|
Title: Bitgo's opinion Post by: jonald_fyookball on January 24, 2016, 05:21:24 AM http://belshe.com/2016/01/18/bitcoin-blocksize-and-the-future/
recent article Title: Re: Bitgo's opinion Post by: crazyivan on January 24, 2016, 07:04:46 AM I also feel Bitcoin classic is a best way to go. Also, since miners support it, no need to go further, they move the entire network.
About Bitgo, I use it for some time, no issues, great service. Title: Re: Bitgo's opinion Post by: DimensionZ on January 24, 2016, 07:13:51 AM I may need to move my coins to a BitGo wallet because of their Instant feature which looks very promising.
Title: Re: Bitgo's opinion Post by: Erkallys on January 24, 2016, 10:32:38 AM I also feel Bitcoin classic is a best way to go. Also, since miners support it, no need to go further, they move the entire network. About Bitgo, I use it for some time, no issues, great service. No, I don't think so. I don't have any idea if we should increase the blocksize, but I'm sure is that an hard fork will never be a solution, because it's breaking the fundamental rule of Bitcoin : the consensus. Title: Re: Bitgo's opinion Post by: European Central Bank on January 25, 2016, 03:05:31 AM No, I don't think so. I don't have any idea if we should increase the blocksize, but I'm sure is that an hard fork will never be a solution, because it's breaking the fundamental rule of Bitcoin : the consensus. If every single person forked all at once that would be enough consensus for me. There've been hard forks in the past to solve problems that were universally agreed on. Don't think it's happening this time though. Title: Re: Bitgo's opinion Post by: franky1 on January 25, 2016, 03:28:26 AM i dont think the solution is classic agenda or blockstreams.
id prefer 100 developers to release an implementation that is nothing more than a 2mb block increase.. where all implementations can talk to each other as they are all the same but allow programmers to then do their own independant glamour features to the GUI (such as segwit) but not messing with consensus hard rules .. that way there is more than one source of the same hard code. allowing freedom of choice while still being part of the network and able to b innovative with the softer stuff that way it defeats both debates of banker control(classic r3) and centralized and dictator roadmaps(blockstream) then the millions of users can actually get 2mb block buffer to allow capacity growth naturally.. without getting involved in the band camp debate Title: Re: Bitgo's opinion Post by: crazyivan on January 25, 2016, 07:50:36 AM I also feel Bitcoin classic is a best way to go. Also, since miners support it, no need to go further, they move the entire network. About Bitgo, I use it for some time, no issues, great service. No, I don't think so. I don't have any idea if we should increase the blocksize, but I'm sure is that an hard fork will never be a solution, because it's breaking the fundamental rule of Bitcoin : the consensus. I think it really does not matter what we think. All it matters is what large farms think cause they re the ones moving the blockchain. Title: Re: Bitgo's opinion Post by: NorrisK on January 25, 2016, 08:01:24 AM I also feel Bitcoin classic is a best way to go. Also, since miners support it, no need to go further, they move the entire network. About Bitgo, I use it for some time, no issues, great service. No, I don't think so. I don't have any idea if we should increase the blocksize, but I'm sure is that an hard fork will never be a solution, because it's breaking the fundamental rule of Bitcoin : the consensus. Consensus is never going to happen anymore. Bitcoin has gotten too big with too many players with different agendas to reach consensus on the level they want it. Look in your local government for example, how many parties are there? The same is happening in bitcoin. Different parties with different opinions not wanting to work together or agree with eachother. Title: Re: Bitgo's opinion Post by: crazyivan on January 25, 2016, 08:17:06 AM I also feel Bitcoin classic is a best way to go. Also, since miners support it, no need to go further, they move the entire network. About Bitgo, I use it for some time, no issues, great service. No, I don't think so. I don't have any idea if we should increase the blocksize, but I'm sure is that an hard fork will never be a solution, because it's breaking the fundamental rule of Bitcoin : the consensus. Consensus is never going to happen anymore. Bitcoin has gotten too big with too many players with different agendas to reach consensus on the level they want it. Look in your local government for example, how many parties are there? The same is happening in bitcoin. Different parties with different opinions not wanting to work together or agree with eachother. Exactly. This is why I say the most important vote bears the one who contributes to the network the most. Consensus s not going to happen, I agree, too many vested interests. Title: Re: Bitgo's opinion Post by: sadface on January 25, 2016, 09:15:09 AM I also feel Bitcoin classic is a best way to go. Also, since miners support it, no need to go further, they move the entire network. About Bitgo, I use it for some time, no issues, great service. No, I don't think so. I don't have any idea if we should increase the blocksize, but I'm sure is that an hard fork will never be a solution, because it's breaking the fundamental rule of Bitcoin : the consensus. why exactly can't a hard fork be a solution? i don't understand your reasoning. Title: Re: Bitgo's opinion Post by: calkob on January 25, 2016, 10:58:30 AM Good article and pretty much to the point, 2mb to start with and see how it goes. work on segw and lightning for the future. ;)
|