Bitcoin Forum

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

Typically CEOs are psychopaths and now they are circling around Bitcoin and trying to fuck it up.

I think we should remember that Gavin and Mike have aligned themselves with such psychos and in fact are wanting to control Bitcoin themselves (so perhaps themselves are wannabe psychos).

IMO Bitcoin does not need psychos (feel free to rant).

Seems obvious that the powers that be are scared as hell of Bitcoin and have an agenda to centralize Bitcoin as much as possible to control it at will. Just look at videos like this:

http://fortune.com/video/2015/11/04/jamie-dimon-youre-wasting-your-time-with-bitcoin/

They are scared and want to do something about it, a trojan like XT and or big ass blocks seem like the best way to stop Bitcoin being decentralized.

Yeah they are psychopath because they don't want to see their investment vanish and their businesses to go bankrupt  ::)

Bitcoin is a free market tool. The industry will choose which implementation is best for it, not the other way around. Businesses needs capacity, that's all. All the fear about centralization is no more than exaggerated FUD.

Oh - then why does Mike Hearn keep saying he doesn't have any much Bitcoin (and he is not the owner of any business is he)?

Isn't there already a CEO in charge of bitcoin, the Blockstream CEO?

How dare another CEO wanting to control bitcoin?!

No, he is just a coder. Who he are, what he does in his life and how much bitcoins he hold is irrelevant to the code that will be used by the industry.

So he is not relevant to your comment about "their investment vanish" - who is (my guess - the people that pay him)?

Apart from babbling about the necessity of BIP 101, what they can do against the will of the majority? If they can't persuade the miners they can keep talking what they want and as much they want but that's not going to move their case anywhere.

Well, all the scam mining companies that robbed us collectively out of massive sums of money with their lies are definitely sociopaths and probably psychopaths too.

If the businesses that sells the most coins to the public decide to fork, miners will follow. There is no doubt about that.

I don't see any Chinese following this - so no - total US attempt at a takeover that will lose (you seem to have not understood that the most BTC is being traded in China not the US).

I'm not sure to understand you point. I don't think Mike Hearn is being paid by anyone of these businesses. At least not of right now.

So you think he works for nothing?

(I'd suggest you look a little deeper)

Miners will go where the big bucks are. Plain and simple. Or put it simpler, hash rate will go where the big bucks are, irrespective of the actual Chinese miners.

And why should only one company be deciding bitcoin development, every player in the business should have an input.

Coinbase business is injured because all of these delays in transaction confirmation, and this is happening because Blockstream hijacked bitcoin development and are now creating a necessity for their business by not increasing block size.

And you're right there's very little they can do, íf a company wants to have anything to say about the bitcoin development it has to buy all the developers, touché Blockstream.

The "big bucks" are in China (another plain and simple point you seem to have missed).

How did BTC ever get to over 1000 USD - China - how has BTC suddenly jumped up in value recently - again China - you seem to really have a trouble with China.

Don't like Chinese people?

My guess is that the Chinese exchanges will follow too as they also need capacity for the exact same reasons.

My guess is that the Chinese are not going to be bullied by the US and there is no actual need for the capacity (as trading on exchanges is not done on the blockchain).

Very few people are actually using BTC for normal txs - it is simply not convenient and the fees to get your BTC make it actually a stupid idea (this whole argument about needing more volume of txs is actually just rubbish).

Please stop this nonsence. Litecoin proved Bitcoin can switch to 4MB with no security risks. Actually it would be highly beneficials for Bitcoin users to have 4MB maximum blocksize right now because it means your transaction does not need to wait few blocks because blocks are full already quite often (I saw last six blocks each 950KB recently  :().

How they would fork without miners? In these days China moving the bitcoin scene, without them it's not going to work. BTW they not going to follow. They will add BTC-XT as a new coin and going to make money from BTC/BTC-XT speculation :).

No one is bulling anyone. This is open source technology and people are free to do whatever they want. The biggest US companies have decided to fork because Core does not responding to their needs. Well then, be it.



This is your opinion which a lot of people and businesses disagree with. Feel free to ignore those who find bitcoin convenient and want to do more tx with. Now they are forking you.

You say so and so do others wanting to control BTC but the fact is that I don't know *anyone* that uses BTC to buy anything beyond the members of this forum.

Even Microsoft *dropped* BTC as a payment option (and they are not the only company to do so) as basically no-one is using it.

There's nobody against increasing the block size in a well planned, consensus based manner. What many of us up against is hijacking development, hijacking the blokchain and forcing a minority opinion to the majority for the sake of the financial interests of that minority.

You nailed it!

As of right now, but businesses that are investing at putting rails to make it happen in the near future and bring the mainstream to use it through their services needs more capacity. They won't let their investment go away, they will use the code that meets their needs. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about that.

They don't need to "take over the coin" in order for that to happen. Why can't you understand that there is no need to rush to do this (except that it seems you are a shill for XT)?

Do you have any metric that demonstrate who are the majority and who are the minority? I'm sure you don't.

Bitcoin is money and money makes business happen. Businesses rely on timing their operations and Core fail to meet that timing. They are now forking, deal with it.

There is a need to rush it, from a business perspective. You just fail to understand that part and why all of this is happening.

This is exactly the sort of psyco behaviour I am talking about - "deal with it". :D

Deal with the fact that you will lose!

We are not going to be bullied by the likes of XT or its shills.

Bitcoin doesn't need to be "rushed to market" - only the pyschos are trying to do this in order to take it over.

The only thing psycho here is people ignoring the needs of the market and being all over the place because that market is now moving away.

So yeah, deal with it. No one will lose anything else but their ego and businesses don't care about yours.

I see - so your argument now is just reduced to throwing insults. :D

Am not surprised because there really isn't any other valid argument at all.

How is that an insult?

How about you actually provide a valid argument that doesn't talk about "egos"?

It is rather clear that you are a shill - but at least you should have better "shill arguments". :D

Yes, there are some exact metrics on http://xtnodes.com/ (http://xtnodes.com/). As you can see XT adoption is 7.7%. I think it's safe to call that a minority.

They can fork if they want, I can't wait. Just do that. With merged mining both coins are minable what means double profit, in addition I still have high hopes for double spending my coins by buying LTC on both blockchains with the same BTC :).

Agreed - I will be happy to take their funds and then spend them again on the "real blockchain".

My argument is that you people think that the free choice = hijacking.

You want people to be forced down your path while they don't so it just won't happen. You'd better accept that sooner than later.

You only have 7-8% of people - so we'd better accept that this low percentage should rule Bitcoin?

In your dreams (you are starting to look ridiculous - hope that your shill masters are not reading your poor posts). :D

Any source of these metrics? Anyway, it's not a majority of people that counts, its the economic majority.

There are links to show that hardly any miners are signalling BIP101 support - and you are very wrong about the "economic majority" - just shows that you don't even understand how Bitcoin actually works (typical of a shill).

This is the typical mindset of the wealthy - I have the money so I make the rules - Bitcoin is going to make these people "wake up".

Again, miners only care about money. They will follow the money regardless of their opinion on this issue. I would argue that you don’t understand how economic and human nature actually works.

I am not the one shit scared about the fork. I know what my needs of the blockchain are and which path I will follow and I actually don’t care what will happen to the other chain. Will it survive or not? I don’t care and I won’t be using it as I will be in the camp that needs more capacity as of right now.

That is the camp of non-existence really - as no-one needs more capacity now. The blocks are not even being filled at 1MB (only the spam attacks made that even look like it was happening).

So you guys invent a non-problem - create a bunch of hysteria about it and then threaten to fork.

Go fork yourself!

Personally I think you are a bunch of gutless people as you don't actually do what you threaten (why not fork tomorrow?).

Well im afraid only if bitcoin will go right way in future. We need bigger blocks, 2 MB for start would be enough :/

http://meaningness.com/metablog/geeks-mops-sociopaths

There you go: http://xtnodes.com/ (http://xtnodes.com/).

To support your claim about the economic majority could you provide some metrics about the number of coins stored in BIP 101 wallets compared to the number of coins stored in legacy Core clients, please?

Thanks.


Of course he can't and won't - he is a shill and isn't interested in science but politics.

I'd disagree. Bitcoin has value due to bitcoin holders. If miners mine something bitcoin holders don't like, they will dump the coin and put them out of business. If you want to get an idea of what economic majority wants, you can use something like this: http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/bip101-is-better-than-bip100

OP does not (want to) listen.

You seem to be rather seriously deluded.

If you have a bunch of BTC then you'd rather have smaller blocks to help keep the value of your BTC high (like gold).

Allowing a huge number of txs will do nothing to enhance the value at all.

Perhaps someone should ask MP, TAT and few other whales to cast a vote on this argument... :).

Unless they have their own mining farms then why on earth would that even matter?

Some people just don't seem to *get* Bitcoin at all - they think that the rich can rule it like everything else before - sorry but you can't!

Satoshi promised that we'd get to watch them flounder and get rolled over by the bus as they (the psychopaths) try and control Bitcoin.

Because of some of the whales or groups of whales with clashing interests can use their forked/original coins to send exchange rates to the rock bottom on the forked chain while keeping the other chain on a higher value.

A load of rubbish - let's see them actually "try it" rather than just threatening it.

All I see is a bunch of psychopaths wanting to bully others - but they are going to lose (and we are going to laugh at them).

(they are so gutless that they don't even dare post themselves but hire shills to post for them)

Satoshi also said the blockchain size won't matter as it would be run on decentralized servers.

Your point being?

Are you still considering free choice to fork as bullying?

When you have less than 10% of support and rely upon CEO's to make ultimatums then *yes* I would call the bullying.

My point being that all the FUD around centralization because of bigger blocks is way over the top.

So it would be better if they have forked without noticed? Are you being serious?

Seriously - we are sick of the threat of forks - please "fork" and just see how you lose already!

(like typical bullies you think that these threats are going to intimidate us - but now you are learning that your threats are hollow)

WTF are you talking about?

BIP 101 is good only if 75% network adopts, as far as I now, that's a majority...

And where is it at now percentage-wise?

If it was just about that then we wouldn't need CEO's to be making threats would we (am guessing you didn't read the article that was linked in the OP)?

Little do you know Satoshi Nakamoto is a psychopath ;)

Well for a psychopath he seems to strangely not crave power or recognition (unless he plans to come back and control the world with his 1M+ BTC in a few years - and if he does just that then you will be correct).

Why you consider a fork as a threat is beyond me. Forking is the whole point of open source systems and if a fork happens, Core devs will be the sole responsible as they tried to hijack it.

You seem to be rather naive - if you fork Bitcoin then you are going to fuck up everyone's BTC.

This is not the point of Bitcoin at all - and if we had a bunch of forks then actually BTC would be worth nothing.

Perhaps you don't understand the difference between a "fork" and a "separate blockchain" (I really wish you'd learn about these things before spouting off about them).

A fork creates two separate blockchain AFAIK. Of course forking without consensus is undesirable but we are now at a cross road where no consensus will ever been achieve. There is no consensus for the status quo and small block proponents are about to understand what does that mean. Core have miserably failed to provide a compromised that would satisfy both camp on a timely manner. Bitcoin is not just a technical experiment, its is also a human behaviour experiment.  Now we are experiencing its teenage crisis and this situation is part of its maturation process. No one clearly knows how this will ends up but one thing is for sure, one side won't be able to drag the other one on its path. Unless Core come up with something that satisfy both camp before December, things will change for bitcoin as we know it.

Again - this is just bullshit that the proponents of XT have been using.

There is no rush to do anything by December at all - so go and fork and see how you lose please.

You guys are full of threats but have *no ability to actually do anything at all*. You have been *called out*.

I'll be interested to see the bullshit you post next year when your fork hasn't happened (let me guess - you'll be saying "by April" then "by July", etc.).

Achieving consensus is hard but this is exactly because your mindset that makes it impossible and why a fork without consensus will happen. Forking without consensus is trivial. It just requires the consensus of those who wants to fork.

Would you care to take a bet?

I'll wager 100 BTC that no successful fork will happen - can you match your opinion with your wallet?

They can. Welcome to capitalism. Bitcoin imposes rules that even rich have to obey. They can't just print Bitcoin out of thin air in order to maintain their dominance, and thus there is a shift of power from bureaucrats to people who now have a chance to get their share of the whole economy, that won't be diluted by monetary emission. Only efficient market players will become richer. The ones that can only steal and spend will loose their wealth and influence.

This statement I agree with.

Exactly.  Blockstream wants to own bitcoin via their bullshit attempts to limit blocksize making their product more useful.  That they reeled in so many suckers to get on their system is amazing.  There is no indicate whatever that 8MB is trouble.  Yet, Blockstream manages to convince everyone to break bitcoin with 1MB blocks so you can pay for access to Blockstream's 'fix'.  

Fuck Blockstream.  These guys are the devil.  

Mike Hearn, Gavin and Coinbase are trying to keep bitcoin working and you morons keep fighting them so you can give your money to Blockstream.  Holy shit - the stupidity in bitcoin is amazing.

That a fork without consensus will happen if Core doesn't come up with something? Maybe but I fail to see why I would bet on this as it won't change anything about the outcome.

As I suspected - you aren't willing to make a bet as you know you won't win.

There is no imperative for larger blocks sizes to appear by December - whether they do or not is not really of any concern to me but those that are trying to push this "has to be done next month all we all will die" story need to be told - shut up!

Bitcoin is working fine and will continue to do so without the need of control freaks.

Do you see how fucking ass-backward this logic is?

"The biggest US companies" have decide Bitcoin doesn't fit their need so they want to change it.

And you're saying Bitcoin should bend over and take it heh?

I never say I'm not willing, I'm only saying that I don't see the point. The only point that matters is that I am willing to fork for bigger blocks on the time being, which is December and I don't care about the rest. No one will lose anything but the other side. That is the cost of not being willing to move an inch to achieve consensus by the status quo. There is nothing to be mad at, this is just the cold plain reality.

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

You think these people are joking? I don't.

Nope. Bitcoin Core is free do to whatever they want and the industry is free to choose whatever implementation they want. They have spoken about what they want and they will fork if needed. That’s what freedom of choice means and represent and how things will turn out.

You know someone has completely lost touch with what Bitcoin is all about when he proposes that a bunch of VC backed corporations have the power to change Bitcoin rules to suit whatever it is they desire.

Coinbase has one vote in the matter : the node they run.

Blockchain.info has one vote in the matter : the node they run.

etc.

As you wish. Just wait and see.

Yes, I just can't wait to ridicule you and rub that shit in your face when you & bank shill Armstrong are told:

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

hopefully this discussion will come to an end in December or January  ::)

I agree


I disagree. It costs almost nothing to run a bitcoin node. Miners have much more influence on the outcome. I think it would be better if the rules could be decided by Bitcoin holders. They are the most interested to increase the utility of Bitcoin. That's why I think that:

http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/block-size-limit-should-be-increased-to-8-mb-as-soon-as-possible
http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/bip101-is-better-than-bip100

And I doubt that:

http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/bitcoin-future-should-be-decided-by-miners

PS: and I am pushing bitcoinocracy to see whether we can get an objective measurable cryptographically signed proof of bitcoin holders' opinion

Are you trying to say that psychopaths are bad? CEO's are good at what they do, that's why they are the CEO of their company. How do you know that these guys are going to come into Bitcoin and f*** it up? They might help out the Bitcoin community, you never know.