Bitcoin Forum

http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/9/10946072/bitcoin-core-classic-software-block-size-debate (http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/9/10946072/bitcoin-core-classic-software-block-size-debate)

"Bitcoin developer announced that the cryptocurrency and the technology underlying were, in his opinion, a failed experiment."

Thoughts?

I'd say the faster we settle this thing, the better off we'll be. We've recovered from battles between two competing Bitcoin chains before, but there's only so many times you can do that before people just get sick of the whole thing.

This is so stupid, it really is.

It's a bunch of drama queens.

Bitcoin isn't going to fracture, there is no civil war, any attempt to fork is going to fail.

It doesn't matter even if the classic people are right, they are going about it the wrong way and it will fail, core is where things happen.

block size debate just for people who really know bitcoin,expert on it,and they who mine bitcoin,so i think i will not much caring about this,just follow everyone choose,core or classic,it not matter for me ;D

I think it is about time this debate ends. I don't think it should be compared to a civil war though, it is not the major community who is rising against the leaders, it is more the leaders fighting eachother.

It does prevent the growth of bitcoin in my opinion, so a decision has to be made, preferably one that does not take into account the side businesses some of them are involved with.

This is old news. I think this kind of disagreement is unavoidable and do not consider this as civil war.

I would think it is a unavoidable growing up process through which Bitcoin can only get stronger.

Bitcoin have wider community and as we all know there will be lot more debate with more heads and same happening to bitcoin. Community get divided into two groups lately and one wins in this block size issue. There are lots of alts out there which have same algo like bitcoin but can't get adopted like bitcoin so they always try to kill bitcoin network and strengthen their community. Its like politics rather than civil war.  ::)

To reach consensus it means a constant debate, because there is never total consensus. The system works and things are moving in the right direction. These articles are just FUD clickbait from jealous people that own no coins. Focus on getting more BTC and don't waste time reading crap.

Absolutely right.Where is no dictator there is no: "Enough talk!That's it how we do it!"
The thing is in companies heating debates almost happen behind closed doors.And when a decision is made it is told to all employees.
But open source projects don't work like that.That's all.
SegWit is coming soon. Also Lightning Network seems to make good progress as Joseph Poon recently said in an interview to bitcoinmagazine. Also the last few weeks there were no big discussions happening.Why? Because devs are busy and working hard 'cause they want to deliver what is promised in core roadmap.

If "there is never total consensus," then you will never "reach consensus." That's just the way life is. Especially when no one even agrees on what "consensus" means :(

You can blame the disruptors for this. Bitcoin was fine before the block size debate and nothing has changed since.

I don't think that it will end anytime soon.

Maybe a restructuration of the ecosystem is due. These 'leaders' should not have this much influence.

A decision has been reached, Segwit. The 'forkers' are just causing unneeded trouble at this point (see /r/btc).

Blame? What's with the knee-jerk blaming?
Should I also blame the guy who finds a bug in beta software for "ruining it for everyone"? Because this is exactly what's going on -- Bitcoin, a great social experiment, is in beta (Core's current ver. is 0.12.0). We should *thank* people exposing obvious & fundamental flaws.
If these "disruptors" succeed in disrupting the disruptive technology that is our beetcoin, kudos to them :)
Stop this Red vs. Blue silliness.

What flaw are we talking about? The network is operating nicely without any problems. Seems like being hyperbolic and imagining flaws seems to be your thing.

Hyperbolic?

You don't find it somewhat problematic that a system billed as A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System can't handle the transaction volume generated by a small suburban shopping mall?

You don't consider it a problem that "the next world currency" can't come up with a coherent scaling roadmap which doesn't involve third parties & what amounts to buying gift cards from people you plan to do business with (lightning network)?

You don't find it worrying that our Mechanical Turk is not controlled by "maths and sciences," per billing, but by a couple of midgets, who aren't particularly good at chess & can't even play nice together?

Hyperbolic?

Turns out our self-driving currency has more in common with Thelma & Louise than Mario Andretti, and it don't bother you?

http://baltimorepostexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Thelma_Louise_cliff-1.jpg
"The network is operating nicely without any problems."

Finding something problematic and saying that it is a fundamental flaw is fundamentally different.

The Lightning Network does not involve third parties nor buying any kind of gift cards.

>Finding something problematic and saying that it is a fundamental flaw is fundamentally different.
I'm telling you it's a fundamental flaw which you don't seem to find problematic.

>The Lightning Network does not involve third parties nor buying any kind of gift cards.
Correct, though has little to do with what I said, that being "what amounts to buying gift cards."

Lightning network requires its users to create a payment channel, which must be fully funded for all future use.
Just like a gift card.
Meaning that if you are planning to use Lightning to buy coffee at Starbucks, you must lock away as much BTC as you're planning to use at Starbucks *for the lifetime of the channel*. Before you can buy your overpriced cup of coffee via Lightning, you have to lock away enough BTC for 100 cups, or Lightning is as pointless as buying yourself a "1 cup of coffee" gift card each time you buy a cup of coffee.
Which is pointless.

>does not involve third parties
Technically no.
Just like cashing out your BTC to some speedier coin, transacting in that [speedier coin], and, when you're done with your shopping, buying BTC with the remnants (change) doesn't technically involve third parties.
Though some might suggest you're not technically using BTC, either.

Isn't segwit supposed to launch this month? Seems like a big move. Classic seems to be kinda static and falling a little right now. I think it's gonna go quiet for a while again.

I'm telling you that it isn't.

It doesn't.

100 cups? See, you're being hyperbolic again. You can just as easily do it for 10.

Whoever says that does not understand LN (albeit it is better than those that say that LN is an altcoin).

The code might get released this month.

I can't believe someone resurrected a thread that is as many months old as it had reply posts.

Who cares about the block size issue!

This debate shouldn't exist in the first place if the lead devs have looked further than their own egos and thought about what would have been better for the greater good of the whole Bitcoin community and not caring only about their selfish reasons to fuck around for so long. I think it's about time for them to listen to what everyone wants and this thing will be over.

This debate shouldn't exist at all, whatever happens even with the fork, bitcoin will still continue to exist without any problems, so no civil war in my opinion regarding bitcoins.

This fight reminds me about the days when we still had Netscape and IE and people were going on about the smallest difference between the two. We called it the "Browser Wars" and it went on for months, until Microsoft took the lead and dominated the scene. Using their domination in the OS environment as a driving method to gain dominance in the browser fights.

That has come and gone and now we have a plethora of browser still fighting for dominance. The same will happen with Bitcoin, because everyone wants to be on top and there are only place for one. ^smile^

How can you claim that there is no "civil war" when there have been countless "discussions" that include various forms of hostility over the course of the last few months?

Seems like a lot of people do?

So your solution to the 'debate' is to introduce additional crypto-currencies that will 'fight for dominance'?

>100 cups? See, you're being hyperbolic again. You can just as easily do it for 10.
Sure. You could also open a payment channel and fund it with just enough coin for 1 cup of coffee. It would be a stupid thing to do, you would loose money vs. transacting on the blockchain & bloat BTC blockchain in the process, but yeah, technically you could.
If BTC tx fees ever become substantial, setting up a payment channel for 10 cups of coffee would make that coffee prohibitively expensive. So 100 cups is a reasonable number, I'm good with it.

The rest of your comments are simply "no ur rong," and, as such, deserve no response. Responding only because it pains me to see you reduce yourself to this, Lauda, sniping like a hurt little girl. Stop acting like a hurt little girl, Lauda, it's unbecoming.

Doing so for 1 cup of coffee does not make sense indeed. LN is not efficient for such. However, you have no calculations to back up any exact numbers (e.g. at exactly what point is it inefficient/expensive). You're part of the 'complaining is better than contributing crowd'.

Simiarily you think that "ur rite" without anything backing up your words. I've done nothing but reduce to your level. +1 for ad hominem attempt.

---

---

Update: Seems like I've wasted my time. Stop trolling.

>you have no calculations to back up any exact numbers
Of course I have no numbers, there's no Lightning. duh.

>Simiarily you think that "ur rite"
Again, of course, not in the habit of saying stuff I think is wrong.
I back my comments with logic and reasoning and stuff. You? Not so much. As I mentioned earlier, ad hominem != wrong or inappropriate.
Saying this as an educator and a friend, Lauda, stop it with the petulant little girl comebacks, people will like you more  :)
Edit re. ad hominem: Avoid. Makes you sound like a kid who's desperately trying to sound smart.

It is old, but I think the description is apt. Until one side wins comprehensively, everybody in the bitcoin space is just going to bleed. We need this to be resolved before we can proceed further.

There is no civil war if only one side is fighting between themselves and the other one is just watching. We as a community don't have the final say on the matter sadly. The consensus must be reached by the people in charge of development.