Bitcoin Forum

Again we have another "we must increase the block size ASAP" fork crap - under the most stupid name "Bitcoin Classic".

It's a "classic" alright - a "classic attempt to FUD people into letting a small bunch of wannabe Bitcoin overlords take over the project".

The blocks are not even nearly full most of the time (apart from attacks which are just spam being used to fill up the mempool for FUD reasons).

The reason that people don't use Bitcoin for normal txs is "why the hell would they?".

Even if a vendor were to offer a cheaper price for paying in BTC you still have to change your fiat into BTC to purchase from them (and then most likely BitPay or another provider is going to take at least 1% commission).

If you don't purchase your BTC via an exchange (and no average person is going to do that to just buy something) then most likely you are going to pay at least 5% commission - so if you are ending up with 6% commission - did you save anything from using a credit card?

Also you can't get a refund if you pay with BTC - so the masses are not screaming to pay with BTC at all (far from it - if it cannot be reversed then I suspect 99% of people would not want to use it as certainly every person I have spoken to does not like the idea).

Can we stop with the FUD and let the project just continue to improve the tech?

So - big block fans - where are the signatures of the clearly tens (or hundreds) of thousands of frustrated wannabe Bitcoin users that are only not using it because of the block size?

Of course there are none - the only people complaining about it are the payment processors hoping to get rich and those that are wanting to take control of the project.

It is good that Mike Hearn has left - but we still need Gavin to leave as well IMO (as he is not giving up trying to take over the project as is obvious from his quick change from XT to Classic).

Extortion attempt?

Huh?

(exactly what I am trying to extort?)

I see - you just like to call people things (I believe there are names for people like you but I'll refrain from saying them).

How about you try and just stay on topic and stop with the snide remarks (or is that too much to ask)?

I am going to respond to one of the OP's post, because he has a excellent point and I agree with him 100% on this. I know he hates signature posters and I am most probably on his

shit list, but I am going to ask in any way. Has anyone scrutinized the new proposal to see if any strange code has been added, like they tried with the XT proposal. {I refer to the

IP Blocking & options for tx reversal and blacklisting of coins } I still think he {Gavin} just opted for the middle ground on this whole debate, because it was the most popular option

to get his foot in the door. Things will then evolve from there to work towards a so-called hostile takeover.  >:(

I remember clearly the whole BIP 16 vs BIP 17 thing where Gavin attacked Luke-Jr with this topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=62037.0

This was the point that I lost respect for Gavin - attacking someone the way he did then just proved that he was not at all like Satoshi (show me any post where Satoshi behaved like that).

RBF is optional.
Block size is not.

It isn't the code that is the issue - it is the hostile takeover that is.

Clearly Mike was not as good at politics as Gavin so he tried to stuff in other changes (especially after XT was DDoS attacked).

Gavin has cleverly now gone with something that only changes the one thing (but more importantly puts him back in charge - after they take over who knows what will happen).

Optional in the sense that its very existence will change Bitcoin forever??

In the light of a serious discussion, what exactly is not bitcoin about opt-in rbf?

what is your problem with a bitcoin fork?
i think its the best way to decide blockchain related questions.

it may create a little confusion but that wont last long.

IMHO its the only way to decide such problems for once and forever without having FUDs later.

If Bitcoin Classic wins then Gavin is going to be the "benevolent dictator" (which I think has always been his desire).

Do you want him as the overlord?

I guess that is the question (personally I am happier with the Bitcoin Core team as it stands).

Both are forking anyway, thats hardly the point. Classic is going for a hardfork while core has a softfork ahead.

in case classic classic wins and gavin would act as a benevolent dictator it would just lead to another fork which fixes it.

Personally, I feel much safer at Blockstream's maternal bosom.  

You mean Bitcoin Classics existence would change Bitcoin?
Like XT did?  ;)

The core devs do not all work for Blockstream - perhaps you'd like to actually say the % of them that do?

Perhaps I'm misinformed. G.Maxwell is the CTO of __________?

Wow, old time Bitcoin hardliners are waking up. Well, that took long enough.

I've been saying for about four years that the Bitcoin economy only exists to give miners someplace to spend their mined coins. When that stops there won't be any economy unless something drastic happens. Before the government crackdown people would buy btc to spend on illegal onion network contraband. Now that's over. Does anyone really think people are wasting time buying Bitcoin to transfer a few bucks overseas or buy a gallon of milk? Surely no one here is really that naive.

CIYAM:

Do you think it is possible for Core, Classic and Unlimited to co-exist (image on right)?

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

@Peter R

You are always handy with pretty pictures - but pictures (and especially graphs) are what politicians use to trick people so please don't waste your time on creating pretty pictures for me.

Instead spend your time typing some text that actually means something.

(i.e. welcome to join in the debate but stop posting pictures and start typing text as I don't speak in pictures)

(if you are only good at communicating with pictures then maybe we need a translator to work between the two of us)

It is a little premature to dismiss Bitcoin Classic, the client has not even been released. Miners make the decision in any event. Miners clearly did not care for XT but want 2 MB blocksize now rather than later. If Classic gives that to them with a clean patch to Core the results could be interesting. Will just have to wait and see. I follow all this crap because I find it fascinating and the latest word on Slack is that Classic client will be released end of this month (which usually means two weeks later:) Time to stock up on popcorn.

It's getting hilarious at this point to be honest. They will run out of names, it's so obvious they think of "cool, marketable" names like XT or Classic. Anyone that wants to risk a hard fork for 1 MB increase when we have segregated witness now has a brick for a brain.

I can tell you with absolute 100% certainty what will happen.  People will use the code they agree with.  If developers of any client add code that users disagree with, they won't update to the new code.  Ergo, there's no such thing as a dictator in Bitcoin, benevolent or otherwise.  There's also no such thing as a takeover, hostile or otherwise.  There is only code and users freely choosing what code to run. 

Bitcoin is and should be whatever its users define by the code they run.  If you don't want people to have a choice, a closed-source coin would be far better suited to your goals.

What exactly isn't Bitcoin about 2MB blocks? RBF is an odd new feature nobody asked for. It changes Bitcoin a lot more than more transactions would.

If it was decided by the users then you would not have miners - so oops - you have made a mistake (so maybe you should be using an alt?).

I think the real issue between the parties is that:

Has the experiment now ended, agreed to be a success, and now the current model is the perfected final form?
Is it impossible now that there will be a point in time, when the current model will be changed to create larger blocks?
Is it too late now, mostly because of security and the vast financial interest in BTC, to change the model?
Is it too late now and all that is left to do is optimizations, bug fixes, and bitcoin associated side projects?

I think the real issue is whether Bitcoin/bitcoin can still radically evolve or should only conservatively adapt.

Is there the possibility of a middle ground here? If so, what would it be and when would it be implemented?

I think this is one of the main issues, in regards to this blocksize civil war.

Nodes are actually kind of important as well, to put it mildly.  Also, are miners somehow not users now?  Everyone running a full client, whether they're mining or not, has a role to play and a decision to make.  Those choices determine the rules that govern the network.

Those that are trying to make this out to be a "do or die now issue" are those that are trying to "take over the project".

Those that actually own Bitcoin don't really care about being able to buy coffee with it - they care about not losing the value of their investment (so they don't need to see the block size increase *next month*).

Don't trivialize this with coffee. This isn't your party anymore.

No so much - if you don't mine then you don't really decide much at all (and you can always more directly connect to a mining pool if you need to).

My party?
(it is my topic)

I don't get it. Perhaps you could just try and make a real point rather than some further jibe against me (not sure why you have something against me but I guess that's just how it goes).

If you don't like "my party" then you are welcome to go to another (am sure there are many others on this forum).

I think this whole debate is a big problem and there's fud coming from both sides and I guess with bitcoin meaning to be decentralized but at the same time having a handful of devs in charge is where there's a paradox and also where the problem is. How can anyone ever agree to something like this? People are always going to be biased and have their own financial interests and that's the big issue. This is why I don't like the Foundation as well as it has been taken over by those with financial interest in trying to steer bitcoin in a direction they want it to go to try maximize profit. I just wish they would increase the blocksize so we can all just move on. It needs to happen sooner or later but when or whether everyone agrees to it is another matter.

I have nothing against you. I have natural trollish tendencies. I'm working on that.  :-\

I'm saying this isn't about Starbucks. It's about payments being instant, easy, and much cheaper than a credit card settlement. Our priorities are at odds.

Bitcoin never set out to be an investment vehicle. It was created to be Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.
Try to understand that by making Bitcoin useless as a currency (buying coffee), you also destroy its value.

It has never been useful for buying coffee - so how can I be destroying its value for something that it has never been able to do well?

(it has been very useful to move money from one country to another with almost zero fees - so that has been something that I have not been able to destroy)

who owns bitcoin? who are "they" gonna take something over from? instead of throwing around buzzwords like "hostile takeover", why don't you try to explain what exactly is so bad about the proposed changes?

I guess we are yet to see what will occur - but currently my concern is that the "Classic" group are trying to replace the "Core" group.

If a "merger" were to happen then maybe that would be the best outcome.

Bitcoin's value is speculative: people speculate that, some day, it will be used as money. they invest (gamble) on that becoming a reality.
Like they invest in *any* startup. Like they invest in a car company which is yet to sell a single car.

Don't assume that people will line up to buy your car company shares, not once the possibility of making cars is off the table.

Yes, and being pressured off-chain to transact because there's limited space in the blocks would be a rather big loss of value to most people.  There are some people who would gain an advantage from deliberately keeping a small blocksize for as long as possible.  They often express their fondness for a privileged and elitist chain where it's mostly just whales and large companies moving massive sums from time to time.  If that heinous vision ever comes to fruition then it will no longer be an open system.  Choose your bedfellows wisely, as you risk setting a dangerous precedent if you stifle every potential fork by dismissing it as a takeover attempt.  Denying the freedom to choose now could bite you in the arse later and limit your own freedoms.  Now is not the right time to "set things in stone", as some have argued for.



Core could end this right now if they had posted something akin to this (https://medium.com/@ryanshea/the-scaling-announcement-bitcoin-core-should-have-made-146790f755df) as their scaling proposal.  But they didn't, so no deal.

core group replaced themselves when they joined the "blockstream" group. and then set their own agenda..

and to be honest it doesnt matter what the politics of the groups are, i dont care about the politics of gavincoin or blockstream coin.. when looking at sourcecode.. as long as the code of their implementations are clean, and the implementation "does exactly whats said on the tin".. then the social drama is meaningless..

i would prefer an implementation where there is a selection box for the user to decide what settings to allow, what rules to increase. that way they dont have to argue about which brand or social group to trust.. the user can just change it himself without going two flying F*cks about who made it
EG
https://i.imgur.com/cGt2eL5.jpg

@franky1:

I proposed something similar to your idea to the Core-Dev mailing list last night:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-266#post-9936

The email was rejected by the moderators and never went through.  Here's what it said:

PROBLEM:

Bitcoin Core has committed to NOT raise the block size limit in 2016; however, significant support exists for an increase to 2 MB via the new implementation called Bitcoin Classic.

If Core sticks to its scaling roadmap, all nodes running Core would be forked from the network should blocks greater than 1 MB be accepted into the longest chain.

If Core deviates from its scaling roadmap--for example by capitulating and mirroring Classic's 2 MB limit--it may be seen as weak-minded and less relevant.

SOLUTION:

Stick to Core's Scaling Roadmap HOWEVER add an advanced configuration window to allow node operators to increase their block size limits at their own risk. This would allow current Core customers to track the longest proof-of-work chain (regardless of the success of Bitcoin Classic), while simultaneously allowing Core developers to continue to work on the scaling roadmap that they’ve committed to.

This (https://medium.com/@ryanshea/the-scaling-announcement-bitcoin-core-should-have-made-146790f755df#.nrk6dliqq) would have been lovely!

and thats the solution i also thought of..
but funny that they rejected it to stick to their agenda

No, we don't need to increase the block size overnight. But I'd rather have it done in the next three month than in one year. Bitcoin will get a lot of publicity this summer and it will not offer sufficient space for the next breakthrough.

What about these empty blocks that are mined all the time now from 'rogue' pools, if this phenomenon increases it means the remaining miners must pick up the transactions. So if BTC hits it off even remotely with the general public, the problem will only escalate.

Ridiculous to call Classic a takeover attempt. It offers a solution to prevent the next crisis. Unless you believe - or rather want- Bitcoin to stay in a niche, Classic is the minimal consensus. So, stop whining unless you want to use this price depression to push down the price further with your FUD so you can load up at $250.

If my intention was to FUD the price lower then 250 would not be nearly low enough. :D

you gotta laugh though


then tell luke JR and the other mining pools that are all friends with blockstream to stop being so greedy with 4cents a tx minimum.. bring it down to 0.4cents.. TODAY

then come together and reduce the tx fee..

as for segwit.. there are easier ways to do this that by default sends out full tx data (including signatures).. without changing the merkle tree/blocks of that node.. but if lite versions want less bloat. they send a header command and the node sends out a truncated version purely for the benefit of that lite client. that way by default older non segwit clients get the same data as they always would with signatures.
because changing the merkle tree is just playing the 3shell game,, showing the ball is under one shell and trying to not let people see the bloat still exists if you look at all 3 as a whole.. which non-segwit implementations wont like


EG, imagine
TXDATABLAHBLAHANDSIGNATURES
TXDATABLAHBLAHANDSIGNATURES
TXDATABLAHBLAHANDSIGNATURES
TXDATABLAHBLAHANDSIGNATURES
=1mb data of: 4000 tx's with signatures

segwit hypothesises
TXDATABLAHBLAHANDSIGNATURES
TXDATABLAHBLAHANDSIGNATURES
TXDATABLAHBLAHANDSIGNATURES
TXDATABLAHBLAHANDSIGNATURES
TXDATABLAHBLAHANDSIGNATURES
TXDATABLAHBLAHANDSIGNATURES
SegwitLite receives 1mb data of: 6000tx's without signatures
segwit archival/non segwig receives 1.5mb data of 6000tx's with signatures..

I am not so sure about this.

At the end of the day, in order for the price of bitcoin to increase over the long term, it needs to be used by a larger user base, and each member of the user base needs to use it for a greater share of the total commerce they take part of. Both of these will require much larger block sizes.

I acknowledge this is not a statistically significant data sample, however as of block 393904, the smallest of the last 7 blocks was ~910 kb, and 3 were greater then 970kb. According to blockchain.info, there is roughly 8.8 MB worth of unconfirmed transactions (with total fees worth ~1.48 BTC) in it's mempool, and this is at a time when 3 blocks were found in the last 8 minutes.

When discussing the urgency of raising the block size, you need to remember that your "joe user" is not going to care about how long it takes on average to get a transaction confirmed, they are going to care about how long it takes their transaction confirmed. On the same subject, there will sometimes be "spikes" in the number of transactions per second, and if the maximum block size is not sufficient to get all of the transactions quickly confirmed during times of these "spikes" then it will create a negative user experience, and users may not wish to continue using Bitcoin.

I would also say, if, for arguments sake that the maximum block size does not need to be raised immediately, then is there any harm in raising it prior to it being necessary? I don't claim to be an expert, however I would think that the result of raising the max block size to 2MB prior to being necessary is that we would mostly see blocks that are under 1MB with an occasional ~1.95MB block that is the result of testing. 

This is not what I would agree with.

If I have 1 BTC then why do I need a bigger block size?

In time if my 1 BTC is going to buy me a house then the tx for buying that house will actually be tiny (it certainly won't require a bigger block size).

Ah, you're among those that think gold is not money but investment vehicle.

let's see what exchangers support this ALT coin...Coinbase, Bitstamp(Coinbase's twin brother, with the SAME investor behind) , BTC China... :)

If your goal is for your 1 BTC to be able to buy a house in the future, then the price of 1 BTC needs to increase.

The reason why the US Dollar is worth so much is because the US Dollar is used (and accepted) all around the world (it is used as part of a very high percentage of worldwide transactions). Many other government fiat currencies have similar correlation. It has often been speculated that new merchants accepting bitcoin would be positive for bitcoin's price.

Why would someone buy 1 BTC for several hundred thousand dollars (or a fraction of 1 BTC that makes 1 BTC worth several hundred thousand dollars)? The answer ultimately needs to be because they can spend parts of that 1 BTC at a wide variety of merchants and have the total cost be less then using credit cards and physical cash. In order for the price to go from ~$385 to ~$300k, a very large number of people need to buy 1 BTC, and as stated above, they will want to spend that 1 BTC.

Granted some people may buy 1 BTC in order to speculate that the price of BTC will increase, however the price increases from speculators is limited and there needs to be reasons other then speculation that the price of BTC will rise in the future to buy BTC.

Your transaction to buy your house is going to be a very small one (in terms of blockchain size), however in order for your 1 BTC to be valuable enough to buy a house, then many other people need to be buying (and spending) BTC at the same time.

but think outside of the box..

now imagine its 2016 and 3 million people who grew with bitcoin and loved it for fast transactions in 2009-2014... (not hard to imagine, as thats the reality)

but these 3million people are now noticing bottlenecks .. soo this 3 million people will get pissed off with delayed transactions and so they lose faith in it.. and cause a price crash..

they will tell their friends to ignore the "we use bitcoin" video as transactions are not instant. are not virtually free and all the other issues that are very relevant and apparent right now.. and so bitcoin adoption falls.. not rises, because the utopian dream of bitcoin has been lost, and replaced by greed of miners and politics of dev groups

and now your dream of buying a house for 1btc is laughed at because the world can see that bitcoin dev's refuse to adapt to demand, refuse to buffer a safety net, refuse to adapt before demand.. and your 1btc never reaches the price of a house..

I'm not choosing sides. I'm completely neutral on the whole block size situation.

But how does your statement above hold true if Gavin willfully gave up the CORE dev position to someone else?

I don't personally believe classic is the solution but a product I am working on involves using bitcoin for micro-payments, similar to the way nickel peep shows and newspaper stands and soda machine work - and those can make a lot of money but they can't make as much online because of credit card transaction fees and chargebacks.

Right now sometimes the way this is done is through the purchase of "tokens" to reduce the transaction costs - but with bitcoin that isn't necessary, the fee is paid by the buyer and is small.

With micro-payments for digital access, you do not even really need to wait for confirmations, just seeing the transaction on the P2P network is enough to know that you will probably be paid and if a double-spend is performed, you just ban the user from your service.

With that model, if it works, there will be increase in transactions many of which are very small in value.

So yes, the number of transactions is a problem that needs to be solved.

But no, I don't think classic is the solution we need.

im still wondering why are people fighting over only having 1 solution..

as long as lets say bitcoin unlimited allows a 2mb limit. bitcoin-core has a 2mb limit, bitcoinj has a 2mb limit, bitcoin classic has a 2mb limit and the other half a dozen popular implementations have a 2mb limit.. along with the dozen lesser known implementations having a 2mb limit..

then the world will continue and all 2 dozen implementations can co-exist all happily using the 2mb rule..

Apologies in advance for the dumb questions...

If the fork takes place...if "Bitcoin Classic" does indeed materialize...does this mean that the original blockchain and the new chain with bigger blocks will both still function at the same time?  In this case, isn't "Bitcoin Classic" just another alt coin?  

Also, unless BTCC plans to start the whole mining ecology from scratch, then the new blockchain would need to work correctly and seamlessly with the existing SHA256 mining hardware out in the world...yes?  

I cannot imagine BTCC being successful, if all the BTC miners and farms in the world must purchase new equipment before they can participate.  (Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe the bigger players would be delighted?)

-tfeagle

This ^ all depends on what bitcoin is designed for (this is up for debate). The fact that bitcoin transacts faster and cheaper than the traditional banking system is still a good thing whether the TX cost is $0.04 or $0.004 and if the transaction gets 1 confirmation in 10 minutes or 1 hour is still better than wiring money internationally and possibly taking 3days to a week.

Disclosure: I am neutral in all of this debate. Just looking at both sides.

Bitcoin Classic is a respond from (Chinese) mining industry against Bitcoin Core.
A good respond ... 2Mb is not bad and make room for developping others tools.

Bitcoin Core can stay ... but, at the end ... only evolving software win.
Like all P2P network from the year 2000.

lets say there are 6000 users who are dedicated and enthusiastic full node users

1 thousand chose bitcoin classic 2mb
1 thousand chose bitcoin unlimited 2mb
1 thousand chose bitcoin core 2mb
1 thousand chose bitcoin core 1mb SegWit
1 thousand chose bitcoinj 2mb
1 thousand chose other implementations all with 2mb rule..

then miners will see 83% consensus for 2mb and miners will hopefully choose to start mining 2mb blocks as the community is ready for it..
bitcoin continues and 83% are happy... but the downside is that 1mb segwit clients will throw away 2mb blocks, because even after cutting out signatures the data is still over 1mb.. making segwit left behind dropping blocks and not able to be part of the network.. as they "handshake" other nodes to say that they are several blocks behind everyone else and refusing to accept big blocks..
so its not really an altcoin.. is just being put into retirement with less data then the rest

now..
imagine
1 thousand chose bitcoin classic 2mb
1 thousand chose bitcoin unlimited 2mb
1 thousand chose bitcoin core 2mb
1 thousand chose bitcoin core 1mb SegWit
1 thousand chose bitcoinj 2mb
1 thousand chose other implementations all with 2mb rule..

same numbers..
but this time miners chose to do 1mbsegwit blocks (1.5mb reality archival blocks)..
everyone is happy as all 5000 fullnodes will receive full archival data(1.5mb) (aslong as segwit allows archival by default) as segwit is sending out 1mb non-witness blocks to the 1000segwits, which is below the 1mb segwit limit so they approve... and 1.5mb archival blocks to the 5000 full nodes, which is below the 2mb limit so all implementations approve.
but like i say, only if segwit mining by default sends full (archival(with sig) blocks in standard format all implementations can understand.. where truncated versions(no witness) is a non-default second option(for their own kind to experiment with).

now..
imagine
 same demograph of users.. but this time there are dissent in the mining ranks.. one miner stays at 1mb(but isnt segwit), another stays at 2mb
the 1mb miner would not have staled his attempt when he sees a 2mb block. because it will reject 2mb by default due to it not being 1mb.. and continue to solve a 1mb block..
5000 users will accept the 2mb as it solved first and ignore the 1mb block as it came second place (fastest solution wins)
but the 1000 segwit users will orphan off the 2mb mined blocks and accept only the 1mb mined block.

but now when the 1mb miner wants to send funds.. only 16% of users see's the coinbase(fresh coin) as valid to spend as only 16% chose to reject the 2mb block. which can cause the 1mb miners coinbase to be unspendable and piss the 1mb miner off..
eventually the 1mb miner agree's to be part of the 2mb community and know it has a chance to spend its coins as the majority of nodes will accept it.

now the segwit users are left limp because they reject blocks that cant truncate down to 1mb and as said in the first scenario.. they are left to retire as they cannot keep up with the block height of the 83% others..

again its not really an altcoin. but a fork that might take some time to get miners to realise what rule allows them to spend their coinbase without headache.


not sure. as i dont believe ive ever read plans for btcc to change the algorithm..

I'm a HW engineer.  So my grasp on the SW is a little infirm.  (Unfirm?)  I'll leave the SW comments to the SW weenies. 

It will take mining HW slightly longer to perform an SHA256 hash on 2MBytes of data, as opposed to 1MByte.  It is unlikely to require a full 2x of time...but it's likely to be greater than 1.25x.  (This is all "back of the napkin" estimation.)  If I'm paid the same for a 2MByte block as for a 1MByte block, then I'll go for the 1MByte block because I can produce more of them in a given amount of time.  This is particularly true if my HW is older (and thus slower) since I cannot compete as well at 2MBytes. 

If there is free choice, at my level, then to persuade me to crunch 2MByte blocks, there would need to be a pay increase per block.  The pay increase would need to meet or exceed the cost (to me) of the extra crunch time and extra electricity.  Otherwise...if I am still allowed to crunch 1MByte blocks...and there is no "shift differential"...then I would never crunch 2MByte blocks. 

i agree.. miners wont jump to 2mb instantly.. the 2mb rule is not an "average" but a "maximum"
it would in reality look more like like a slow increase..  eg 1.025mb, 1.05mb, 1.1mb growing slowly..  all of which are acceptable as the 2mb is a "maximum" not an average, and not rejected because the 1mb maximum is no longer inforce.

one part is as i said only when there is a majority of users able to cope with it (consensus) and the other is where transactions are pouring in and causing bottlenecks (filling mempools and risking mempool crashes if not handled/flushed sooner)..
where miners know if they let in more tx per block... even just 100 extra tx's(1.025mb) at first they can get an extra 100 transactions which means 100x tx fee..

again wont be a jump to full bloat 2mb in days.... i just meant 2mb POTENTIAL, which will naturally grow with time and user demand to send transactions

worded differently:
so imagine 1mb is about 4000 tx's maximum potential
it wont jump to suddenly hash 8000 tx's tomorrow.. it just means moving the goal posts, miners can hash out 4001tx's, 4010, 4100, 5000. blah, etc.. basically any number between 0 and 7999.. without the community arguing..
and the more tx the miner allows the more tx fee's it can eat

Yeah I have to agree with that. Even if classic is the right solution to the problem, the ends do not justify the means and the means being used are not something I can condone.

and blockstreams segwit isnt a hostile take over.?? by suggesting it wont send sigs to other clients, and only to segwit "archival" clients that ask for it using a special parameter will get it....

so
if blockstream instead didnt mess with the relay data for anyone by default. and then had a special option to truncate data for special nodes that request it (the reverse of the proposals so far).. then things would be better and segwit wont be a hostile takeover..

but calling bitcoin classic or BU or any implementation wanting to up the block potential to 2mb a hostile takeover.. is narrow minded as the users will still accept 1mb blocks.. and blocks over 1mb will only be mined once there is a high percentage of users capable of handling upto 2mb blocks..

which if 50% went with 2mb and 50% went with segwit1mb.. everyone will still relay data.. and even segwit can benefit if it defaults data to send witnesses to all nodes unless requested not to specially.. because then it can send out the 1.5mb of real data of 6000tx while also sending out 1mb of nonwitness 6000tx data to its special lite nodes..
win win.

but..
by simply not letting other implementations have 2mb max.. means that if segwit had 6000tx nonwitness blocks(1mb) and by default would send out witness(1.5mb) to other implementations.. then by not having a 2mb rule, the implementations would reject the 1.5mb as its bigger than 1mb..
screwing all other implementations out of not able to receive data to check signatures. but also rejecting blocks.. that had signatures..
lose lose

segwit on the other hands has previously proposed cutting off other non segwit clients.. on day one.. due to its 'dont send witness' default.

so as i said near the start.. let any/all implimentations have 2mb.. and then segwit1mb (1.5mb archival (with sig)) can play happily alongside other implementations.

and then its a patient wait for a consensus of atleast 90% before miners start pushing out blocks above 1mb.. not immediate and not definite as it needs consensus

If some of the biggest pools and companies and developers like Gavin and Garzik is a "small bunch" , ok...
But I don't see it as FUD.  It's an option for those who are not happy with core's scalability roadmap.



Blocks are getting fuller all the time.  I know.  I've checked the charts.


Yes there are challenges with adoption.  Limiting the transaction capacity will not help.
If you don't think Bitcoin should be a widely adopted CURRENCY well, that's your
opinion and one I don't share.

Excellent post, we need more like this, no such as enough threads like this, we much teach the noobs how to spot bullshit like XT and Classic. Can't believe so much people are drinking the koolaid. "Yeah lets centralize nodes just to pay a bit less fees". Fucking ridiculous.

It is a very stupid argument. Saying that current block size is limiting adoption is like saying a place is not attractive to people because it's overcrowded...

For minors is not important the number of people and entities that pay tx fees but the overall tx fees paid! Of course, the size of the adoption is important but even more important is the quality of the adoption. Increasing block size and giving free block space to even more spam will not help bitcoin adoption for sure!

people(general users) dont want 4cent tx fee's, they want 2cent tx fees(or less). they definitely wont accept 8cent fee's

at 4cent, 1mb blocks get $160(1mb=4000tx=$160 at 4cent each)

miners dont want $80(1mb=4000tx at 2cent=$80) they want $160(or more)

so miners have a choice..
stick to 1mb and take a cut to please customers.. ($80).. without being greedy!
or increase to 2mb and please customers aswell with lower fee's... yet keeping their stash of $160(2mb=8000tx=$160 at 2cent each)
or if greedy.. 2mb and 4cent fee at max = $320 fee total potential(greedy but acceptable)

but sticking to 1mb and jumping to 8cents a tx is totally going to ruin bitcoins usefulness. while revealing greed as the killer of all the positives of what made bitcoin better than fiat in the first place

According to our research, that's exactly what minors crave. That, and bitcoins.  And also older men. Minors go totally gaga for older men.  And once they find out you got bitcoins, wehehehehell...

If only 3 people can send a transaction per second, then how do you expect 50 people to send a transaction every second (this is roughly 2.5% of what Visa does)?

The current 1MB limit makes it so roughly only 3 people can send a transaction every second (it has a limit of 3 ~tps depending on what assumptions you make regarding average transaction size)

To be fair, if Visa just throttled its throughput to 3tps, people would be forced to pay a hell of a lot more per tx, all the spam Visa transactions would disappear in the Free Market, and Visa would become the new gold standard.

The idea of Gavin whining about "toxic" people is a howler, given his palling around with Mike "Yellow Peril" Hearn and their instigation of an ugly Grand Schism.

Luke-Jr (among other exemplary contributions) just gave us a slick soft-fork SegWit implementation that kills 10 birds with one stone, and obviates the need for a lousy, perfunctory jump to 2MB blocks.

What has Gavin done for us lately?  Besides hanging out in smoke-filled rooms in an attempt to subvert Bitcoin's diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient properties.

Luke-Jr >> Gavin

What's the harm in a jump to 2MB??

Then it's also premature for Tooministas to declare victory over Core.

But they have been doing exactly that.

Did you likewise scold the TumorBlockers, or are your criticisms reserved for the small block militia?

RBF is crucial to recover funds stuck in tx with insufficient (ie uncompetitive) original fees.  It's needed for fee markets to mature and Because other Reasons, which you would have already looked up if you weren't just here to troll and FUD.

RBF is a soft fork, so there's nothing you Tooministas and Blockstream haters can do to stop it.

When you cry for your hopeless lost fantasy of 0-conf tx, it gives me great pleasure.

Do I need to post the nipple rubbing cable company guys again, or have you got the message?   ;)

No. Because of how the Visa network is setup merchants would receive significantly less of each transaction to the point that the majority of merchants will no longer accept Visa. After the majority of merchants stop accepting Visa, consumers will have less of a reason to use a Visa branded card, so banks will stop issuing them. This would mean that the overall usage of Visa will decline significantly, as will the Revenue of Visa.

Those that are still accepting/using Visa will need to wait hours/days for their transaction to be processed and most of the time the merchant and customer will likely agree on another payment method while the transaction is still processing.

I cannot think of any logical reason why someone who wishes for Bitcoin to be successful would not want to allow more transactions to be processed via the Bitcoin network.

Aren't these just flushed out of the mempool?

"Quality of adoption" lol.

Miners are already free to include/exlcude whatever they want.

And a fee market exists without a blocksize cap.

Peter Rizun wrote a whitepaper proving it.
If you know any academic papers offering
a rebuttal, please link it.

If you were here to converse in good faith, you would have already researched that exhaustively-debated topic.

I admire your 'energy vampire' attempt to wear us down by repeatedly asking already answered questions and attempting to restart the conversation back at square one.

I don't think you are actually a Toominista; you smell more like a Buttcoiner here to troll.   ;)

In other words there is no harm in raising the maximum block size to 2MB (other then it would destroy blockstream's business model)

For the most part users are already not important, and are reduced to whining on forums and reddit trying to convince those that do have power i.e. a handfull of exchanges, wallets and miners.

Thats why having decentralisation and small nodes is important. Gavin, Hearn, Coinbase and blockchain alliance would make this worse.

With the completely manufactured and unnecessary chaos caused by Classic and Gavin you will be lucky if we get above $400.

Bitcoin has plenty of "capacity" and Segwit will ensure it will have plenty more. Opt-in RBF will be like y2k i.e. nothing will happen.


All this is FUD to scare people to support the takeover attempt.

Whats worse is the takeover attempt is backed by coinbase and blockchain alliance. They want pro-regulation developers not cypherpunks in charge of the reference client.

A pro-regulation Bitcoin will be one of watered down potential and value. Paypal 2.0.

Gavin did not give up anything except a meaningless title. Essentially he stopped doing the coding work. The title changed to show the reality. Political work and blog posts is all I see coming from him now. Meanwhile core developers have been providing real scaling solutions. Pieter Wuille was fakin coding on new Years Eve!!

Credit to Gavin though for his contribution earlier in the project.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that they do.

So?

I say Bitcoin will never gain widespread adoption without regulation. 
I don't think we'd be seeing $400 Bitcoins today if governments
were more hostile to Bitcoin.

I don't like the idea of the hard fork to bitcoin "classic".
I like Gavin, and don't think he has anything sinister planned if classic somehow wins. I support core.
There are too many unsubstantiated conspiracies floating around right now. Most conversations instantly turn into personal attacks regarding this topic.

Governments are a conglomerate of different interests. The harder Bitcoin is to control and regulate the less regulation will happen and better for us. The converse is true.

We need to design a Bitcoin that is hard to regulate. Institutions will then be forced to accept the reality.

There will always be some regulation but we want to minimize it.

Satoshi did not go to regulators asking what features to implement so they are happy. If he did Bitcoin would not exist. He designed a system that minimizes their ability to control and influence it.

There is harm. If we can increase the transactions without increasing the block size it will be better.

The large size of the blockchain is a barrier to people running full nodes and that will only get worse if we increase it.

Some ISPs are starting to do data caps on broadband so setting up a full node client in those places ends up with an initial financial burden in data overage. It only gets worse as the blockchain increases in size.

-=-

Also, build a NUC with a 128 GB SSD today and it can run bitcoin full node just fine, hardware will likely die before the drive runs out of space. But if you increase each block by 2x or even 8x as some have proposed, and that may not be the case - larger block size gives opportunity for large volumes of small transactions that take place for the sole purpose of using data.

block size should only be increased when other options have been implemented and we still need more.

We aren't there yet. Not in my opinion.

Eventually we will have no choice but to increase it. But let's wait until it really is actually needed.

I agree 100%.

Consider that having multiple implementations makes it much harder to regulate
than there being one single group of developers in charge.  

They cannot easily control what is decentralized.

"Classic" may be spearheaded by "pro regulation" people like Gavin,
but if it shatters the one-team paradigm, isn't that infinitely
better?

@danielW:

I agree too.  This is what I'm trying to communicate with this visualization:

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

SegWi (as I understand it)is really just a complex way of raising the maximum block size to a size that varies depending on the transactions contained in each found block. A fully validating node will still need to validate the signatures of each transaction contained in each block. I would predict that SegWi will essentially turn a lot of nodes into something similar to SPV clients while calling themselves full nodes, or thinking of themselves as full nodes.

Having a maximum block size of 2MB does not mean that we will see any blocks >1MB, all that it means is that if there is demand (based on the number of transactions at the time) for a ~2MB block, then a miner/pool can mine a 2MB block.

There is also not a need for many people to be running a full node as there are running a full node. If I am trading with coinbase, and coinbase is not going to send me USD until they have received BTC from me, then there is no reason why I need to fully validate the block that confirms the transaction to coinbase (this is something that coinbase does need to do however). Also if I were to buy BTC from coinbase, then I would need to first send coinbase USD, and coinbase will send BTC once the USD is received, and sending an invalid transaction to me would make little sense, because if they wanted to scam me, then they could just send nothing, so there is little need for me to fully validate the block that confirms the transaction of BTC from coinbase to me.

Also the fact that running a full node is too resource/bandwidth intensive has nothing to do with the maximum block size, it means that more people are using/spending bitcoin then the value of resources that are necessary to run a full node "cheaply".

the entire point of p2p currency is to be indifferent to regulation.

Actually there is. Full nodes are needed to keep distributed consensus.

The fewer people run full nodes, the easier it is for a government or company to influence how bitcoin works by running their own full nodes that then control the consensus.

I wish there had been a way to design bitcoin to prevent mining pools. To few control too much. I don't want the same to happen with relay nodes.

Sure. 

But we can grow much faster if its able to be used freely by businesses.
And the bigger the businesses that use it, the more quickly it will grow.

 

I have to disagree with you here.

If my full node receives a transaction/block that does not follow it's rules then it will not re-broadcast such transaction/block, however it does not have any influence on any other node. This would still be true if I had 1,000 full nodes.

Going back to my previous example, if I send USD to coinbase, and coinbase sends me BTC that does not follow the rules that I want followed then there is nothing I can do about it. If I know in advance that coinbase is following different rules then what I agree with then I can choose to not do business with coinbase, which would give them an economic incentive to follow consensus rules.

Here is an article on the importance of full nodes to bitcoin network security :

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-nodes-need/

We need as many people to run them as we can get, and right now, the number is dropping.

Increases in block size will only serve to expedite that dropping rate.

This is a far more serious problem than the tx per minute that everyone is talking about - and to me, it looks like the core developers understand this is far more serious of the two issues.

-=-

I'm trying to do my part, I have personally introduced several people to bitcoin - none of which have fully embraced it meaning they don't give a damn about buying things with bitcoin but they use it as a hedge against inflation. Every one of them I have set up with a PC that just sits there running the bitcoin-core client.

Unfortunately I'm in North America where there still are plenty of nodes. Places like Africa really need them, and places like Africa the size of the blockchain is an even bigger barrier to full node than it is here.

I just think that the idiocy is taking over Bitcoin :-[

I believe that my previous statements would address what is written in that article.

At the end of the day, it is the economic majority that is going to decide what the rules of Bitcoin are.

One of the most stupid things ever posted to this forum.  Noted for future reference.

Meanwhile back in reality.

It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015 (http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/)

I agree with this sentiment, but isn't there 2 aspects deliberately misleading about the above animation? Namely, the fact that you are leaving off multiple existing implementations and how the implementations you cite aren't necessarily cooperative but attempting to stage a coup. I am not suggesting you shouldn't have the right to make an attempt, but merely suggesting the model you reflect would indeed add security to our ecosystem as long as the different implementations weren't trying to subvert and compete with each other but merely have different repositories, developers, and sets of features that didn't break any primary consensus rules or try and split the chain.


This is dangerous rhetoric which undermines the whole project. Need we remind people we are not investors in paypal 2.0 but a p2p currency that was designed to be self regulating and p2p outside the reach of corrupt banks, regulators and central planners?  We can fix technical mistakes along the way and even increase the blocksize if needed,  but one thing that cannot so easily be undone if whitewashing and corrupting Bitcoins primary principles in order to hastily become mainstream for some big payoff. If you believe we need to move quicker , than lets indeed work together and solve these problems in solidarity... but taking lazy shortcuts, especially ones that go against bitcoin's raison d'être, undermine everything.

This is pretty much exactly the point that I have been trying to make (thanks for elucidating it better than I did).

To me it is clear that this "pressure" to "fix block size now" is being applied simply in order to take control over the project and is not going to be of any benefit to anyone other than some large corporations who are wanting to profit by taking control of Bitcoin.

Yeah... That's why the first thing he did after Satoshi's disappeared was to grant access to the code to 4 other devs and that's why he voluntarily stepped down as lead developer and passed the role to Wladimir in 2014. What a power-hungry maniac indeed.

its open sauce bottle

I don't think he is a power-hungry maniac - but I do think that he thinks he (or his group) should be "calling the shots". If not then why support XT and now Classic which both have stated that they don't agree with the way that the Bitcoin project is being managed?

Why not just go back to working with the Bitcoin Core devs (which he possibly could still do as he didn't "burn his bridges" like Hearn did)?

i'd much rather see more of those "groups" you keep mentioning. lets open up development. there is a mechanism in place to solve all the issues - miners will form a consensus. if anything the whole debate should illustrate that a core group in charge of development is slowing bitcoin down.

Basically then you are advocating that we should have many blockchains not one.

I fail to see this as anything different to supporting the various alts that we have already - so why don't the miners just do that?

Personally I think this would be fine and it would solve the tx/sec issue if we simply divided everything into a thousand different chains.

Maybe all we need is a universal wallet and we've nailed it.  :P

come on ciyam.. you and me both know that we as individuals can read code.. and see if the code has anything dodgy in it (which some implementations have)

you and me both know that changing our current implementations to accept 2mb is only a few lines of code..
you and me both know that the hardware cost for 20 years of 2mb full blocks storage is only $100

so we both know that 2mb blocks are not the doomsday scenario. because we know blocks wont automatically be 100% full to 2mb from day one, but would take time over months for miners to adapt and test the waters..

so we know the only real debate is which dev team to trust to give us clean code.. or if their implementation of the bitcoin program also include other features that can cause abuse to fungibility or rarity, etc.

so how about open a github of an exact replica of bitcoin-core 0.11 with the only change being a GUI dialog box that allows users to set their own block limit..

https://i.imgur.com/cGt2eL5.jpg

imagine if everyone made a github replica that had just the feature of user controlled evolution.. and the community that can read code vetted it to say which versions were clean of any other dodgy features..

afterall if there are 10+ different implementations and 8 of them are clean.. then the 2 dirty devcrew would soon be weeded out and people would stop using them.. rather then debating which one of the 2 bandcamps to choose.. there would be 10+ different implementations with 8 being replica's of 0.11 with just the block increase tweak..

people wont need to debate which bandcamp of wacky /abusive features some deceptive corporate shill may also have hidden. as there are more then just 2 choices..
people wont need to debate control issues around there being only two working implementation and killing off innovation
people wont need to debate relying on that one working implementation being reliable to need to upgrade to later.. because they wont need upgrades, just setting tweaks..

so then people can change limits themselves when the needs must. without heartache, debate or constantly downloading new implementations in 2017 onwards.

in short.. having 10 differing implementations that all consensus to a 2mb limit is better then trying to get everyone into one of 2 bandcamps owned by corporations or have hidden agenda's

and later.. when the community as a whole have settled down and can all say they have the ability to increase to 2mb.. its a simple change of value in a dialog box.
and when the networking handshake shows that the majority of the community is 2mb ready because the majority of users have the setting set... then and only then will miners start churning out blocks bigger than 1mb but less than 2mb without problems.. because they wont want to do it before-hand as their blocks would get thrown out and their coinbase wins will be deemed unspendable.. so its not in their interest to churn out blocks that users wont keep

im not saying miners will fill blocks to 2mb instantly.. it will, in reality be something like 1.025mb at first which wont impact their hashing time.. and slowly increase as miners get comfortable adding more transactions to blocks (dipping their toe in the water).

edit:
there wont be multiple chains because miners wont screw themselves over mining blocks that the majority of users throw out. so miners will only do something different if there is consensus..
so there is no harm in having 20 different implementations as long as the main block checking rules all match and thus everyone is working off the same chain because their rules are compatible (consensus)

Unfortunately your idea of "voting" becomes the Sybil problem (the very thing that Bitcoin was created to solve).

So how do you propose to make sure that the vote is fair?

(of course we already have that mechanism in place - don't we?)

Your very simplistic idea would really be the equivalent of me putting a "poll" on this topic to vote who should control the Bitcoin development.

bitcoin-core dev team have an agenda.. they even route out a map for it..

what gavin done was see that bitcoin-core was getting too powerful and thought people needed more freedom of choice.
he did not force changes into bitcoin-core.. he instead made a new implementation that gave people 2 choices.. xt or core..

yes 100mb blocks and 8mb blocks were abit silly idea.. but decentralising the implementations and allowing freedom of choice is a good thing..

start a new project and give commit acess to the miners

they are after all the people running the network

Define 'his group'? Majority of bitcoiners who want to stick to the original plan of scaling up and keep BTC useful also as a currency (inb4 - no it doesn't have to Visa-level volume)?

He wants to be calling the shots? Probably. But so do the core devs, and so does everyone else really. Everyone wants to see things going their way and get annoyed if they don't. And that's exactly why you're using scare tactics of 'hostile attack' and accusing him of dictatorship aspirations (despite the evidence), simply because his views are not in line with yours.

Gentle reminder: you (and other "1mb for life" supporters) are the one who wants to turn Bitcoin into something it wasn't originally meant to be. There's nothing wrong with it, but lets not pretend it's otherwise.

Gentle reminder2:  When the XT kicked in, the core devs pretty much agreed that block size should be lifted at some point, they just wanted more time and less aggressive change. The proposed 2mb is very conservative, so lets see how it unfolds.


Working on what? Preparing ground for the upcoming Blockstream services? How would you effectively co-operate with bunch of people with different goals in mind?


Huh? What are you on about?

Please don't "talk down to people" with such stupid things as "gentle reminders" (it just makes you look bad really).

If you want to be taken seriously then such condescending comments don't help.

For the record: I actually have never stated that I think the block size should remain "1MB for life" so in fact you are just putting words into my mouth (mostly I have just questioned the "sense of urgency" for bigger blocks that is being used by Gavin and others vying for control of the project).

(Gentle reminder: Don't make up crap about what other people have said or supposedly support in order to suit your own arguments.) :D

who can tell what you're babbling on about in this thread, but I can help you out one way: FTFY  ;)

I'm the creator of the recent parody videos here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1329377

And I approve this message.

I actually did LOL watching it - well done!

Don't be overreacting. As annoying as it may be for some, 'gentle reminder' is not an offensive term on its own.

Since you don't oppose lifting 1mb (I made wrong assumption - my bad) then what's the problem with 'bitcoin classic'? Is it all about timing? You strongly oppose lifting it now, creating a topic about 'hostile attack' etc, but, if in couple of months blocks happen to be full - you will be all in favour of it? Am I getting this right?

I am not opposed to raising the block limit per se but what I am opposed to is the dumping of the Bitcoin Core development team in favour of another team when I don't see that the Bitcoin Core team deserve to be dumped (they have only done good things so far IMO).

The agenda of both XT and now Classic is to take control away from the current Bitcoin Core developers (I don't there is any doubt about that) and that is what I have a problem with.

If someone can convince me (without resorting to silly conspiracy theories or ridiculous needs for everyone to buy coffees with BTC) that the Bitcoin Core team is inferior to some new team then I would happily change my opinion (but so far I've seen nothing to persuade me that we are seeing anything more than politics hence why I created this topic).

If no place to spend their money, then in reality, there is no market.

This is really the crux of the matter.

"Core supporters" want development to be centralized in the hands of a few guys.

Everyone else wants decentralized development and multiple implementations.

I don't think that you "get it" - if we have multiple versions of Bitcoin then what are the exchanges supposed to do (they can only accept one if they don't want to lose money)?

So your idea is to decentralise something that basically cannot be (have you really thought this idea through?).

Forking is not the same as creating alts - so if Gavin and others want to create an alt then why don't they just do that?

Do you realize that the more your group insists on making false assumptions and misleading statements like above the less credibility you have.

We are quite capable of making logical and reasonable choices based upon the facts :


I have long advocated multiple implementations , especially ones like bitcore, libbitcoin. I also like and respect Garzik, Jeff, and Toomin, so it isn't political for me.... but comments like yours make me think that Bitcoin classic supporters are a bunch of dishonest and manipulative advocates trying to create wedges where none necessarily exist.

You actaully dont get it, you really dont.

The so-called few guys represent 99% of the developers that have EVER build code for Bitcoin. Gavin is the ONLY one that wants a fork and can call himself a developer of the code that Satoshi started. Not even Mike has ever build code for Bitcoin directly, but only for projects like bitcoinj.

A fork is a very bad idea, and it is clearly an attempt by someone, to make stupid people (yes, stupidity is rampant in here as well) to make easy choices seem as the most obvious choices.

You are clearly one of those "everyone else" that believe that increasing the blocksize does absolutely nothing bad (hard forks are VERY BAD). It is truly a shame that a wide range of developers, coders and crypto contributors have to waste so much time with people like you. By people like you I mean, not developers, not coders and not crypto contributors.

for atleast 2 years there have been many different versions, all working side by side.. happily..

this is because the main rules are the same.. but who coded the version doesnt matter.. what language the version was wrote in, doesnt matter. as long as the basic rules of each version match, they all get to use, talk to and be involved with the same chain..

so here is blockstreams agenda
"lets discredit any programmer that is not in the blockstream roadmap"

heres R3
"lets destroy bitcoin and get people back into fiat2.0"

heres the community
"as long as my version can handshake with other versions and happily relay data that i can validate.. i dont care what band camp of programmers made it. as long as there is no dodgy code"

That is the community that doesn't *mine* (just propagates txs and perhaps verifies txs that they receive).

You can't have multiple implementations that mine or the blockchain will fork (e.g. no-one has created a block with BitcoinJ that is in the current blockchain).

Even Mike Hearn would agree with this (as I was chastised by him for criticising the fact that there wasn't a Bitcoin RFC back in 2012).

I think that your lack of understanding is what leads you to not realise why your proposals are unfeasible.

You are correct , insomuch as there cannot be multiple competing implementations that break consensus rules. There can cooperatively be multiple implementations that have different developers (as long as they coordinate with other implementations), and written in different code , different languages, and with different features that don't break consensus. This all ads a great amount of complexity and coordination effort, but it can and should be done for security and diversity of choice.

For hostile implementations attempting to break consensus rules , we should be wary of but not discourage their right to stage a takeover... as long as 95% consensus is met in the economic community we should even encourage this. If 95% of the economic majority decides on something dangerous or against bitcoins foundational principles , than so be it ,.... we should allow the project to run its course, and those who do care about something truly unique and different than paypal 2.0 can leave and create our own alt.

I certainly will sell my bitcoins and leave the project if it becomes centralized and controlled , regardless if its done By Blockstream or Coinbase and the blockchain alliance or breaks any of the foundational principles that make bitcoin unique (and lest more misleading statements are made , raising the block limit in a reasonable fashion is fine).

Which won't happen if one group (such as Bitcoin Classic) decides that the other group (Bitcoin Core) are not the right people to be doing the job (which is exactly what is going on).

Gavin could fix all of this by simply making a statement that he won't disagree with the Bitcoin Core group (but of course he won't ever make such a statement so we have a stalemate).

you can

do you really think all miners are using the exact same software..
do you really think the pools havent done their own little tweaks.. not to break the fundamental rules.. but to do other feature benefits for them locally..

if you think that everyone in the world should use the exact same version of bitcoin-core, and no one should have their own implementations that still follow the main rules.. but have added features or cleaner code that doesnt affect the network.. then you really have got your self stuck in the blockstream mantra

Yes, but to be fair to Gavin , he has expressed and is contributing, somewhat, across different implementations. Additionally, he is treading a grey line of simultaneously assisting a coup and not taking a leadership role. If anything he appears not to want control or the responsibility it demands , but wants to do whatever it takes to steer bitcoin for more capacity. I think, unlike Hearn(whose politics are antithetical to bitcoins principles) he is sincere and genuinely believe that bitcoin will be more decentralized and secure if it can grow rapidly and the best way to accomplish that is increase maxBlockSize. There is some validity to this line of reasoning but I still cannot find any reasonable benefit to choose Classic over Core+ Segwit when studying the facts.

No, but they are all using the exact same protocol.  If you use a different protocol, you will fork.

Actually it was Mike Hearn that started the discussion that we could not have more than one version of Bitcoin (I was actually on the opposing side) so you should probably do more research before making stupid posts.

If you look at "libconsensus" then you can see that the Bitcoin Core devs have been trying to make it possible for other implementations (strange for a group that you think is trying to prevent that).

OK, I see your point.

Personally I would prefer to see the core devs lifting the limit themselves, effectively ending all the shitstorm were seeing, restoring the confidence and pleasing the community, who (like it or not), in majority, want to see the limit lifted. Yet, despite most of them stating that modest increase is acceptable, this is not happening for some reason.

Maybe, just maybe it's got something to do with majority of them being on Blockstream's payroll, company funded by JV capital (imho, they're not likely to get the ROI). Maybe the devs are simply in fear that lifting the limit will (at least to some degree) reduce the potential demand for the service they're working on, which would mean that such action could be seen as acting against investors interest, which in turn could lead to unhappy investors starting a lawsuit against them (quite popular lately). But nah, that's just a crazy conspiracy theory.

ps. The 'coffee' argument is a bit irrelevant in Core vs. Gavin discussion, as both 'camps' seem to be in agreement (afaik) that people should be able to use BTC in daily transactions (either directly or through sidechains).

I think wedges unfortunately do need to be created from time to time,
for example when development is centralized and those centralized
developers are not following the wishes of the community.
That is what is happening now.

Necessarily, any fork will be by economic majority.

You can debate whether 95% is more appropriate than 75%.
Obviously the higher the %, the better, but you
don't always get what you want.  95% may not be
possible.

I think what core supporters are forgetting or failing
to acknowledge is that the entrenchment of one group
calling the shots makes consensus changes more difficult.

 

exactly.. protocol.. meaning the rules... not the GUI.EXE not the one sided group of programmers..

any one write the same rules(protocol) and be part of the network.. it doesnt have to be bitcoin-core or nothing
as long as the main rules are followed to allow handshaking between the nodes (no matter who programmed the node).. they can all work happily beside each other as they are all using the same rules..

some people really need to realise that bitcoin-core and the blockstream dev team are not unique. anyone can replicate the code and then change things that do not affect the main rules.. and it will still work

No, but the greater they diverge , the more dangerous and complex it can become ... Case in Point - SPV mining. I think you are talking past each other... we are specifically referring to multiple implementations that break the consensus rules.

Imagine what type of ecosystem we would have if were constantly in this state of mudslinging and infighting where at any given momment there were multiple implementations being lobbied that broke consensus rules on the brink of getting support.... some at 60% threshold to activate, some at 75% , some at 95% .... this would be disastrous.

Yes , to many different developer teams...
Yes, To at least 3-4+ different implementations written in different code
Yes to varying different features , choices, wallets , ... (as long as there isn't constant politicking between versions that break the consensus rules)

There's no market, other than speculation and miners exchanging/buying, because there's nothing to buy that requires Bitcoin. When Silk Road was operating you absolutely had to buy Bitcoin to shop there. Young people were in love with the idea that they could fry their brains and do it in perfect anonymity. Except it wasn't really anonymous and it really failed in a hailstorm of arrests. It didn't matter how high the exchange fees were, how difficult it was to get Bitcoin or that you were taking a risk using a fly by night exchange because Bitcoin was required to shop there. Can you tell me of one other business that has the natural appeal of a dark market retailer that makes you buy Bitcoin? You can't, can you. That's because there isn't one. You don't need Bitcoin to do anything and for many things Bitcoin is clearly inferior.

So what are we left with? We have speculators and early miners sitting on a bunch of coin waiting for that miracle to happen when Bitcoin trades for $10,000 a coin so they can cash out for fiat and buy that island they've always wanted. You have traders manipulating the price and using Bitcoin as part of a currency pair so they can glean off a few dollars everytime Bitcoin price moves $0.50. Let's not forget that rare handful of antigovernment anti bank techno radicals that jump through enormous hoops and spend more than MasterCards fee to buy Bitcoin so they can shop online without fraud protection and stick it to "the man".

Clearly the largest group is miners exchanging their coins to pay for expenses and purchasing products directly. As the reward system profit fades away (happening again soon) and miners must live more and more on fees things will have to change. In order for miners to live off fees there needs to be a large enough economy for the fees to matter. You can't screw over a small community of Bitcoiners by making fees too high so fees need to remain competitive which demands a sizable number users. Either Bitcoin needs to be as simple to use as your employer dropping your paycheck into an account and you paying your bills with a plastic card or we need another "Bitcoin only" business to spring up.

Again - you are clearly not a programmer as you simply don't understand that Bitcoin is *not a protocol* in the same sense the say SMTP is.

To try and explain it to you - if your SMTP software doesn't work so well then you just end up missing out on an email - but if your blockchain software doesn't work so well then you are on a fork.

No existing internet protocol has this problem - so stop comparing Bitcoin to existing internet protocols (it is just *stupid*).

i am not oppose to blockstream continuing to code.. as long as they dont expect 100% religious following.. and are ok with people making their own versions with nifty little userfriendly GUI's (THAT STILL FOLLOW THE NETWORK RULES)

but saying that blockstream doesnt want innovation and people making their own wallets (THAT STILL WORK WITH THE NETWORK!!!) makes them hypocritical to what they say about others..


blockstream dont have to have a binary choice of all or nothing.. they should be happy to have a following.. just dont expect 100% following

I agree but occasionally the consensus rules may have to change.  How to handle that?

I think the answer is simple:  You try to get consensus through cooperation and communication,
but if you can't, one side will eventually win by force.

You will not find any reason to switch, because there are no real reason or added innovation in Bitcoin Classic to motivate it. Gavin took the approach of finding the middle

or neutral ground between the XT and Core implementations to please the average users and then finding a foothold and working from there. It is the populist angle and possibly

the best way to get back into the drivers seat. It is like voting time... Politicians say what people want to hear and then they forget about these things, when they are in power.  

I don't think many big mining pools use Bitcoin-QT for mining.  When I look at the debug.log in my bitcoin directory, I see many different user-agent strings from different node implementations that are not Bitcoin-Core-based.  I don't think Bitcoin Core has any kind of a monopoly on node software.  Or am I misinterpreting the meaning of all the different version strings?

I think that you are (if miners are using completely different code to Bitcoin Core then please give me the github link to their source).

That's a pretty good point.

Sighhhh ... No, the opposite is true. Consensus is easy when development is centralized with a small group. Consensus is difficult with many implementations and modularity. Bitcoin core is trying to make the consensus rules more modular and more open to encourage greater diversity of implementations. This will make consensus more difficult but it is a price worth having.

If you followed the "libconsensus" efforts you would understand this.

now your trying to mis-understand it yourself so you can twist it into any direction you please..

i think you need to have a cup of coffee and think for a few minutes.

my node which downloads the blockchain, relays transactions. checks validity, makes and signs transactions, stores private keys. etc etc.... is......
.. wait for it...

hang on.. just a couple more seconds to catch your breath...
......


not bitcoin-core.exe

but it works..

bitcoin-core.. is not a protocol.. its not the only way.. bitcoin-core is just a implementation of code which within that code are some protocol rules..

anyone.. YES ANYONE can make their own implimentation, own little extra features. different GUI, etc etc.. but as long as the main rules within the code that allow it to handshake and communicate to other peers is the same.. they can all communicate happily

*Exactly* (I had also mentioned that a few posts back but it got lost).

For some people all the efforts that are being made are just ignored for pure politics.

I like you and I'm sure some others do appreciate the technical work that has been (and still is) going on with the Bitcoin developers.

I don't know really.  But I do know that in the recent past, it became obvious that some miners were, for example, mining without verification (SPV), which suggests that they were not mining to any Bitcoin Core s/w, right?

I think 'completely different' is unlikely, in any case.  But you could change a lot of stuff and still not be 'completely different'.

Why don't you go and write us a Bitcoin application then?

(oh yes - you are not capable - but apparently you are capable of understanding how they work fundamentally - I think not)

It is pretty obvious to others that people like you "have an agenda".

You don't listen and you never learn.

They were still using Bitcoin Core to do that (if you didn't realise this then why post incorrect suggestions?).

Sure, and if BU, or classic can get 95 % of economic support than this should be not only allowed but encouraged.

As long as its honestly understood-

1) Bitcoin classic is a coup with attempts to remove any influence from many core developers ( Peter R "cooperative" animation is misleading)
2) It is irresponsible and will damage everyone by setting the bar at such a low number as 75%

I understand that technically , all that is needed is 51% , but anyone that decides to fork with 51%- 75% is fundamentally changing the social contract from one that is more anarchistic to one that is more democratic where the majority can coerce and harm the minority.

Many people that I have spoken to make a fundemental misunderstanding that the 95% bar is too high and merely an attempt to stall the project and allow 5-6 % to thwart the efforts of the majority. They fundementally, aren't considering the roots of bitcoin (Cipher-punks , crypto-anarchists ) and how the social contract is not democratic but far more anarchistic. The reason the bar is set so high is because there are ethical considerations we have to consider when we change the consensus rules.

indeed - what's next? 
Bitcoin Magnum with Chocolate Chips? Extra Almonds?

These takeover attempts start to resemble some lame ass marketing fudges.
My guess is that they will keep falling flat on their faces with increasing speed.

The phrase or name "bitcoin classic" is an acceptance that bitcoin is an altcoin that will be exceeded by others.

That being said, the multiple people making alternate bitcoin nodes is bothering me. It seems that the altcoin creators are invading bitcoin - they should stick to making their own scamcoins.

A more careful reader would note that my post was as much a question as a 'suggestion'.  No need to be insulting.  Maybe you know more about the situation than me, or maybe you don't, but we can't know either way without having the discussion :|

already have my own, thank you very much..
and dont be fooled by me trying to keep things laymen.. it doesnt mean i dont know my stuff, it just means im not here to impress people with geekspeak.
i prefer to code using geekspeak and then lay out conversations in basic plain english that even an old granny would understand.

so here goes again
bitcoin-core.. is not unique..
anyone can replicate the code. and change 98% of it.. even re-write the whole thing into VB.net, C#, Ruby, Python. any language they please..
as long as the main rules hidden within the code are not broken to destroy the handshaking and data communications between nodes.

so it doesnt matter who codes it. how they are paid, what language it is wrote in. as long as the 2% of code that does the important bit follows the rules that the consensus want.. it will all talk to the same chain.. without issue.

bitcoin-core is not the only religion..
bitcoin-core is not the ony team of programmers.

trying to say bitcoin core .. "is bitcoin".. rather then "is part of bitcoin" makes you look like you want the blockstream team to be gods

IOW, you are not here to converse in good faith, and thus cannot be bothered to establish basic familiarity with the exhaustively-debated "why not 2MB Right Fucking Now" topic.

Sorry, not tonight dear!     :D

So - you have coded every C++ quirk that is in Bitcoin?

Do you even know C++ well enough to have done that?

(I am going to ask you to prove your knowledge of C++ if you want to really continue this silly argument)

Okay - sorry if I was insulting - but I do know for a fact that the Chinese nodes you are referring to were running Bitcoin Core and not some other software.

i rewrote the whole lot into a different language.. thank you very much..
and yes it does download the blockchain
and yes it does relay transactions
and yes it does check and validate transactions
and yes it follows the rules.. but allows me to change the block limit to 2mb as i think thats what everyone will agree to once the drama settles... and i can do that without having to download someone elses .exe or having to chose a bandcamp religion to follow

so getting back on topic

tell me why you think bitcoin-core is the only implementation in the world that can successfully talk to other nodes?? and why suggest that non bitcoin-core nodes are an altcoin.. yet they are using the same chain and talking to the same nodes as bitcoin-core.. meaning its the same network

To be more clear in regards to the whole "Bitcoin is a protocol" point it needs to be pointed out that Bitcoin is actually not a protocol but a software implementation of a protocol (the protocol has never been published in fact).

So it passes every regression test that is in the Bitcoin repository then?

Please provide your github link and proof so that I (and others) can check it.

That should be the end of this conversation. lol

actually.. bitcoin-core.exe is just an implementation.. bitcoin is not just an implementation

what makes "bitcoin" different from "litecoin" is the rules that define them as different things..
bitcoin i admit is more than just a protocol. because it it not just a set of defined rules.
bitcoin is also an asset ledger
bitcoin is also a payment network

but bitcoin-core.exe is just one version of many versions that all can happily talk to "bitcoin" without accidently talking to another altcoin or accidently creating their own coin..

You would think so - but still he continues to spout nonsense. :D

Hey @franky1 - SHOW US YOUR CODE!

(what - you don't have any?)

There are probably some herbal remedies available to help with "code disclosing dysfunction".

That's too difficult to understand. They've forgot why they needed a blockchain in the first place.

The problem is well known and quite simple, any member of totalitarian society is afraid of free vote. Actually, I think that such attacks against Gavin are no better than Gavin's attacks against Luke-Jr and BIP17 were. Maybe he deserved this, but who are we to judge him unconditionally? ::)

I don't support this so-called "Bitcoin classic", this idea seems completely idiotic for me. But this is just an opinion and such issues should be resolved by vote. DDoS attacks, ad hominem statements or whatever similar tactics are no better than assassination of opposition figures in the real life. This kind of behaviour is childish and unconstructive.

The problem is - how do we vote?

The only decentralised method that exists today (that can't be easily Sybil attacked) is Bitcoin - but if we are not going to use Bitcoin to vote about Bitcoin then I think we have an unsolvable problem.

With hashpower? If that's not to your liking, you can vote with your wallet & sell :)

In the meantime we are still waiting for @franky1 to give us the link to his github repo of his own implementation of Bitcoin in another (not even mentioned because I guess it is so secret) computer language.

While we are waiting for @franky1 to enlighten us all with his amazing source code I'll give a typical example of a "used car salesman's speech".

Q. Can your car take me from A to B?
A. Of course - it is a car after all!

Q. Does your car work with fuel X or Y?
A. It works with fuel just like any other car.

Q. Do you have any insurance for me if your car fails?
A. Why would it fail - it is a "car" after all?

For business decisions, people always vote with their feet. If they stop using it that's a No vote.

I really don't understand all the noise about blocksize when we aren't even at capacity yet and don't appear to be breaking any growth speed records. The market cap has been at $6.5b or less for years. When will this massive leap occur everyone seems to think is going to happen? I want to start saving up to buy more coin.

Yes, you are correct. I'm always open to reading a whitepaper of some other decentralized and anonymous voting method resistant to sybil attacks but using consider.it to determine the consensus rules is indeed foolish.

The vote is the longest valid PoW chain , and is ultimately decided by 51% of the full nodes(not the miners). 75% or 95% of the mined blocks within the last 1k blocks is simply an indirect way of approximating node support for a fork. These are arbitrary numbers. Selecting too low of a number indicates you feel it is fine to ostracize the minority, picking an extremely high percentage indicates that you believe that you must have almost complete economic consensus before creating a hard fork and breaking consensus rules.  

Because no one wants to invest in a payment network unable to process more than 2.7 tps?

Bitcoin is not a payment network (compared to say VISA) - and perhaps this was actually Satoshi's biggest mistake.

It *is* a settlement network already - so I think that is actually something of huge importance that keeps being missed.

Maybe it will be a realistic payment network down the track - but payment networks at the moment require almost instant txs and they need to be reversible (not something that Bitcoin can do).

A big part of the problem seems to be "Satoshi worship" - so the fact that he made a mistake or two just isn't acceptable to those caught up in this phenomena.

If not a viable payment network, people lose interest. That's what the VC money went into, that's what investors (who bought coins) were banking on. Take away the "Trustless Cash" expectations, and Bitcoin becomes a castrated stud, as useful as Beanie Babies.
*Nothing to do with Satoshi worship.

Not everyone agrees with you CIYAM.  I'm not going to reiterate the counterarguments to this as they've been
stated a million times, but lets just agree that a lot of this debate falls into deciding what Bitcoin is and should be.
The economic majority will ultimately decide if consensus can't be reached.

btw, you are calling "Satoshi worshipping"... I'm sure there is some of that going on, but also a fair amount of "core team" worshipping.

Well - for anyone that sends money from one country to another Bitcoin is a miracle.

So people like you obviously don't have any experience with this problem therefore don't get why Bitcoin is actually very popular without being a payment network equivalent to VISA.

In the end, it is still miners decide, since they hold hash power, and most of the miners also hold lots of bitcoins, both are essential to kill a competing chain. A competing chain will not survive if the security of the network and the value of the coin are both at risk

No - the math will decide (assuming we don't cower).

It may or may not surprise you to know that, like myself, most people rarely send money from country to country.
It may further surprise you to learn that sending binary data constitutes a negligible part of the cost of remittance payments. The costs are on the ground, in meatspace and bricks and mortar.

Many remittance startups learned that Bitcoin is, indeed, an *expensive* way to send money abroad.

>the math will decide (assuming we don't cower).

What does that even mean?

unlike your religion of blockstream church.. my implementation is for me and me alone. as i dont want to trust other people to make code for me.

i am pissed off with the drama of which religious band camp people should follow like sheep..

so i dont have a github as im not trying to start my own religion..

i will just leave you with a little sample that makes sense. as the variables i use else where would not make sense to you. and you would then ust clame hogwash
https://i.imgur.com/ju1G5Ba.jpg

so, tell me

why do you think the religious church of the blockstream collective are the only ones that can make an implementation that works?
i thought ou were more open minded and that you would also prefer people to not blindly follow one source but be innovated enough to make their own (as long as it still meets the requirements to handshake and talk to the same network of nodes.

so ill ask you again
why is it impossible for others to make their own implementations that all work with the same chain??

again.. as you posted me questions on 3 posts
why is it impossible for others to make their own implementations that all work with the same chain??

Which is strange when you follow that up with this:


So you never do remittance yet seem to think you know all about it?

Strange - I actually *use Bitcoin for remittance* so unlike you I know what I am talking about.

For a start I don't work for Blockstream or any other company (it is tiring to have people like you continue to make such stupid accusations).

You have shown *zero* code.

That is just some basic class definitions.

Do you really think you can trick me?

Perhaps you'd like to first take a look here: https://github.com/ciyam/ciyam

Big deal.  I use Bitcoin for remittances too. So what does that prove?

I think Chocula is right that traditional remittance companies' costs are largely in their physical presence.

why is blockstream (the bitcoin-core devs) the only gods that can make an implementation??

https://medium.com/@Cryptonight/bitcoin-doesn-t-make-remittances-cheaper-eb5f437849fe#.uizq282l7

I actually use a Luger to pound nails. Doesn't mean that a Luger makes the best hammer, or that I'm smart.

Well - let me just point out that if I did not use Bitcoin to move money from Australia to China it would have cost me much more.

So apparently my saving money by using Bitcoin for remittance is "of no point" - then exactly what is the point of Bitcoin at all?

Because they do it the wrong way. I constantly use bitcoin to send money oversea and every time I can make a little bit money during the process. They must use limit order on exchanges and do not buy high and sell low

Bitcoin is for users with IT and financial experience, average Joe better rely on centralized services

I have never stated that - but what I am against is trying to dismiss the Bitcoin Core team via politics (which is what is going on).

Who is claiming that? Please cite me a source.

See my previous post.

The point of Bitcoin is to *become* a payment system. Most of those who invest in it *expect* it to become a payment system, just like people investing in a startup *expect* it to make them money someday.
Take away that expectation, and you're left with Beanies.

yea i already proves CIYAM wrong with remittances when he saud he sent australian dollars to india, china .. i showed him the spread difference from converting australian dollars into bitcoin using localbitcoins.. and then using local bitcoins to convert bitcoin into indian ruppe and chinese yuan cost more than $10 that western union charged...

so he is flogging a dead horse with that unless the bitcoin ecosystem (businesses exchanges/fiat gateways) open up a cheaper avenue of fiat-btc with less spread, to cut the cost ..

as chocula said bitcoin transaction may only be 4cents.. but the conversion at either side (bricks mortar meatspace) where the conversion spread hits most to make those brokers most profit.. is where it hits hard

Actually no never proved anything but keep on posting this crap.

You are actually are rather annoying troll IMO.

What you're doing has nothing to do with remittance. That's why.

Actually you never proved anything but keep on posting this crap.

You are actually are a rather annoying troll IMO.

he title of this topic.. claiming that there is a "take-over"...

that only one implementation can be king..

if you go have a coffee and realise that bitcoin unlimited, bitcoin classic, bitcoin-core can all work along side each other happily.. then you will see there is no take over threat. and you wont be so aggressively trying to insinuate that no one else can make an implementation unless they are bitcoin-core

With every post you add you just keep showing how stupid you actually are.

BTW - where is your actual source code?

(you can't fool me with basic class definitions)

I've decided that @franky1 *needs to be franked*.

:D

"Hostile takeover" is generally an oxymoron here.

Sure, I would agree that if some nation state secretly built a mega ASIC farm to secure 51% of the mining power,
that would constitute a real hostile takeover.

But when we're talking about several POOLS which are in turn an aggregate of many miners,
who become an economic majority, who is that hostile to?  Maybe hostile to die hard devotees
of the "core team".

I'm almost sure those remittance companies all speculate on FOREX to maximize their gain, so they can afford cutting their fee if there is some competition. And most of the competition for them today is coming from online payment. I often see people buying/selling bitcoin using mobile payment at localbitcoins to do international remittance, that still costs less than WU if he knows how to put a limit order on localbitcoins

Each implementation will build upon the longest chain that is valid according to them.

The problem is that if a specific implementation has something different then it will immediately "fork" (this is why no other software is actually doing Bitcoin mining).

Please read this first: https://medium.com/@Cryptonight/bitcoin-doesn-t-make-remittances-cheaper-eb5f437849fe#.uizq282l7
Offers some insight into the costs of remittance.
Again, what you're doing has nothing to do with that.

Seriously?

I have done remittance for several years (from Australia to China) and made a profit out of nearly every tx (due to rising BTC prices).

If you know what you are doing then it should cost very little (or even nothing).

The few times that I used TT to move money it cost me at least 30 AUD per tx (more expensive than every single Bitcoin transfer I have ever done).

Have you read the link I gave? Or do you prefer to rage first, and read later?

Rage?

I am not angry - please enlighten me if you think I've got something fundamentally wrong.

Perhaps what you are referring to is the costs of doing things according to how they need to be done legally if you are running a business.

As I was never running a business those things don't apply to me but sure I do understand that Bitcoin is not succeeding as well as it should in the remittance business.

^
Have you read the linked article? Yes/No

wow .. the other week CIYAM admitted he was lucky that profited due to bitcoin price movements.. now he insinuates that it should be expected every time..

yet.. here is the reality for the rest of the world that is not as lucky as ciyam

https://i.imgur.com/ZMZf7Fo.jpg

WU: $5000=23263.52 CNY
BTC: $5000=21115.08 CNY

atleast 9% difference..

Serious question. If you're so confident you can do remittance with profit on every tx, then why don't you start remittance service with negative fees? You'll be a hero + filthy rich. What's stopping you? Too busy with other things I guess?

Alternatively, could you show us all how do you do it. Simple simulation of you sending $1000 to someone in India. Where do you exchange fiat/btc, btc/fiat - what are the rates/fees and how long does it take.

I don't claim to have any magic thing to make a profit out of every trade (I only did such trades when the price was rising - when it was falling I didn't move any money).

Is it that hard to understand?

If I was interested in trying to convince people to send me money for some kind of business I think you'd expect me to have started some sort of stupid "ad sig" campaign wouldn't you?

Such posts just show what the average people on this forum are about.

"Getting rich quick!"

They don't actually care about Bitcoin and they don't care about other people.

It is rather disappointing but not really surprising.

So - for those who are keen to "get rich quick" - don't listen to me - because I will make sure you never do!

:D

In other words, "I was walking to the bodega one day, and found a $20 on the sidewalk. I bought a pack of Camels & got change back. From this I conclude that cigarettes are free, and those who claim otherwise ain't doing it right."

Let me warn you my friend. There are large teams of posters on the project: Their goal is simple. Spread fear and convince everybody that hard fork of Bitcoin is needed. I know this because I know where their office is located.

Answering to them is a waste of time.

I hope you now understand dear friend what I am trying to say.

Good luck.

ok with respect and courtesy. without you meandering off topic to beg for people for code or talk about remittance..

why do you call bitcoin classic and other implementations that can happily work along side bitcoin-core and still function as full nodes... a "take over"

why insinuate that the only way bitcoin will continue is if only blockstream employee's and volunteers are in charge of 100% of all code related to bitcoin.

why dismiss anyone who does not want to sheep follow just one church.
why dismiss anyone who actually wants choice and freedom of choice.

Seriously?

If you want to actually talk about remittance then maybe start with some actual figures rather than just attacking me.

Why lie that you have implemented Bitcoin in another language and go as far as to try and deceive with images (that wouldn't convince anyone more than an idiot)?

How about you actually show us your source code or admit that you just "made that up"?

To be fair I won't ask you to reveal all of your source code - so just show me the source code that signs a raw tx.

ok with respect and courtesy. without you meandering off topic to beg for people for code or talk about remittance..

why do you call bitcoin classic and other implementations that can happily work along side bitcoin-core and still function as full nodes... a "take over"

why insinuate that the only way bitcoin will continue is if only blockstream employee's and volunteers are in charge of 100% of all code related to bitcoin.

why dismiss anyone who does not want to sheep follow just one church.
why dismiss anyone who actually wants choice and freedom of choice.

So to be clear - @franky1 has attempted to deceive everyone here that he can program and that he has a working version of Bitcoin written in some other language and I have shown that he doesn't.

I think that pretty much destroys his credibility when it comes to anything now (oops - you fucked up - didn't you).

Please feel free to link to this discussion for anything further that @franky1 posts.

:)

Yes, seriously.
I gave a link to the article outlining the costs involved.

I have asked you if you read it.
Here:...and again here:

Still waiting for an answer :(

I gave you an answer (read back a few posts).

Do I have to answer you multiple times?

I do not do remittance as a business so I am not commenting about whether or not it would be wise or profitable to do remittance with BTC as a business.

Again when I used BTC to transfer funds from Australia to China I profited from it.

That is not a lie but simply a statement of fact (it would not always be profitable to do so and I have never stated it would be).

As credibility goes, should I find the time you claimed your wife holding the forum funds hostage? :D

>I gave you an answer (read back a few posts).

What was it? Did you read the article or not? You're asking for costs breakdown, so I can only assume "no."

Seems your forum name is aptly picked - doesn't it?

I am not attacking @franky1 over anything other than the source code he claimed to have but failed to show (because it doesn't exist).

http://s13.postimg.org/6atcg41mf/Capture.png

Folks in glass houses should be extra careful. Meant to type "CountChocula," typoed, hence the name.

Well - maybe stop throwing stones then Cunt (oops - I meant Count of course).

At this point you're simply trolling. You have called Franky's credibility into question. I referenced you lying like a rug to get what you want.
Now be kind enough to answer a simple yes/no question I've ask multiple times:

ty

That would be rather hard as this is my thread (I am trolling myself?).


Yes - because he lied and said he has created a Bitcoin equivalent in another computer language but cannot show it.


I read the article and it is of no relevance at all.

My guess is that you must be a socky of @franky1 - well try hard with your sockies @franky1 but it still won't help you if you can't show us the source code that you claimed to have created.

ok with respect and courtesy. without you meandering off topic to beg for people for code or talk about remittance..

why do you call bitcoin classic and other implementations that can happily work along side bitcoin-core and still function as full nodes... a "take over"

why insinuate that the only way bitcoin will continue is if only blockstream employee's and volunteers are in charge of 100% of all code related to bitcoin.

why dismiss anyone who does not want to sheep follow just one church.
why dismiss anyone who actually wants choice and freedom of choice.

EDIT:
i only have one user account.. thank you very much..
how about try to answer the question rather then discredit people..
ANSWER THE QUESTION JUST ONCE

I will not answer your question until you come clean about your claim to have written Bitcoin software in another language (which so far you have not proven).

Why don't you just admit that you made that up (too late to delete your posts as I already quoted them)?

(and this is the problem with all of the people that are supporting Gavin's vision - they are just dishonest - so the title and the point of this topic I think is very much relevant to what is going on)

Not at all. When you're no longer even tangentially addressing the thread topic, and inciting little credibility kerfuffles, it's called trolling.


Regarding an issue which was irrelevant to the topic, if actually a lie.  You have lied too, boy howdy!  (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1086875.0;all):D


The article outlines the costs involved in operating a Bitcoin remittance business. By a man who operated a Bitcoin remittance business.
In other words, it explicitly answers your "Seriously? If you want to actually talk about remittance then maybe start with some actual figures rather than just attacking me." question.
:-\

My guess is you're using that fancy new aluminium foil, which isn't real tinfoil at all. Utterly useless.
No matter what the gubermint Saurian Jews tell you.

If the precedent of "fixing" the blocksize for no good (ie urgent) reason is set, it will continue to be "fixed" until Bitcoin is broken and bereft of its interesting antifragile properties.

But that's not going to happen.  Like Hearn and his XT minions, the Toominista vampires are going to break their teeth trying to take a bite out of Satoshi's neck.

Should their first strike penetrate the Core Defense Network, a large red button labeled 'Proof of Work' may be pressed.

Core's second strike, in the form of a switch from SHA2 to Keccak or CryptoNight, will leave Bitfury's $300 million mines worthless for anything but mining ToominCoins, as the real Bitcoins will go back to being distributed among the world's CPUs/GPUs.

That won't make the very serious men in very dark glasses who funded those mines happy, to put it mildly.

No , The full nodes determine the protocol, not the miners. This means that a fork can happen whenever, with or without the hashing power.

The vote is the longest valid PoW chain. Only nodes determine what is valid or not.



What you are missing is the distinction between implementations that are attempting to change the consensus rules and ones that are not. The other thing you are missing is that no one is suggesting that core or blockstream have to be the developers and control the consensus rules.  Any implementations that attempt to hard fork the chain by changing the consensus rules is a takeover. The reason it is a takeover because the network cannot have multiple implementations with different consensus rules. Doing so is creating an alt, whether you consider bitcoin core or classic the alt after the takeover doesn't matter... an alt is created.

They (CIYAM and small blockers) already answered that.

Their position is basically that multiple implementations are
ok but hard forks are not.

However, sometimes the consensus rules DO
need to change, for example, to lift the 1MB block size
limit.

Consensus on changing a consensus rule
would be best, but not always possible,
in which case a 'contentious hard fork' becomes
the only option to invoke change.

Those that would rather stick with the
status quo and the leadership of
Blockstream rather than go through
a hard fork are taking that position
because they judge the current paradigm
to be positive enough to warrant keeping it,
or at least not negative enough to risk
forking.

Obviously, many of those that don't would rather
see change, even if it does means forking.

I know where I stand.

The adjectives ("hostile" etc) mean little to me.
The situation is what it is and in time Bitcoin
will move forward one way or another.





 

I am quoting idiotic stuff from an idiot.

He claims to somehow know what I think?
(if you are really that smart I'll pay you 1M US)

So let's play a game smart arse - care to guess what my next post will be (if you can you can get 1M USD)?

I was merely trying to objectively describe
the nature of the debate.

There's no need to be rude.

Why don't you tell us your
summary of why each side
is taking the position they do?

He has claimed he has source code which now he seemingly doesn't actually have.

If he were in any way an honest person then he would admit to the fact that he lied but of course he won't (but I guarantee we'll never see his Bitcoin equivalent source code because it doesn't exist).

It isn't easy to defeat the "shills" that are being paid to post here but I think I have fucked up this particular shill with his own bullshit.

You want to do the same thing?

That's between you and Frankie.  It's tangential and therefore I won't comment on it here.

If you'd like to keep discussing the blocksize debate, feel free.   ;)

Goodness gracious... the amount of misunderstandings and misleading statements keep coming ...

I believe and most of Bitcoin core (read their comments in the dev logs ) that we need a future hard fork. Most would prefer to have a soft fork take care of a short term kick the can issue for capacity and a single hard fork with a solution that will have a likely chance of solving future capacity needs like flex cap or another variant. They are simply averse to doing unnecessary hard forks when soft forks are safer and quicker to securely deploy. Bitcoin classic on the other hand is ok with doing multiple hard forks....and for some odd reason feel they are safer and shouldn't be avoided.

Yes - good point - we have drifted off topic due to that crap.

Again I would say that what is being developed seems a reasonable solution to me as I don't think that we have a crisis.

Yes thank you for correcting me.

What I meant was that many are against 'contentious' hard forks.

(But many are not)



Agreed (that you think that).  And I think we do have a crisis.

You're not going to change my opinion and I'm not going to change yours.
So this is where we shake hands as gentlemen and agree to disagree.

An "attempt at a hostile takeover" (topic of this thread) sounds like a crisis to me (especially now that it's likely to succeed), but what do I know...

One more quick drift. Did you see that your thread about him being a liar got swept away pretty quickly? LOL

You should just ignore him like everyone else but the noobs.

Oh - got moved did it?

I wasn't paying much attention - but I think it is time that some of us "stood up" to the bullshit.

I agree. I've always thought he was full of crap. They didn't move it as far as I can tell, they deleted it.

I think it was moved to a Reputation sub-forum (which wasn't really what I had wanted but fine if it needs to be like that then that is how it is).

Perhaps those that are paying posters think that they can just wear us down - but I will not be worn down in that way. If you post nonsense then I am going to call it nonsense!

I agree! Carry on.

^You gentlemen should probably get a room, I'm blushing...

I have apologised for getting your friend (@franky1) in trouble so I expect he'll be fine tomorrow.

Would it surprise you to know that he's not my friend?
Just found it a bit curious that someone with your track record (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1086875.0;all) would harp on credibility :D

The main difference between Bitcoin Core and Classic is the 2MB block size. If Core can implement the 2MB block size, there is no need for Classic to exist.

I see - so your approach is to "attack the person" is it?

Probably that is because you have nothing else of any substance to contribute - or do you?

(let's see if you can actually show you have any intelligence at all - personally I doubt that you do but we could make a bet if you want)

So Ian is challenging the Cunt to a showdown. :D

The both have the same effective blocksize.. Stop spreading misinformation.

Lol, my approach is to respond in kind. You sidestepped the real issue, and latched onto Frankie's credibility, but now that your own credibility is brought up, you get sulky?
http://s29.postimg.org/chg400u6f/baww.jpg

Seriously?

Is that the best that you can come up with?

@franky1 claimed to have source code he doesn't have (and that is now a fact until he posts the code to show otherwise) - what exactly have you *discovered* about my credibility?

Hint (for people wanting to attack CIYAM).

#1 - Get your facts straight.

#2 - Don't post bullshit.

#3 - Try again (because you must have screwed up with one of the above).

:D

Seriously. Frankie lied about having source (lol, VB), and you? You lied about your wifu holding 50 BTC of forum funds hostage, which she refused to release until you got your way. Idk, hard to say which one of you is moar credible :D

You keep talking about paid trolls. I'm just being curious. Can you present proof of this?

So you agree that he lied and now you want to bring in a completely different issue to do with my wife to excuse him for lying?

Interesting.

Just look at the poster I am replying to above if you need proof.

That's just lambie. He does that for fun.

Hmm.. exactly how does this post actually contribute anything at all?

I have no idea if he lied, conceded the point for brevity. I also have no idea if you have a waifu, but that "she's holding the forum coin hostage, and won't let me have it back untill you do what I say" bit was hilarious. Makes you 110% trustworthy & credible in my eyes :D

How does that relevant to my being paid?

So your strategy is to just keep on repeating that.

Do you think you are going to make me angry?

Personally I feel sorry for you - as why would anyone bother to waste their time doing what you are doing unless they are paid something for it - which would also indicate that you must be very poor (as I doubt anyone would be paying that much to troll me).

My strategy is to answer your questions. Should I try a different tack?

What exactly is your problem?

There is nothing funny about what you are saying at all - are you trying to have a go at me?

Just like they said, they want to mimic the traditional money remittance service thus failed. I also provide remittance service but I only targeting online solutions. I have to teach each of the user to go to online exchanges at local place and open account, but once that step is done, the cost saving can start to kick in

Cash to cash can also be done, but then you have to setup a local agency specially to do cash trades, like localbitcoin cash trading advertise, then the cost is down to 1-2%. You can not just use existing cash transfer network, then you end up with the same cost as them

Well - finally we get trolled (as is to be expected on such a forum as this).

So we say "goodbye" to all the trolls by locking the topic (yes - sorry - you will need to create your own topiics if you want to try and keep on trolling me).