Bitcoin Forum

Hello to everyone,

I am not a programmer or a developer but a simple follower and lover of bitcoin and first of all lover of peer to peer. Have not deep technological knowledge (having a totally different profession) of this last but I am able to understand the potential and the superiority of this technology compared to all existing ones with which can be compared or pretend to compete with it.

Must of us here in bitcointalk know that the very and the first well known successful product of peer to peer is bitcoin. All us here are primarily to discuss and learn more about it, its spread, its qualities, its weaknesses, its future; in few words about everything has to do with it (including its derivatives but yet all peer to peer products). The last months everyone of us was testimonial of the big "war" happened within the team of the core developers of bitcoin which has as end the division of this team on two mini teams which will "create" and "build" everyone its block of bitcoin.

Here begin my confusion which is even the aim of this thread. Being not a developer for me seems a totally stupidity and bullshit to be such situation only for only 1 MB difference on the increase of the size of the new block of production of bitcoins. But for sure it will be not so. Cannot be a stupidity or a bullshit create such big trouble for a pearl like bitcoin. Must be much more. And if a "Chinese team" of developers or creators create the third bitcoin block bitcoin with 8 MB what will happen? Will have three different bitcoin? Or only one but that will have different clothings? What will be the effect of these kind of variants on bitcoin itself, on its use and on its development as a product? Who can explain the why and the next of all this mess? Who can give answers about all write above? And at the end who team have right (giving arguments) and which is the best variant (giving arguments) of the above three size blocks?

I'm sorry if I'm not correct in something but this is what I have perceived and understand since now.

What is going on is purely and simply "politics" - there really hasn't been any scientific reasoning used about the need to increase the block size to any particular number (the proposals have changed several times already) but apparently it is "so urgent" that Gavin believes that the core devs should have the project taken away from them (and given to a team with only two decent programmers).

I wouldn't worry too much about it as the miners are not so likely to want to kill their own income by causing Bitcoin to fragment into several alts.

Good. So my worries are not worthless. Exist the risk that bitcoin be split on other "minibitcoins" or in other cryptos which can take several names. Or it is not strange to see even the claim of each team to be the owner of the only real "bitcoin". I don't think that the situation is so harmless. At the homepage of bitcoin classic are shown some data and according to my knowledge of the bitcoin market the names which support Gavin are not so few or not important to not be taken in consideration. And to not forget that bitcoin classic is yet in the first days or weeks of its existence. As for the miners I will be not so sure that all them will not support bitcoin classic and there that will be not possible to be other new miners which can support bitcoin classic.

But the big problem according to me is another. If it is so easy to "develop" a new bitcoin, every year must be created a new team which can create their product as a new and better one; giving always the same name - bitcoin. We all know the power of the bitcoin market of China. If they create their bitcoin half of the market or even more for sure will use their product. Tomorrow may be another team in another emerging market to do the same and so can continue without end. How people have the code of bitcoin? Only for the getting out of his mind the codes of bitcoin Gavin must go in jail.

You are worried tho, it's all you ever talk about. Good...

Well, I don't code much either (no patience), but I think that the problem is wrapped around the economy of scale. While a larger block size will be needed if we want more people to adopt it, problems arise within the proof or work system...How much are the big mining platforms willing to sacrifice to make that change; they're the ones doing all the work!  Now, if Bitcoin allows itself to become regulated, that would increase its adoption rate substantially and Bitcoin is not robust enough to handle a very fast and large adoption.  So, the question really is political.  Do we allow some sort of backdoor regulation that would increase its acceptance, therefore, its scale and, if so, how much and on what time frame?

Now, I'm no expert by any means....that's just my interpretation.  I'd enjoy listening to other, more informed, interpretations because it is a fascinating topic and I am interested.

Actually - no - I tend to post more about things like doing raw transactions (something you wouldn't even understand).

The worry is simply that the Bitcoin experiment will fail (but my own project will continue regardless of that outcome).

Scaling has nothing to do with regulation. Nothing.

So, if all the banks in the USA, due to some regulatory act, decided to include Bitcoin in their financial platform and everybody started using it at once, would bitcoin be robust enough to handle that traffic?

Do you seriously think that this is going to occur?

Even if you increase the block size to 200MB it wouldn't be enough to handle all the txs in the USA (little own the rest of the world).

(so your scenario is not only somewhat ridiculous but practically not able to be handled by Bitcoin at all)

(and although I'm guessing you have no idea about it - the time taken to verify all the ECDSA signatures in said super-sized blocks would actually be more than 10 minutes)

Of course not. But by your reasoning, scaling is also dependent on intergalactic relations. If Saurians from Andromeda decided to adopt Bitcoin, would Bitcoin be robust enough to handle that traffic?

Lol @ "something you wouldn't even understand." Do I rub in the fact you don't know the arcana of BTCeanie BTC BTCabies codebase?
No I do not.
Hell, you probably didn't even bother reading a line of it, did you? And yet I'm civil enough  to not rub your total ignorance in your face.
Nice diversion tho. You're scaird shitless.

I see - so perhaps you'd care to take a challenge then.

Challenge? Do you even know how to code in BTC++?

How about we just make the challenge in terms of Bitcoin "raw transactions" (surely that should be trivial for you)?

I'll post a raw tx and you explain it to everyone to show that you can understand it.

How about you publicly admit you have no clue about coding in BTC++, hmm? That you still use x86 assembler HTML3 and Perl scripts C++?

I see - so you have already caved in and admitted you can't do Bitcoin raw txs. :D

Better luck next time troll!

That was just an hyperbole to demonstrate my position and I realize it's exaggerated.  I was just trying to point out how scaling can be dependent on regulatory acts.  What if New York state started some sort of regulatory licensing requirements that allowed certain exchanges to be more bitcoin friendly?  Or, California, Florida, Texas?   See, it begs the question of how much and at what rate should the block size be increased?  It's a two way street: Is Bitcoin robust enough to be considered a viable option for big financial institutions?  And, is Bitcoin ready to allow the regulatory acts necessary to be included in that system?

We know that there are companies who are willing to concede some sort of regulation for a share in the US market....Who are they and what are they proposing in backroom negotiations?

Yeah, I'll tell you about row transactions after you answer my riddles three:

1. If you're so smart, what was Ty Warner eating when he solved the BTCeanie Propagation Problem?
Go!
No Googling!

You can't "regulate science" it works the way that it does (no amount of government agreements will make it quicker to verify ECDSA signatures).

How cute - our little troll here can't even spell a simple three letter word (or perhaps you think transactions need to be propelled manually across water by people in boats).

:D

Nope... you've pretty much got the concept.  Blockstream/Core supporters and some core devs that are totally operating out of a position of selfish conflict-of-interest are full of stupidity and bullshit, and are willing to throw a monkey wrench into the entire bitcoin ecosytem in order to ...... well...... to be stupid and full of bullshit I guess.

Lol @ grasping at typos.
Here, learn all you need to know about raw transactions, pedant :D https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Raw_Transactions

So you don't know shit about BTCeanies or BTC++ . Kepp scripting Perl, and mebby learn ROM Basic.

Oh, an d don't forget CIYAM.  His business model depends much on Blockstream survival, so he's sort of chained to the sinking ship by default.  Poor guy.... fighting and casting wildly about as the ship goes down.  Shame... a good fight, but he'll drown all the same.  See ya Ciyam!  Don't let the anchor hit you in the ass on the way down!

Huh? What business model are you talking about?

CIYAM is an open source project that is entirely funded by myself (there is no business model as it isn't a business).

Clearly CIYAM ain't paying your bills. Who is it then, sugar mama or Blockstream?

Sorry - you think you have the right to ask me who is paying my bills now?

Who is paying yours?

I forgot.  He's independently wealthy and does this as a charity project!

Or..... HE'S A SCUMBAG LIAR!

* you decide  ;D

Hit a nerve. I see...
K, you don't need to tell me if admitting source of income too painful 4U :(

actually he's probably independently wealthy and does charity coding.  As they say... you get what you pay for.  Sort of like Blockstream.... people are paying for working code..... but what they get is angry Core/Blockstream shills wasting all their time in forum chats spreading FUD.

Go back to work CIYAM!  Your code won't write itself!

Not at all - not even close - keep trying to troll me but I'm not worried about you at all.

So, I'm no scientist, are you saying that Bitcoin cannot handle a large  increase in adoption because transaction times would be too slow?  What are the solutions?

It's interesting that all the trolls are trying to attack me (someone who doesn't work for any Bitcoin company and never has).

You are getting kind of desperate aren't you?

(shouldn't you be trolling the core devs instead of me?)

Well, the 1st solution is to implement the Classic Fork.  Check!
Step Two - throw party for return of a Development Team that isn't STUPID and operating on Conflict-Of-Interest.
Step 3 - allow the return of intelligent governance to do its thing.

No.  I think I have you pegged pretty squarely as a FUD spreading Core/Blockstream supporter that is contributing to the problem.

The first thing is to ignore the advice of the poster of this nonsense.

You are entitled to think whatever you like - but I think that the FUD is "stronger with you".

(although I would not quite call you a FUD-Master yet - so you'd better keep on working at it)

No man, he tries to make money by extorting it from the Bitcoin community, see here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1086875.0;all) :D

Yup, this criminal would stop at nothing to get his way >:(

No forum money was lost (or therefore made by me) over that.

So another trolling stupid comment.

I am really not worried about your stupid personal attacks at me - it just shows how desperate Gavin is.

CIYAM is 100% correct... The whole thing started with the exit of Gavin and Mike Hearn... they thought they could go on their own and a huge percentage of

the community would follow them like sheep. They clearly underestimated the intelligence of the community and the Bitcoin community stood up to them and

said NO to their XT proposal. Mike Hearn accepted the defeat and he ran after the money to work for the competition and Gavin came back with a new

proposal, which is a bit better on the ear for most people. It's all about the power.... very little has to do with the actual need for bigger block sizes. Yes, it has

to increase over time, but it was rushed and blown up to hasten a power grab, before the Core team could bring out their solution. {SegWit etc..}

Not for your lack of trying, you lying criminal >:(

Oh - you are saying I am a criminal now?

You really should be more careful when you troll (everyone is seeing you make a very big fool of yourself).

Would trying to align Bitcoin with a faster more technologically superior platform like Ethereum be a viable solution? Or, would it be more prudent to hold off on increasing the block size and wait for R3CEV to finish it's research and use what they learn?  I don't know....I'm just searching for consensus here.

Of course you are a criminal -- what else would you call blackmailing the forum into getting your way, threatening not to return the 50BTC entrusted to you?
Criminal of the lowest sort -- an extortionist!
>:(

Even if the disaster happens and some other team that isn't Core manages to hard fork and split the blockchain therefore rendering the existance of "2 Bitcoins", the coins in blockchain A would be in blockchain B so you would never lose your money, your wallet would be the same on both blockchains, so even in this disaster scenario you wouldn't lose your coins.

Of course, the best outcome is that Core team will and the other amateurs that are trying to jeopardize the Core team end up like XT and the rest of altcoins.

The forum's funds were returned (the very next day) so your accusations are just plain rubbish.

Obviously you are a very hateful sort of person who is probably being paid to try and personally attack me.

I'd recommend you get a better job as you won't get any job satisfaction with this one. :D

Your failed blackmail attempt only akes you a failed criminal, just like a failed bank robbery makes its perpetrator a failed criminal (as opposed to an honest person).
Regarding job satisfaction: While posting on this forum is your job, it is not mine. Outing blackmailing criminals such as yourself is easy and extremely satisfying.

What worries me is you still think you did nothing wrong, making your so-called apology yet another in your long chain of LIES! >:(

Obviously posting on this forum *is your job* and so I laugh at you.

You are so pitiful that you can't even get a decent job doing something admirable but instead get paid to troll others (you don't even know).

And another sleazy, unsubstantiated defamatory lie from an admitted [failed] blackmailer. Your sort just never gets rehabilitated >:(

And your replies just get nastier and nastier - do you think anyone is on your side?

The fact that you keep up your personal attacks on me just shows that you are being paid to do so (why otherwise?).

On the side of Truth and Justice? Is that what you mean, criminal? I can only hope so.

Again - calling me names - strange why you are attacking me - you don't know me and we've had zero business dealings - so why are you so angry at me?

Did I take your BTC?

(if you haven't worked it out yet I am eroding your non-reputation very fast so might be about time to start with a new account)

You didn't manage to take anyone's BTC, not that you didn't try. You tried, but got caught in your childish, transparent lies. Then you got scared.
The evidence is there for everyone to see.
On the other hand, expect defamation lawsuits. I won't stand for your slanderous accusations re. my being paid to post this.
I know who you are, criminal.
>:(

:D

Okay - welcome to try and sue me.

So for those that really want to work out about who is serious - I will offer that this idiot never even bothers to take me to court (he probably doesn't even have enough money to hire a lawyer).

You've been *called out now* (best get in touch with your lawyer).

That's right, wait for it. And don't bother pretending that you're not worried -- you are. As this thread clearly shows.
The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine...
Wait for it.
>:(

We are all waiting with bated breath for you to take me to court so how about you just STFU until you do so?

(funny that a defeated troll simply can't stop themselves from continuing to try and troll)

Right. You can't even lie right, as your post history shows. Keep waiting, tossing in bed every night, thinking about your life of [failed] crime.
You'll live to regret it.
Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life.
8)

As a troll you have become rather boring (are you too tired to think up anything more original?).

It isn't your fault - they only pay you X amount to troll me and I am rather a pest when it comes to trolling aren't I?

;)

So, to answer the original posters concerns, I don't think that there is a simple answer as to why the Bitcoin project's governance seems to be pulling in opposite directions.  But, I believe that it has a lot to do with ideology, greed, ego, and power. Bitcoin's most important attribute is the community who stands behind it. By design, it had 'greed' incorporated into its protocol but as the POW system  became more consolidated due to big mining farms, the 'greed' factor became less beneficial and more of a burden. That's where the community needs to step up and take back control somehow....I mean, is the same idea of consensus still applicable today or should we allow for a more contrived form of consensus?  If so, whose opinion counts and whose should be ignored?

Please guys can you stop with this "war"? Have no sense to make dirty an entire thread with discussion totally out of this aim. I don't know who may have right and who may have wrong and to tell the right is the less important thing that worries me. If you are really very able to discuss about the aim of the thread explained at my main post that will be e big help for me and hope even for to many others. In my main post there are to many question and not only about which was discussed in the beginning. If are able to give opinions or data about that is asked there is ok. If not please continue all this mess in another thread created by you and that will be totally for you. There you can do everything you want. Thanks.

I have created a new topic for the troll attacking me - but seriously you need to realise that your topic is only going to attract trolls (there is a war going on at the moment).

Each post you make is yet another nail in the coffin of laughable lies and failed extortion attempts you've cobbled together for yourself.
And don't think that moving to some third-world shithole will save you from the long arm of the law.
Wait.
 >:(

Of course - I am waiting for you to send the troops to capture me and then take me to prison.

:D

Nah, we'll just call your wife. She'll take you in hand mighty quick, we've seen the power she wields over you here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1086875.0;all) >:(

*But, of course, you're not worried at all. It usually takes me about 20 posts to convey how little I care about a topic ::)

You seriously are a stupid person - your repeating of the incident in the past is not gaining you any respect (it only makes you look stupider and stupider).

You made your threat to sue me but it seems clearly you aren't going to go through with that so now you are trying to rewind and bring up earlier things.

Why don't you "grow a pair"?

Wishful thinking >:(

Go on, post again about how you're totally not scairt shitless :D

Are there really shills who get paid to troll other members on this site or is that just some sort of thing people say...? Or, is trolling some sort of strange practice to derail a thread topic....a variety of red herring?  I don't know....but it only demonstrates the problems outlined in the topic of this thread.  Will there ever be a reasonable hope that a consensus would be reached or should the community settle for a less democratic structure?

Okay boastful troll - your threat to sue me has been noted.

Once you have failed will you admit you are a troll or what?

Because Democracy is not based on consensus. If it was, a single nay would stop every advance in its tracks, and Democracy would have been stillborn.

@CIYAM: Good things take time. Each post you make is another nail etc., etc. Stop turning every thread into some quarrel about yourself. Your appearance in any thread is as welcome as Typhoid Mary. Srsly, bro.
VVV

Well - why would people that don't even know me get into vitriolic attacks on me in such a topic if they were not being paid for it (especially when we are talking about new accounts that shouldn't even know about things from 6-12 months ago which somehow they do).

Well, true to some degree.  Democracy was based on a 'general' consensus....a utilitarian approach to governance.  Unanimity doesn't come into play in systems that are purely communal....but what is best for the masses takes precedence over whats good for the few (elite).

Bitcoin is not about politics so why bring that into things?

(it's about a consensus algorithm)

Unity becomes exponentially more difficult to achieve as numbers grow. Two coin tosses have a 50% chance to both land on the same side (heads or tails ; agreeing, consensus). Three coins 25%, four coins 12.5% etc., etc.
This, of course, is just an illustration, random tosses, coins have no "enlightened self-interest" to land on heads or tails, and consensus will be more likely to happen if people voted against, let's say, replacing our atmosphere with hydrogen cyanide, for instance. But you know that wouldn't be true consensus either, because nature of crowds, because suicides, because watch the world burn.

So trade-off: higher % majority = more stagnant system {conservative], lower % = more dynamic [revolutionary].

That's my point...Back in the day when everybody had the opportunity to mine it was an even playing field and that was important, but things have evolved.  Now, we have to reconsider things rather than hold on to the original model that has obviously went into a different direction than was originally anticipated.  Right?

You're confusing how bitcoin protocol works (math) with who decides how it changes over time (politics, or you wouldn't be here).

Edit: What's more, we don't have a clear definition of terms here: what is "consensus"? It's been defined as anything from < 50% to 100%, but of what?
Bitcoin Wiki introduces the term "economic majority," but it's a junk term. People with fiat are the true economic majority.
So consensus of what? Miners [hashpower]? Holders of BTC [no mechanism to vote].
Holders of fiat [they're the ones who actually *BUY* coins]?
Number of nodes [irrelevant because trivially cheap to rig]?

Very true...Trying to keep in the spirit of the original posters concern.  The OP was trying to figure out why there is so much debate and conflict between those who hold the keys to the project.  And, much of that conflict is based on ideology....but there's also a miner vs. adopter (consumer/user) aspect to the whole debate.  Right?

EDIT: I haven't even opened my Core wallet in weeks because I don't want to have to wait for it to synchronize....I'm just an average user so where is my motivation to maintain a full node to support the network?  I mean why?  Is that a valid question?

Right. Bitcoin is [implicitly] dependent on miners' interests coinciding with those of the hodlers. By implicitly I mean the vulgar sense of the word, as in "implied but not directly stated." There are other mechanisms, like nodes, that are somehow meant to mediate this, though, like yourself, I'm at a loss as to how (see my post above).
Assuming that the interests of miners would align with those of the holders is valid only if no "cashing out" -- if miners were forced to keep their money as BTC rather than sell those BTC for USD. If the problem with this is unclear, I could expand, but am slow typer :(

@CIYAM below: If you have nothing but your paranoiac musings & baseless accusations to contribute, kindly stop shitting up this thread. ty.
VV

It isn't really so hard to understand - we are talking about billions of dollars - that tends to make it easy for people to do anything (such as post rubbish at me like has been happening) for money.

This topic is just another excuse for those that are trying to get rid of the core devs to further their cause (and I would be pretty certain that is exactly why this topic was created in the first place).

Yes...I just edited my post above in anticipation of the response but I'll put it here to keep things in context because you seem to type faster than I can think....LOL

I haven't even opened my Core wallet in weeks because I don't want to have to wait for it to synchronize....I'm just an average user so where is my motivation to maintain a full node to support the network?  I mean why?  Is that a valid question?  The less of an incentive it becomes to maintain a full node, the more control the miners consolidate.  I don't believe that was an intended outcome of the project....so things have changed from the original vision....the math needs to be re-thought in order to put the project back on track with the original vision....that's all.

I see - so you are another paid shill.

How surprising.

No...I do my part to support the network.  I'm just saying that while everybody is pointing fingers and arguing about "degree's" of change rather than focusing on change in general that there are other technologies that have learned from the bitcoin experiment which are posed to fulfill the needs of the consumer, rather than the greed of the miners.  I mean, R3CEV has invested more on research than the entire marketcap of Bitcoin.  And Ethereum has capabilities that far surpass Bitcoin....are we going to let an Alt win, even though we have all the brains on our team?

Thanks for making it clearer who is actually paying you to post.

This is why we can't have nice things :(
I do not report posts as a matter of principle; please don't force me to reconsider.

---

The blockchain grows every day, it currently grows by (at most) 1MB every (roughly) 10 minutes. Changing the 1MB max_block_size to 2MB will make it grow by (at most) 2MB every (roughly) 10 minutes. The important bit is "at most." Just like every block isn't 1MB right now, blocks won't suddenly be 2MB, or bigger at all. Though they could be, when the capacity is needed. And if someone decided to "spam" the blockchain.

There are conceptual problems with scaling Bitcoin, and your running a full node is of clear benefit only to yourself, and only if you're handling large sums. That's a tangent tho, & and by thinking that I'm likely in the minority.

And very lucratively too if I might add. (JOKING)  LOL   No, I am legitimately concerned with the block size stalemate, just like the original poster, and I'm just trying to understand the dilemma better.  I believe in Bitcoin and want it to succeed....I want to have access to a decentralized, non-regulated, pseudo-anonymous currency with small transaction fees that will be accepted globally.  That's all.

If you have legit concerns then you could just PM me or someone else (but I don't think you'll do that as you want to have your posts seen - especially as you have a rather big ad sig).

To be fair, he probably shouldn't ask a failed extortionist (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1086875.0;all). There's that.

OP you have asked a very difficult question here. The best course of action is no longer questioning the community in general but rather asking specific and reputable members in particular. You might ask yourself why this is. Essentially you will get (you already have) shills posting for their own respective sides. 'shills' as in people who don't make technical arguments but rather make baseless accusations and whatnot. Currently there are two major options:
1. Bitcoin Core
2. Bitcoin Classic (the fork)

---

---

There are two proposals for the short term on increasing the transaction capacity:
1. Core - Segwit
2. Classic - 2 MB blocks.

Now both proposals have some negatives to them (we could discuss this, but you could look up some other threads), but 2 MB blocks have no benefits aside from the increased transaction capacity. Segwit on the other hand fixes other important things such as transaction malleability.

---

---

The main problem here isn't the proposal but it is the fork itself. A successful hard fork needs to have a lot of consensus and a longer time-period for activation because essentially if those that do not upgrade are unable to use Bitcoin. Classic proposes 75% consensus threshold and forking very quickly (4 week grace period IIRC). This is very wrong and harmful to the system. Another thing that one has to consider are the people behind the implementations. Classic doesn't even have half the "developing power" as Core.

---

---

This is written in a fairy objective way and contains no bias. Anything that was written should be correct.

I play poker for a living....and when I seen the opportunity to promote a legitimate poker site that has adopted Bitcoin, I jumped on board.  I cannot even imagine a better marriage than poker and Bitcoin.  I had my poker accounts frozen in April, 2011 which severely limited my ability to earn a living. I had to jump thru hoops to get my accounts funded on sites that still accepted US customers....Poker introduced me to Bitcoin.  The regulatory intervention of poker by the US government validated the need for a decentralized, unregulated currency.  I've been playing on the network you see see in my signature since well before Bitcoin was formulated.  Poker provides a huge incentive for people to adopt Bitcoin in the US market....Poker benefits the Bitcoin community and bitcoin benefits the poker industry.  If it weren't for poker, I wouldn't care about Bitcoin.

+1

Sorry but I disagree all the post and disagree strongly some of your sentences. First I need to tell that I am a sworn enemy of gambling. I think that gambling cause addiction and if not cured, bring disease and distress. So, in my point of view, make a strong connection between bitcoin and an variant of gambling like poker and thinking or "selling" this as an immense good for bitcoin or as an incentive which will bring big spread of it, is totally a wrong and even risky approach of this matter. Gambling and poker cannot be never good for bitcoin because mean first of all lose of money. Statistics tell that in poker lose their money 95% of them who play and win only the remaining 5%. Where is the good here? In losing money? You think that losing money will help people to love bitcoin? I don't want to comment more (to not create polemics out of the aim of this thread) but in the quoted post there are other scandalous expressions which make me think that the author may be an addicted one from poker (and maybe even classic gambling itself). Sorry for my words (may be strong ones) and have any kind of desire or aim to offend you. But your reasoning is totally wrong one, according to me, and I must tell that I want to tell with the needed words to give exactly that what I think and feel.

+1, with a few corrections.

+2