansing that is provided by sunlight.

Yes, Peter's charlatanism was indeed very useful in describing how fragile the incentives behind the systems are and how stupid it would be to leave the block size unbounded.

You know the part he likes to gloss over about negative externalities? Yep, that part.

nop. Just smoke and small block screen.

Bitcoin's alkalis heel is centralized development and decision making.  And you not helping.  

 ???

Bitcoin's Achilles' heel is the consolidation centralization of its governance into the hands of a few corporate organizations by way of making access to a full node impossible for individuals.

Satoshi never designed Bitcoin for your free shit nodes army. That was never intended as everybody knows here, including the blockstream shills.

There is a solution already in the alts; however, if applied to Bitcoin, it comes at a very high price namely going over the 21 million maximum number of bitcoins.

One way to fix this problem in a proof of work coin is to combine adaptive blocksize limits with a permanent minimum block subsidy. One alt, Monero, has done just that by combining the adaptive blocksize limits in Cryptonote (A quadratic formula that penalizes over size blocks by reducing the block subsidy) with a permanent minimum block subsidy. The original Cryptonote adaptive blocksize limits, as for example they are implemented in Bytecoin, fail when the block subsidy runs out. The penalty function simply does not work when there is no block subsidy. The key problem is that there is no clear way to establish a fee market in the absence of a block subsidy, and at the same time allow for the blocksize to grow. This is in my opinion the real reason why so many of the core developers are "dragging their feet" on this issue. Dodgecoin has a permanent minimum block subsidy but no adaptive blocksize limits; however one can argue that introducing adaptive blocksize limits is a much lesser violation of the social covenant than increasing the overall money supply.

As for some of the proposed fixes we have:
Bitcoin Unlimited: The same problem as Bytecoin, and most other Cryptonote coins except Monero, only worse since there is no penalty function. Some however will argue that orphan blocks do create an effective penalty function; however this effective penalty function is also dependent on a block subsidy.
Bitcoin XT / BIP 101: The effectively pushes the problem into the future by replacing the 1 MB blocksixe limit with a 8 GB blocksize limit over a period of 20 years
BIP 100: This effectively creates a mining cartel, where the miners effectively raise fees to maximize their profits at the expense of the rest of the network.

I'm gonna keep this quote close. Thank you.

So just in order to clear the air you confirm that you vision of Bitcoin is one of mega data centers running full nodes with every individual users all over the world using SPV?

Basically yes, the same vision Satoshi had and we all bought in. Unless you have something better to propose that is not vaporware as of right now?

That kind of fork never happened before so no.

Satoshi's vision was dependent on SPV having fraud proof level security which it does not and we have little idea how to implement with current technology.

It's not like nodes will turn out as data centers by tomorrow, even with bigger blocks we are years away from that. That gives plenty of time to improve security of SPV clients which is already good.

Also, it's not because we get bigger blocks that we can't still find solutions to keep the blockchain as small as possible. Everyone agrees that it is a good thing. It’s not because solutions aren't available now that they won’t arise in the future.

THis is pretty much the end of the debate right here, nothing else matters.  The idea of blacklisting coins, go make some shitcoin.

Just turn it off. It's that simple.

https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/issues/40

Oh how I wish the Bitcoin community would shun Coinbase...  Everything about that company is pure evil.

They are not alone on that boat you know?

http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

Scust. A bunch of banking parasites pretending to be important.

No that won't work. That prevents your node banning others, not yours from getting banned. XT users will have to live with little to no Tor connectivity.

LOL. This is Bitcoin -  not communist coin.

Only when nodes are being under DDOS attack.

Wrong again, XT node operators can decide to disconnect Tor connected nodes as they please, doesn't matter whether there's a DDOS attack taking place or not. What happened to "Just turn it off. It's that simple."? Misleading statement, wasn't it? It literally isn't that simple, as you and I are demonstrating?

True but they are not disconnected by default. Secondly, people can run BIP101 nodes implemented on Core instead of XT. This anti-DDOS feature is not something set in stone.

Thankfully the same is true of the majority of Mike Hearn's attempts at design solutions.

Remind me again, what happened to "Just turn it off. It's that simple."?

This is so stupid. It is possible (but certainly not assured) that a coalition of Coinbase and some other big exchanges could apply enough economic pressure to force through a hardfork vis-à-vis the economic majority, but:

- If they fail, it will massively damage them.
- If they succeed, it will massively damage Bitcoin. A large percentage of users will refuse to switch, so they've automatically reduced the size of the Bitcoin economy -- both the price and their number of customers will go down. And BIP 101 itself is basically suicidal.

It looks like BitStamp is one of the most sane exchanges nowadays.

P.S. I was trying to find that quote from Gavin where he describes his vision of Bitcoin's future as being one where full nodes are only run by what are essentially banks. It was several paragraphs long. Does anyone have that?

Maybe you are referring to something that even Satoshi said.
As I remember correctly, he even thought that even different continents could be concurring on the mining, but it has passed a lot of time...

Anyway, you should jump out of your bubble and see who and what is really damaging the community.

Make your statements as you are doing, but let the others doing it also.

Are you trying to find what Gavin expanded on that matter? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306

XT is just another e-currency controlled by Gavin&Co.... Co = Coinbase and other big exchangers.

XT has nothing to do with BTC. It modifies the BTC core to become something different. :)

Say the idiot himself.

Calling something stupid while the whole community calls you idiot....

I suggest that we (all bitcoin users not just the miners) decide now what limit we need now. In 20 years we decide what limit we need at this point in time or if we don't need a limit anymore. With bitcoin we don't need a master that tells us what we have to do. Only slaves have masters.

I like BashCo's epic dressing down of the Gavinistas.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3rlkh2/adam_back_says_there_is_vote_manipulation/cwpcopq

you mean satoshi? The post you linked is by Satoshi:

Exactly. The idea that Einstein, Satoshi or anyone else can predict what Bitcoin is going to need even 5 years from now is a joke, and yet Gavin Andresen seems to think he can predict the next 20 years. A better idea is needed than static, scheduled increases (especially overly-aggressive increase schedules).  

Well, too bad but Bitcoin is allready in hands of the Elite...

If they want XT for more\better\full control, then XT it WILL be.

Too bad, but bitcoin is just another instrument to rule markets.

For them but not for me and not for the rest of the users.

It seems to me that there is a new round of Bitcoin XT debate coming to us as the end of the year is nearing. I am sure that propaganda will do its job!

The premise that thermos is in a "bubble" is fallacious because it is ad hominem.  Let's be rational and communicate in good faith, instead of arguing about who is or isn't in a bubble.

Bitcoin, inclusive of its community, is antifragile.

We REQUIRE adversity such as the attempted Gavinista governance coup and attempted hostile XT fork to grow stronger.

When you whine about "really damaging the community" what jumps out at me is your gratuitous use of the utterly unnecessary term "really" to modify "damaging."

"Really damaging?"  As opposed to what, fake damaging or trivially damaging?   ::)

Such linguistic cues betray the fact you know your argument is very weak, so you (consciously or not) puff up your rhetoric with feeble attempts at impact exaggeration.

https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FlkEVzLp.jpg&t=558&c=I4YruiduF900Bg

Uuuuh, ad hominem against the Greatest Censor of Bitcoin History ...

You know your argument is very weak, so you (consciously or not) puff up your rhetoric with feeble attempts at impact exaggeration.

Is a split in the community really worth it? I imagine that such changes could ruin the bitcoin price.

Not everything is about the price. It would damage every aspect of the Bitcoin ecosystem. I do not understand why anyone in their right mind would want everything to split up. You do not take over by force. Either gain consensus with the right features, or stop what you're doing. I do agree that the Core development could increase their pace, however with proper testing. I'd rather have a slow development than implementations of possibly damaging code.

---

---

Censorship.  ::)
https://i.imgur.com/W1739Uq.jpg

Fuck XT and fuck Coinbase. If you want to promote a fork, come up with something better than BIP 101 and Hearn's crap.

Thats sad but its true.
Anyway most people don't care to cast vote (so its no)

Forkers should fork off.

May they have coinbase goldman sachs too.

Interesting theymos seems to like stamp. I sure hope they would not go jack nut along with them forkers.

These relentless corporatist shills are exhausting, yet, what cant kill bitcoin makes us stronger!  8)

I am happy to be siding with the cyptherpunks and not the money-hungry suits and US gov (or other gov) boot lickers ('please regulate us', yuck ::) ).

I prefer the cyptherpunks whose priority is privacy and keeping Bitcoin as hard to control as possible.


 The funny thing is the suits chase the $$$, but its having a currency that can not be controlled by any gov, that protects users privacy, and gives users control, that is what will create value. Like always in business, its people who focus on providing value not the people who chase money, that actually make the big $$$.


On a related note.

Do the people at coinbase have any idea, how it would look to the rest of the world, if their take over is successful?? To China To Russia, To India.

So instead of anti-gov cyptherpunks, we gonna have people who go visit the CIA regularly, empowered and paid for by boot-licking US big companies. How does that look to the rest of the world?



I don't want some paypal 2.0 customised to the whims of US government. I don't want their fucking coin. I love Bitcoin I will not love their US centric, more centralised coin. The rest of world is sick of US dollar. Coinbase and buddies can go and piss off.  

I am sticking with cyptherpunks.

Preach.

Very disappointed to see Adam Back of all people conceding the (politicized, strategic, colloquial) use of "censorship" as synonymous with forum moderation.

Time to start mocking everyone who uses the more provocative, inflammatory term with not only that classic XKCD, but also with pictures of actual Sensor Ships.

Like this.

definitely seems to be a coordinated ramp-up in the big-block agit propaganda ... just like near the beginning of the year.

I suppose when all you have is mouthpieces, but not brains, you have to use your mouthpieces.

Is that what you're using?

lol! you just refute your own words within 3 seconds. amazing.

Well, what he is doing is not really censorship, he believes xt is an altcoin therefore anyone who posts or talks about it in the bitcoin section will get removed. It happens already with any altcoin, if you start a discussion here about litecoin it will get removed because it is an altcoin. By your logic, any deleted post about any altcoin is censorship.

Forget it. Just one example: The second most viewed thread has not just been moved. It has been locked. You can't fool all the people all the times. The tide is turning.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/

Ita fiat.  ;)

no he did not, do you speak english?

Coinbase is like a shitty bank. Bitcoin was created to be a free system. These two , are opposite entities.

Coinbase is monitoring your transactions, it's reporting you to Feds and so on...Why would I use Coinbase instead a normal credit card?

We can't have big blocks because big blocks will centralize nodes and kill any hopes of a decentralized blockchain. It's pretty damn simple yet some people refuse to ignore this very crucial fact, for some reason.

ecause normal credit cards can monitor your transactions as well, you should get rid of everything that has to do with the fiat system, and use only a wallet to spend your bitcoin

which is what everyone use bitcoin, should do

I have write this before i will write it again. It seems that the business ecosystem around bitcoin are desperate to take control of the source code of it with their own developers etc. This is a fight for the soul of bitcoin. And it is clear who is with them like Roger Ver, Mike Hearn, Gavin Andressen and many more.

It is true only to some degree. 1 MB is definitively insufficient, and 8 MB is bit bigger than necessary for now but still much better than 1 MB... So if there will not be consensus soon to what value/method increase the maximum blocksize, Im confident XT client wins next year because no other working solution is ready. And XT is not big deal, if necessary, the XT maximum blocksize growth can be modified later

War!

is now war but i think this business operators did not understand that bitcoin and the people that using don't need anymore the old financial system. We want to change it or to completely destroy it and create something new.
Instead in their opinion bitcoin must change to be a small part of this old system. this is wrong.

Exactly.

If you want to understand the behavior of Andresen, Hearn, and Ver* you should continue reading here:

http://www.minddisorders.com/Kau-Nu/Narcissistic-personality-disorder.html

The outlook that their condition will improve is not too bright:


(*) Now also known as Vearndresencoiners.

ya.ya.yo!

Nicely put.

These people who instinctively map tech sector domain lessons to distributed crypto-currency activities disgust me even more than the slimy scammers in the ecosystem.  Those who march in from success in the tech sector and presume to be able guild the solution along the lines of their past activities are even worse.

Even if these slime do ultimately manage to sow and cultivate the seeds of Bitcoin's destruction I'll at least be able to take some solace in having put some of their money in my own pocket.  Crypto with a defensible core and scaling by subordinate chains is a genie which cannot be put back into the bottle.  It would be handy for me if the defensible core were Bitcoin, but it is not necessary.

Who needs Coinbase? Hodl forever!

Certainly not Bitcoin.

Coinbase serves the purpose of dampening down on the developments alternate markets.  That's why it works fairly well here in the U.S..  It simply limits the growth in certain areas while corp/gov gets their ducks in a row in certain ways, and relatedly, helps tread water until the hammer comes down on internet freedoms which allow P2P to be functional.

It can be suggested that I personally am part of the problem because I use Coinbase's service, they being the path of least resistance (and me being clean and willing to pay taxes.)  I would not argue this suggestion.

I will be delighted if I can utilize my BTC stash by moving it through sidechains and hopefully use it more directly and cut out the fiat hop.  This will reduce my need for Coinbase and their ilk.  Coinbase and allied entities (e.g., the corporate banking world and government) probably do recognize that there are people in this category and consider it a danger to their control and to their profits.

There are people who tried to vote, but were unable to do so because their mining node or pool that had been supporting BIP 101 was DDoS'd.  A good example is Slush's pool.

https://mining.bitcoin.cz/news/update-bip101-voting-disabled-because-of-ddos-attack/

going against consensus has a cost \_(ツ)_/

Coinbase is the last company in the Bitcoin ecosystem I would ever touch. Closing accounts by weird reasons, coin tracking etc etc.The list is long and the complaints about them can be read here and on reddit.
Armstrong can say whatever he wants. I will give a **** what he has to say.

Yeah, I don't personally understand why people don't learn the leson and just make the effort to be their own bank by controlling their own local wallet, but some people just doesn't like the idea. If I wanted to have my BTC outside, I would trust Xapo before Coinbase for sure.

You are right but almost nobody listen. I said the same since 2 years ago. A bunch of people are controlling the ecosystem.

The big exchangers like Coinbase, Bitstamp, OKcoin, Bitfinex, BTC China HAVE THE SAME SHAREHOLDERS(behind the scene) ! :)

Also, these shareholders are controlling the BTC media like Coindesk and SatoshiDICE.


I think most of the people are blind or they dont' care. BTC is becoming a centralized system.

i dont think so. They dont have so much power in their hands. They need the customers or people to use their business and they know if they try to take control of bitcoin core will split community and they will lost their money. I think we are in Nash equilibrium state.
The block size iwll be increase but not because the market want it but because bitcoin need it. is simple.

+1

Do they also have bitcoins? Cause if they dont....

http://media.giphy.com/media/RX3vhj311HKLe/giphy.gif

Much less than with blockTHEsteam though.

I'd like to be included on this list please lol ;D ::)

Don't worry; you already are.

cant believe this staff person to be so dull.

You are wrong,there is a problem and in my opinion only XT is a serious proposal

you'll be forking off soon then. january here we come! :)

Forking = THE END of Bitcoin

Forking = people will migrate to an ALTcoin (like XT). You can do that now. You don't have to wait until January.There are plenty of Alt coins :)

Only for those who follow the fork.

We others will be much better without them.  8)

Indeed, no need to keep  them braindamaged corporatists redditard whatnots into bitcoin, pretending they represent its community somehow, and whilst using socialist pseudo democratic brigading & voting mechanism to impose their shitty govcoin.

Fork them parasites into oblivion already.

can you be any more stupid?

you surely can.

you think a fork can kill bitcoin ?

Yes if enough people switch over to the new blockchain

i think yes. We will be a economical disaster for bitcoin and will create a chaos in value of bitcoin. There will be some months maybe years with two sepearate bitcoin that will run together. Don be so sure that one part or another will accept to join the fork even it has the 75 or 80% mining power. To fork bitcoin is not about miners as Gavin and Hearn think but is very very complex situation.
Take a look and this great video lecture from coursera for this matter.

https://youtu.be/AikLs1P4_PA

Who is Brian Armstrong in the grand scheme of things?

Brian Armstrong (aka Coinbase) and 99% BTC media belongs to some morons called "the shit elite"(Coinbase, Bitstamp, BTC china, OKcoin, Ripple, Bitfinex = all these have the same shareholders).

So, the propaganda is about to begin.

Ripple lol.

Ripple takes space over Bitcoin every time it (Bitcoin) doesn't offer a good result to his customers.
How can you put it with them? ::)

ripple offers already all the centralization and free loading mass transaction bullshit you seem to care for.

so why you still here?

because this is their hidden agenda. To transform bitcoin to a new ripple system

Have you just read how does it works Liquid? ::)

Some of you clearly live in fantasy world.

and some of you it seems that will never let to change this financial system world...I cant understand if you want a digital banking system with central bank etc why are you involved in bitcoin?

You didn't answer to my question.
Maybe you even don't know what it is Liquid, and then it even more funny when you claim that BIP101 is something that is pushing Bitcoin to be more like Ripple.

Unless a node is doing mining, why should it limit the block size? Block size is determined by what the majority of miners accept.  Other nodes are just slaves of the miners.

It is called validation because if some peer you are connected to you is going to start throwing huge blocks at you then they are chewing up your bandwidth with rubbish (same as sending you huge txs with no fees, etc.).

Full nodes will necessarily perform such validation in order to reduce potential DoS attacks (am surprised that you hadn't already realised this).

For SPV usage there is much less validation going on (which is why SPV mining is such a bad idea).

Because mining nodes are subsidized while the other full nodes on the network, who are essential to Bitcoin's censorship resistance, are not.

Do you want to centralize node control over to mining nodes?

great point! Indeed, the are sick. :)

-He or she has a grandiose sense of self-importance (exaggerates accomplishments and demands to be considered superior without real evidence of achievement).
-He or she lives in a dream world of exceptional success, power, beauty, genius, or "perfect" love.
- He or she thinks of him- or herself as "special" or privileged, and that he or she can only be understood by other special or high-status people
- He or she is exploitative towards others and takes advantage of them.
- He or she "has an attitude" or frequently acts in haughty or arrogant ways.

Are't these common to those...so called "elite shit" who say that they represent BTC? Remember their interviews, their speeches.

They only want to control Bitcoin. Who are they? Look to the big exchangers' shareholders(they are the same; as I stated in a previous post). They are "they" :)
All of them are connected. It's not a theory of conspiration. It's the pure truth with facts.

You should be blind or ignorant not seeing that.

Giving node control to miners is not centralization unless you believe miners are centralized. If you believe miners are centralized, then what does it matter if the nodes are also?

We don't need change we're not ready for. The 1MB Block size symbolizes not only a technological limitation on the network, but a limitation of the capability of the community.

We don't have a proper solution to the Block size increase yet. We also need to address node incentives (if we're to implement hard forking change). Satoshi said he believes we need a way to incentivize the propagation of fresh transactions to the network.

Has anyone read the white paper on Bitcoin and red Balloons? 

Was

I do believe mining is a dangerously centralized business which is why the nodes are required to keep this inherent economy of scale in check.

Mining centralization can only affect the network to a certain extent. Centralization of governance (full nodes) implies that they get to change the rules as it pleases them. Not a risk I wanna take.

Again with politics. Why do you insist that governance has anything to do with Bitcoin? You can change rules on your own miner or node, but you can't force anyone else to change them too.

Yes. Some Bitcoiners hate choice.

Some of them don't:

"I will argue that it is more important that nodes follow the longest chain composed of valid transactions than dogmatically adhere to an arbitrary block size limit. I will end my talk by proposing a simple change for bitcoin software to allow a node operator to express his free choice regarding the size of blocks he is willing to accept while simultaneously ensuring that his node tracks consensus."

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3s525y/the_size_of_blocks_policy_tool_or_emergent/

Coinbase and their shitty shareholders can use XT without any problem. Why do they ask to for a fork? They can no longer accept Bitcoin and they can only accept XT. Simple!

This rule is available to anybody. Use any ALT COIN you wish(like XT, Litecoin, Shitcoin, PissCoin, etc) but don't require for a fork.

That makes absolutely no sense - if your node is not going to accept a large block due to his "free choice" and yet that large block becomes part of the consensus chain then exactly how is that node supposed to "track consensus"?

Everyone understand that these discordances are only bad for bitcoin. I cannot understand how is possible that all these people who live with and mainly for bitcoin cannot find a solution for a so "easy" problem. The actual size of blocks is a problem which affect all the activity of bitcoin. Most of technicians of this field agree that the actual size is more problem than good for bitcoin. Hours to have confirmation. Most of the developers of bitcoin accept the fact that needed an increase of size of the blocks. Size less, size more, them accept the increase of block size. Why don't agree? Why don't be able to collaborate and arrive at an unique conclusion about such important thing which have months of discussion and risk the sure future development of bitcoin? I cannot understand such behavior. Seems like children which quarrel about the size of their ice cream and not for the future of a such important invention like bitcoin. Very bad. Very irresponsibly. Very risky. When and how will finish?

we're learning not everyone understands how bitcoin works, ego is not part of bitcoin, yet it seems to have latched on where there is weakness, its' a good thing it'll either kill bitcoin or make it stronger.

In my view small blockists just need to digest whats been said, we now wait a little, while egos settle, then we can move on.

You are right that ego is not part of Bitcoin. Bitcoin also doesn't wait for egos to settle down, it waits for consensus. In the marketplace of ideas, usually the mediocre ideas win because sales, marketing, and profit margins. Egos are very good at selling mediocrity at a hefty profit margin.