Bitcoin Forum

I'll just drop it here

http://gavinandresen.ninja/satoshi-roundtable-thoughts

Blockstream is engineering a problem by keeping the blocksize small in order to force their off-chain "solutions" onto everybody, all for their eventual profit.

It is a greedy and overall highly disgusting tactic on their part.

Bravo Gavin for standing up against this madness.

I think the 95% thing is gonna be a major problem. Look at how divided everyone is and they're getting more divided by the day.

If he saw this coming, and I guess anyone would, why didn't he do more when he was in the driving seat back in the day? It's obvious a change was gonna become harder as more people came on board. There shoulda been something in place in 2012/13.

95% consensus is truly laughable. It's just a stall tactic, so any one person with an agenda can permanently delay a fork if they don't like a change. 75% is reasonable.

2mb was proposed as early as july 2015.

blockstream went on a political rally to say the proposals for 20mb, 8mb 4mb was too much.. totally over shadowing any talk of a 2mb.. then it started the next phase of politcal meandering. not talking about code at all but trash anyone that wants change and say they are corporations. while secretly it was blockstream that is the corporation with the controlled agenda after all.

we had debates about block size debunked because segwit+confidential pament codes would bloat blocks up to 4mb. so that blew blockstreams "2mb is bad" theory out of the water

we had debates about large blocks causing a dilution of full archival nodes debunked because in actual fact by blockstream offering no-witess mode and pruned mode many of the 6000 nodes wont be running in full archival mode.

we had the grace 5 month to implement code (february-july) theory debunked because blockstream released 3 different versions for core in 5 months so 1 version can easily be released in a couple months.

we had the grace period of 12 months debunked, because Luke JR (blockstream/core dev) and other devs thought it ok to put in a difficulty reduction hard fork with only 3 month grace(april-july).

so all in all there is no reason at all to not have the 2mb hard fork code in aprils release, with a 6month grace period.

if its there and people dont want it, it just wont get activated.. but if people want it and the code is not their, then its just a waste of time that will not benefit anyone. and if anyone was to make their own implementation that had it due to blockstream refusing it. then it would be blockstream causing a contention if the majority wanted to move to the 2mb buffer limit.

again having the code available but not activated allowing the community to decide if it activates or not is better then not having the code available and everyone begging the blockstream CEO to get his ass in gear

Yeah, let Coinbase governance us. The company that is actually making money as we speak. Blockstream isn't making any money and they already have agreed to a HF NEXT FUCKING YEAR! Let me repeat that: They aren't making any money right now and I can make a bet that they will not be making any money next year either! How would you agree to give the bitcoin governance towards a for-profit company with ZERO technical skills??? I don't get it!

With the way Core is headed and the way the devs are acting, Bitcoin is headed more and more towards a centralized governance. Classic is what we need and that 2MB limit is what we(miners) need even more

Why?

Let coinbase govern us? Really? LOL. So Coinbase is the big boogieman now? Coinbase has no power over what wallet you decide to use, or even how you decide to use bitcoin. Not really anyway. Blockstream, on the other hand has achieved total centralization over the bitcoin development space, and it has been shown that some of their investors may very well have ulterior motives. Coupled with the constant ongoing DDoS attacks against Classic nodes (someone is spending hundreds of thousands on this)  and censorship attempts on this forum and r/bitcoin, it has become pretty clear what is really going on - any viable alternative to Core is being actively oppressed. On the plus side, these kinds of dirty tactics have a very high chance to backfire.

As for the rest of your argument, it's pointless. We need 2 mb now, and to buy us time to make more decisions. Next year around "maybe July 2017" is just too long. They are stalling and stalling and stalling. They are clearly opposed to a blocksize increase at all costs and some of them (luke-jr) even want to REDUCE the blocksize. They will eventually profit off side-chains in some capacity or another, which is clearly their ultimate goal - and not only that but they are trying to set up conditions to force us all to use*their* off-chain solutions. This is extremely dishonest. But I guess when you have a CEO like Austin Hill who made 100k scamming people in 3 months, things like ethics and morals don't really matter much huh?

Running Classic does not mean giving "governance" to coinbase. That is honestly just a really stupid, Low-IQ scare tactic. It means listening to the sensible arguments of Gavin and a blocksize increase which is clearly sorely needed.

Lol @ this Classicbase shill going around to every thread and sticking up for Classicbase.

You're an idiot. That's all there is to it. You do not even have the basic intelligence required to refute a single one of my points.

If you want central banker settlement coin and make big bucks off sidechains, make your own coin like Ethereum, don't go for a hostile takeover of Bitcoin and force your shit onto the rest of us.

Honestly after reading few articles of those published by some of the attendees, from the looks of it, were heading to more centralized path if it continues this way and since 95% of miners votes are needed for this to go through (hope I understood it correctly) then it's going to complicate a bit since that's too high. I'm starting to worry though a bit since there seem to be no consensus on the matter (til now) since it looks like two groups that one looking for centralized system with more fee's and the other is after decentralized with less fee.

Tell that to the millions of users in North America who signed up with them, because they are almost the only legal option in the USA to acquire and trade with Bitcoin. You try to buy Bitcoin anywhere else, let's say Localbitcoin and you get arrested and your money seized. Coinbase bend over to the government and accepted all the KYC and AML rules and regulations and effectively sold out the users privacy. Now they want to use that leverage < The high user base > to throw their weight around.

The sooner we see a lot more competition < Not just Ciircle> the better for all of us. The Americans should rid themselves from monopolies like that.

Raise you hand, if you think Gavin would have said anything good about the Core team. ^smile^

Core= aiming for several layers on top of a decentralized base to scale safe and properly and offer millions of users the possibilty of micropayments which will be incredible cheap and fast via LN and other implementations.Having the incredible huge majority of best skilled developers knowing and improving the network.

classic= 2 devs and a bunch of power greedy individuals and scammers who think just increasing blocksize again and again and again is the cure for everything.

hey Mr. Shill its never been a debate about which band camp should control and veto code. its about a open community of bitcoin that all features and upgrades should be allowed as long as they work, that means all different implementations can include the code. it should never be a "follow core or die" philosophy, or a "follow classic or die philosophy".

2mb can be included in core... just like segwit can be included in classic.
heck, 2mb+segwit could be included in bitcoinj, and the other 12 branded bitcoin clients.

so stop turning a code debate into a political control debate

but core refuses because their payday from offchain solutions and sidechain solutions outweigh's the morals and ethics of doing what millions of people want.

Correct. And IMO devs should be payed by some BTC voting system.

Adam Back recently said on Twitter:
#Bitcoin "We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code" -David Clark, IETF

Which I thought was interesting because:

Segwit=not ready
2MB=deployed

One of them is a realistic solution right now to mitigate potentially stuck transactions/backlog and is moving towards establishing rough consensus.

also adam back is following idea's of his corporate consultants at PwC, not following the wishs of the bitcoiners.
so although we should not call PwC a king or president. we should call them a management company and borderline 'parliament'.

it makes me laugh that he claims to not want top ranking people controlling bitcoin. but put himself as the one with the main github keyholders aswell as having the title of CEO to a corporation.

Gavin likes to please the crowd, and plays that hand like a Pro. He also likes to use scare tactics to influence people e.g. " If the block size limit is not increased, we will see more off-chain solutions.

But they won’t be the Lightning Network– instead, we will see highly centralized “clearing” agreements between exchanges and miners and merchants or merging of miners and transactions creators."

You already have off-chain solutions like Xapo doing just that, with no real negative influence for the Blockchain. It depends what you expect from the Blockchain, which would dictate it's limitations. If

everyone in the world wants to use it to move micro amounts "eg. Buying Coffee", services like Xapo can handle that and do the validation of the final value transfer on-chain. Nothing wrong with that.   

Personally I find it very amusing that years ago when Gavin appeared on CNN (or CNBC - I forget which) with Amir and Amir was talking about Bitcoin being used for "micro-transactions" Gavin was very quick to interrupt Amir and say "no - Bitcoin is not suitable for that" (in fact I think that he basically spoke over Amir in order to "shut him up").

So when he was "the lead dev" it wasn't suitable for buying coffees but now that he lost his throne (which he abdicated btw) and wants it back suddenly we need to be buying coffees with Bitcoin (and if we can't buy our coffees for Bitcoin by the end of next month or so then the whole project will die).

Stop being sucked in by a narcissist guys (he still calls himself the "Chief Scientist" of Bitcoin for fuck's sake and he barely even contributes any code at all).

If Gavin would agree to retire and have nothing more to do with Bitcoin then maybe one could take the idea of a 2MB hard-fork as something other than a power grab (but until he does that then I am convinced he just wants to regain the control that he thinks he should have).

If Gavin thinks he is so talented then why doesn't he just have the balls to create an "alt" rather than trying to fuck up Bitcoin.

i would like to see cores hardfork sooner than mid 2017 too...  ::)

stop defending the CEO of blockstream corporation. as its kind of funny that all the same insults you mention to others can apply to adam back aswell.

please click the link and tell me where gavin even mentions cups of coffee..
instead he is mentioning about the lack of security of sidechains that wont be backed up by the hashrate of bitcoin.

imagine it this way 7000 nodes. and a couple thousand of those desides to use prune mode.
now theres there would be only 5000 full archival nodes.
then segwit comes in. and people opt for no witness mode. again reducing the full node count.

then sidechains come in and people swap bitcoins for liquids and sidechain x,y,z and no longer feel the need to protect bitcoin because they are going to stick with using the sidechains for the rest of their life.

and now the node count is even less..

people become reliant on the 12 exchanges to protect the liquid arbitrage network
people will rely on the hubs that hold the LN transactions that could easily just transfer all the funds to themself

so how about you talk about the code instead of the politics. after all i know you want bitcoin to be a reserve currency, but if blockstream have their way. Liquid will become the reserve

Why are you so impatient?

The supposed "full blocks" are not full (there are empty blocks being mined every single day) and most of the tx "backlog" are just spam txs.

It is obvious that the recent flood of txs are "attacks" rather than reflecting actual normal user demand.

Typical post from you (a paid shill and an idiot) - I didn't even mention anything to do with the CEO of Blockstream.

May I suggest you take some lessons in "reading comprehension".

Gavin is the guy who has made this all political in his quest for power.

Gavin gave up all his power, but now he suddenly wants it back? Really? Seems like you're grasping at straws to me.

Blockstream are the ones pushing their agenda and ignoring the wishes of everyone else.

Then why on earth does Gavin jump from one project to another in order to take back control of the development with a hard-fork?

Who is the "lead dev" other than Gavin that is behind these projects?

(oh - and we can see what happens when Gavin doesn't get what he wants - Hearn quits and next will be Garzik)

Time's up!
Endless uncertainty makes mainstream Bitcoin adoption much less likely. Where is the clear path to ending the debate and settling on a solution?

Because you said so?

And who exactly are you to be in charge of when "time's up" eh?

(another paid shill no doubt)

awww you cannot correct me so resort to insults.

u have defended blockstream for months. care to take a lesson in memory retention.

and by the way why are you asking litecoinguy 'why so impatient'.. again check your memory, because 2mb has been a debate since summer 2015.. infact even satoshi mentioned about 2mb in 2010.. so its not really a quick decision that has only came about in january...
infact it was never even gavins idea in the first place. but i really do love how your trying so hard to turn a code debate into a political debate.

you blockstream lovers love the contention as it makes you look important because if just 6% of the community refuse to upgrade then blockstream wins. your most definetly one of the 6%.. even at 90% you would not be tempted to join the majority to help it get to 95%. you have made it obvious your in the contention camp.

Really - care to quote that?

And even if he did mention something about increasing the size after having reduced it to 1MB why is that relevant now? Satoshi left the project (also presumably if you are going to invoke his name then you should be calling for 64MB blocks as that was the limit originally created by him).

As I stated - if Gavin will announce his retirement then I'll accept 2MB blocks (I don't actually care about the block size limit being 1 or 2 MB but I don't want Gavin allowed to be in charge as virtually no-one wants to work with him).

contratulations you are half way to being on the mindset of the community,

now take this mind blowing thought
if, imagine it... if CORE put in 2mb.....

wow.. imagine it.. core adding in 2mb..
your mind must be blowing a gasket at that thought..

now if core has 2mb then there is no contention.. and gavin wont "own bitcoin"

imagine it,. have a cup of coffee, sit back and eat a biscuit and imagine the possibility of having 2mb included in core. included in bitcoinJ included in all the other 12 different codebases..

i know.. it blows apart your gavin vs adam mindset.. but think of the possibility of there being no gavin vs adam debate.. and a simple 1mb vs 2mb for the whole community debate

as for scaling up bitcoin being mentioned as far back as 2010

Seriously - do you really think that doubling the size of the blocks is going to allow everyone to buy coffees for Bitcoin?

Do you think if we made it 20MB that would do it?

Or maybe 64MB?

Or?

Sorry - it won't scale with that approach at all - so caving in to the pressure of mostly stupidity to increase the block size to 2MB might have to be the strategy to keep Gavin at bay but it actually doesn't do anything to solve the fundamental scaling problems at all.

Also - I can guarantee you that even if Bitcoin Core decides to do a 2MB fork due to the current "political pressure" Gavin will immediately then start up with a 4MB (or more) hard-fork proposal.

Perhaps you'd like to take a bet on that?

who said anything about bitcoin being used to buy coffee??

again you have not read what gavin wrote and ignored the context. and are meandering the debate totally off to the most weirdest tangent you can find.

my comment was about you taking a break for 5 minutes to think.. you know let your brain work and process some thoughts

Why don't you try and just put forward a coherent argument as to why we need bigger blocks when the Chinese miners are still creating empty blocks every day (clearly they don't think there is any need to even fill up the blocks as it is)?

I do hope that you realise that if you make the block size 2MB those same mining pools that are creating blocks with 1 tx (just the block reward) will continue to do just that (and in fact you might encourage more of those blocks as they might decide that tx propagation is too much of a hassle with bigger blocks).

So the bigger you make the block size - the smaller the blocks will end up - what are you going to do then?

(btw - can you try and at least "pretend to be intelligent" rather than just insulting?)

first of all lets say that a 4mb was needed in 2020 (4 years time)

if core implements 2mb with a 6 month grace.. meaning active by christmas this year. then no, a new debate wont begin until mid 2019
because people will then know 6 month prep work is ok.


but with core devs delaying it untill the summer of 2017.. then by the time 2018 comes people will need to start planning on more again because they know it takes 2 years (hoping for a 2020 second fork) for the core devs to do something...

so again its the core devs causing delays and contention that is causing the endless debate.

Let's me just point out that you have zero evidence of this (so it is a silly hypothetical).

Now let's get back to the real issue - there are "single tx blocks" (just the block reward) getting created every day by the major mining pools.

How are you going to fix that?

(of course you cannot fix that as you can't enforce the mining pools to include txs)

So you can increase the block size to 100MB and still end up with blocks with only 1 tx (the block reward).

Do you see how futile the idea of increasing block size is yet?

1. those few miners making 1tx blocks are all about greed. its not about helping bitcoin its just about the payday. i wish we could do something about them as it would relieve some pressure on the network if every pool was filling blocks would being picky about how many transactions etc.. but we cant
(well we could. by blacklisting their IP's or by making it a rule to have atleast XX tx per block.. lets say 500+ so that ultimately their 1tx blocks orphan out, but thats a different scenario)

2. the 2mb wont stop the greedy miners that happily just want to process 1tx of their block wins.. but it would halp the other pools that want to take in more transactions

3. goodluck proving that.. afterall before 2013, blocks were no bigger then 500kb.. then suddenly due to the bug fix miners could utilize the full 1mb buffer.. so did blocks decrease or increase.. i mean are we currently having no blocks at all that are over 450kb ??
so ill reword it,  knowing that 1mb buffer was actually usable in 2013+ did that suddenly cause the entire blockchain to have blocks of only 250bytes-500kb?
with a visible trend of blocks getting smaller and smaller as time moved on?

Let's just go with this point - the majority of mining is in China (where also the majority of 1 tx blocks come from) and it is well known that they do SPV mining in China.

So they aren't very keen in China to process more txs per block (and certainly not in a safe manner as SPV mining is unsafe and led to the last fork issue).

Greed is unfortunately the very basis of Bitcoin mining so that is not going to change (and it does cost a lot to run a mining operation so I'm not sure just how altruistic you could expect anyone doing this to be).

My point is that increasing the block size is not actually likely going to result in much bigger blocks (as the pools that are the majority will still keep their blocks small in order to propagate faster).

If the size was increased a lot more then this pool behaviour would likely become pathological (i.e. most blocks might end up being just 1 tx).

On the other hand technical improvements such as SegWit do offer a way forward that should work for everyone (but you just keep on saying "we need to quick fix now").

Why not separating the issue

1 ) Try do 2MB

2) If does not help work on incentives for filling blocks (not with fake..)

If it were a completely simple and painless thing to do it would have already been done (although I understand that Gavin keeps trying to promote that it is).

A hard-fork is *not* a completely simple and painless thing to do (and that is required to do this).

Also if SegWit is adopted then it basically ends up being an equivalent improvement but via a soft-fork (which is less painful).

I think it is clear that a hard-fork will happen so now it is just a question of when that will happen.

3) Do hard forks on regular base

Why on earth would you propose that?

You do realise that means everyone needs to upgrade their software?

(or perhaps you think of Bitcoin as being like your anti-virus software)

Hm - easy.  a) You said it's an issue.  b) Monero does it fine...

the majority of blocks are not 1tx

here
https://i.imgur.com/u5504OQ.jpg

1 out of 14 has 0.2mb

1 is 700kb~

the other 12 are 900+

so now i dare you to check out the last 144 blocks (one day) and tell me the percentage of blocks that are not just with 1tx, (ill help you out to give you better percentages) but blocks under 500k

now i know you dont think 75% is a majority (i recall u debating that before) so instead of using your own 95% majority preference, i will help you out again..

show me statistics that 50% or more blocks are 250bytes-500kb..

or concede that the majority are not making empty blocks.

there i didnt even have to make you reveal the very small amount of empty blocks by letting o pad the numbers with half filled blocks

Monero is an alt with nothing like the capital that Bitcoin has behind it.

So sure - an alt can hard-fork every day of the week and no-one will complain but Bitcoin is not an alt.

Why is it that you have such a hard time in understanding what I post (that you have to twist it and basically *lie*).

I never said that the majority of blocks are 1 tx did I?

(idiot)

You should take some lessons in "honesty" from someone (as all you do is misquote people and try to put fake words in their mouths).

It's no wonder you have no respect in this forum @franky1 as you are anything but "frank'.

(go ahead and keep making a fool of yourself - am pretty sure others are noticing you're rather good at that)

ur avoiding showing the statistics.

so show the 'majority' (50% blocks 50% filled) and you win the debate that there is no priority.

if you want to win the priority debate.. show that using statistics

You are truly *dense* aren't you?

I said (as you quoted) that China is where the "majority of 1 tx blocks come from".

I did not say "that the majority of blocks have 1 tx" did I?

(how about you slap yourself in the face and try and wake up)

Doesn't matter. Hard forks needs to be done in future to be flexible anyway. It's challanging yes - but altcoins (and other sowftware release cycles) are always good for looking how it could work.

So'd would be good to train that at all.


But back to - 1) Might be the easyies way to start that training. And if sb has fear, so start with 1.1 MB - just do it.

Again - why the urgency?

There is no urgency - except for people like you saying "just do it".

This isn't Nike and we aren't creating running shoes in sweat shops so maybe "let's just not do it right now". :D

Yes - but as with Nike, if you stay on your nice couch & relax - you never start the important training (hope you agree here ) - so - do it , pls.

Really - that is just pathetic.

Rather than slogans and stupidity I prefer considered engineering (it is obvious why you support an alt coin).

And - btw - I don't develop Bitcoin so you should be telling others to "do it" rather than myself (although I'm pretty sure they'll be even less interested in your suggestions).

CIYAM ur avoiding showing the statistics.

so show the 'majority' (50% blocks 50% filled) and you win the debate that there is no priority.

if you want to win the priority debate by showing there is no urgency.. prove that using statistics

go on, please win a debate for once using statistics and prove hv_ wrong by showing 50%+ of blocks are 50% or less full

infact.. ill do one better.. 75% of blocks where blocks are less then 75% full.. prove that instead. and you win

I was not arguing about particular statistics but merely pointed out that there are empty (i.e. 1 tx) blocks still being mined (please show me the stats of the number of 1 tx blocks mined in the last month).

(as you are so good with finding the stats then I'm sure you can find those)

You have no idea how many blocks are being SPV mined but the evidence from the last fork issue has shown that a large percentage (perhaps the majority) of Chinese mining pools are mining that way (which is not secure).

The further you increase the block size then the more SPV mining (at least in China) is going to happen (and as they control the majority of hashing power then they are what matters most). Thus the more you increase the block size the less secure the network is going to be (these are facts not conjectures like pretty much everything you come up with is).

so you concede that not all the miners are making 1tx blocks
so you concede that its not the majority of blocks that are 1tx..

so you are atleast open minded that its a minority that are making 1tx, and its actually the majority that would gain from allowing more transactions in because they are less greedy and are actually in it to help bitcoin succeed. (aswell as getting a little extra amount of t fees for being helpful)

also can you clarify clarify your interpretation of majority.

if you were to put a magic number.. would it be 50%, 75% 95%..
because for the last few months that has been something else you have not really stuck to..

so please in your own words what would you define as a majority

I never stated such a thing so saying that "I concede" this it is rather stupid of you (but to be expected as you always make stupid arguments).

You have a very bad habit of "trying to win points" when you have actually won nothing with your hollow arguments.

You have another very bad habit of trying to attack someone with multiple arguments in the one post - as you can see I don't care to address you subsequent arguments - either stick to one point per post or just see that your points will be ignored.

show statistics to prove your right.. otherwise its not winning or losing the debate by not proving... its conceding.. (totally different to losing) ..

prove your hollow argument or concede. i already done a screenshot of just 14 example blocks.. so my opinion is not hollow

i am not here to win points. i am not here to be famous. i am here to tell people in the most frank manner there is what is what,
i dont care if people love or hate me. it does not affect my life at all..

so again you can insult all you want to avoid answering a question. but atleast once try showing some statistics

Really - are you so childish?

Again - I never stated what you are claiming I did - so why do I need to "prove myself right" for something only you think I stated?

(why don't you try and find where I stated that - and while you're at it where are the list of 1 tx blocks for the last month?)

prove your point. and you win the prize of showing everyone that increasing the buffer is not urgent

Okay - you are the guy who loves to show off your "stats".

Please give us the list of mining pools that mined the last 1K blocks and the number of 1 tx blocks within that list (and which pool mined them).

(yes - I am going to make you show everyone else my point and if you lie then I'll show the evidence of your lying)

Let's just start with this: https://bitcoinchain.com/pools

(irrefutable proof that the majority of blocks are mined by Chinese pools)

So if you want to prove that the 1 tx blocks were not mined by those pools then please give us the links.

Seems you aren't up to disproving me so let me just provide a few links to recent blocks with 1 tx:

https://blockchain.info/block-height/401583
https://blockchain.info/block-height/401557
https://blockchain.info/block-height/401539
https://blockchain.info/block-height/401512

(all from AntPool who are supposedly your friends as they are the ones promoting 2MB blocks - despite the fact that they are creating more empty blocks than anyone else)

You don't find it at all odd that "the only major Chinese pool promoting 2MB blocks is the one that creates the most empty blocks"?

(that must be a bit embarrassing for the *we must have 2MB blocks now* supporters)

Your selective quote missed the important part:
Where is the clear path to ending the debate and settling on a solution?
The block size debate was a dominate topic in 2015. How many more moths/years should fly by before there is a resolution?

Just look above - the major pool supporting 2MB blocks is AntPool - yet they create more "empty blocks" than any other pool - do you not see the problem?

(you can't have a serious debate about increasing block size when your most serious supporter creates empty blocks)

Exactly! How foolish these people mindlessly supporting Classic are... They seem far too foolish to be true....



@CIYAM, do yourself a favor and click that nice little link below franky1's username that says 'Ignore'. You won't regret it!

How foolish these people mindlessly supporting Core are... They seem far too foolish to be true...

/facepalm

Blockstream seized power and are now artificially reducing blocksize to eventually force everyone onto their sidechains, Liquid/LN for their profit, and *we're* the mindless ones? Man, you are outta your mind.

Gavin screwed up, he never shoulda gave up power in the first place and let these vultures in.

Relevant to the discussion.

https://i.imgur.com/zOTdCL6.png

It's okay - I find him amusing from time to time (and when I find him not amusing then I am able to ignore him without needing to click the button).

So again - the other shills are not able to dispute the fact that the only pool that supports Gavin's takeover (which they have now also shown is clearly what they are supporting) is the one that creates the most empty blocks.

With friends like that - who needs enemies?

(btw - thanks @chopstick for pointing out to us that you are a Gavin fanboy - what say you about AntPool?)

So I take it some 40-50% of the bitcoin community are Gavin fanboys, eh? Yeah, real mature argument there buddy.

CIYAM, just curious, how much have you personally donated to the DDoS attacks on Classic nodes?

Seems I have hit a raw nerve on you fanboy.

:D

Now will you care to answer about AntPool?

Thanks for pointing out you have no logical argument whatsoever.

 ;D ;D ;D

edit: I don't have an opinion about antpool either way, but I don't like how blockstream came out of nowhere and took over BTC development to force their "solutions" onto all of us. It is an incredibly dishonest way to make money.

Aha - and that was such a logical retort. ::)

This is basically the level of the Gavin fanboys - they can't reason so they finally resort to stupid stuff (and next will be personal insults).

the endless bickering is a gr8 for lolz.

things in bitcoin are not very optimistic at the moment, i would hate to be a new comer to the scene, it must seem like bitcoin is doomed.  :-\

And before you bought this account it used to have more interesting things to say.

LMAO!

thanks, i think?

(yup - you never had an ad sig before)

You are the one accusing everyone who doesn't agree with you of either being a shill or paid account, LOL

Yup - getting to personal insults now just as I predicted (they should probably get someone better at this to attack me).

Yes... come for the bitcoins, stay for the drama. There has been particularly more drama as of late.

No, just pointing out the fact that you are a blatant hypocrite. That's not an insult, it's just a fact.

Really - sorry - but it is simply not a fact - just the latest crap you posted to try and annoy me.

It doesn't really work as you are a pathetic individual - so go ahead and post some more rubbish please (one day you'll grow up and realise that when you say "it is a fact" that is actually "not true" which everyone else gets but apparently you don't).

Also the word is "hold" not "hodl" (only mindless people follow such stupid "memes" - stupid people with no individuality try and follow the latest "meme" such as you have displayed with your sig).

The stupidity of core devs' knowledge in economy and finance is endless. They think that users are all so stupid that they will tolerate an artificial rise of fee created by them, while in reality the speculative users just dump their coin and move to some alt-coins, and the real bitcoiner will start to fork it and turn bitcoin back to the long term road map envisioned by Satoshi

If there is going to be a rush to alts then shouldn't you actually be happy about that?

Personally I don't think we want just one blockchain anyway so I am not really concerned if we end up with many.

bitcoin lost 6% market share in 2 months!

its happening why do you think i'm going ape shit wirting "An open letter to miners" and such.

If you want to be taken seriously then get rid of the ad-sig you have.

I just think it's funny that you accuse me of being forced to result to personal attacks, but then you yourself were the person to start them.

It's pretty hilarious. Here, let me get the definition of hypocrisy for you:

"the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense."

It seems you fit the definition.

Anyway, it doesn't matter. If you want to support Blockstreamcoin and their plan to create a fee-market and profit off sidechains, fine. That is your choice. But don't just go around calling anyone who doesn't agree with you "Gavin fanboys", it's just not a good argument. I will continue to support the idea of multiple competing implementations so that the bitcoin development space is not centralized into the hands of a few. Core, Classic, XT, Unlimited, they all have their pro's and cons. I would like to see them working together so we can create the best bitcoin possible, with no greed or lust for power involved.

ok...

I've done with alt-coins since 2012, never touched them again, but current centralization of development in bitcoin really make me consider an alt-coin, but unless you fix this centralization of development problem, any alt-coin will have the same fate. I still hope that we can fix this problem on bitcoin itself

When miners had over 40% hash power, they can voluntarily redirect the hash power to reduce the risk of any single party taking control of more than 40%, but when devs had over 90% of control over code, they don't do anything to reduce their control, but centralized more and more and never listen to users, this is enough reason to prevent new users from using bitcoin

@chopstik

You started the personal stuff but in any case - my point is that the only Chinese pool that is supporting Gavin is the one that is creating the 1 tx blocks (so they are obviously not genuinely caring about larger tx fee rewards at all).

You need to listen to yourself - it isn't a question of percentages.

You can't have morons take over control of a project (no matter if 90% of people want them to) otherwise you end up with a train-wreck.

Do you advocate letting morons run a project (just because they might be a statistical majority or even super-majority)?

no not morons

gavin + a few other well rounded individuals

of course they have to convince us morons to go along with there plan...

Gavin (learn to spell is name if you want to be his fan) has only *one* other known dev supporting his latest effort (Jeff Garzik).

Now if you look at what went on with Mike Hearn (the last guy who co-operated with Gavin on a hard-fork attempt) then you'll see that it is not so likely that he is going to attract a lot of others (and if Classic goes south then I'll expect you'll likely see a rage-quit from Jeff Garzik in much the same manner as we saw from Mike Hearn).

So what are you going to say once Classic fails and Garzik quits?

(I am pointing this out to make sure that Gavin knows that Classic is going to be his very last chance and that others here know the damage that Gavin has and is still causing to the Bitcoin community)

Here's what morons say

" it is important that we allow all end users to run a bitcoin full node at low cost; end users will not user bitcoin's network they will use lighting network"

I dont even....

i might point to VB

idk

@adamstgBit - if you want to be taken seriously (by me) then get rid of your porn ad sig.

Decision making should not be done by programmers, because they don't know anything about market/economy/finance

The programmer's only ability is to translate human ideas into machine language, they are just translators, nothing more. The world is not run by translators. Their idea of artificially cap the transaction capacity and squeeze the users into their prepared out of date 3rd party solutions like alt-coin (side chain) and prepaid card (LN) is of ultimate stupidity

That very much depends upon what kind of decisions we are talking about.

When the decisions for Bitcoin are to do with technical things (which so far they still should be until we really do have a "huge demand for coffees") then I think it is better to listen to the engineers than to those who run exchanges that are only interested in making profits and co-operating with governments to spy on people.

The people who "run economies and finance" is the entire reason why Bitcoin actually exists (because they failed - maybe you should read again the message in the genesis block from Satoshi).

(or are you on the side of spying on everyone's txs?)

Every technical solution has an economy/financial outcome, there are many ways to solve one problem, the technical solution itself is the least concern, you can always hire thousands of programmers to realize an implementation, but everyone will see what you want to achieve. Currently we are witnessing devs killing bitcoin by turn it into a private company's network, but since bitcoin is used voluntarily, people will just leave or fork

Devs' inability to solve the current conflict inside community already proved their low IQ in social science

Personally I think this characterisation is a "cheap shot" (but yes I know it is popular amongst those trying to attack the core devs).

I am not a "core dev" and actually none of the "core devs" even particularly like me - so the fact that you (and others) think that I am partisan just shows your own "low IQ".

(for some reason you just can't understand that I am not paid by anyone for my thoughts - and that is actually sadder than whatever rubbish you want to think about the core devs)

A big problem with bitcoin is there is no "Project Manager". Devs hate project managers, because the project manager won't care about making the programmers life hard, or care if a particular solution will lend itself to "elegant code". all he cares about is the big picture.

In bitcoin the Dev's are also the project managers,  but they are programmers and know nothing of "market/economy/finance" so they can not formulate a good big picture, or overall vision of what this is all leading up to. often programmers are to focused on the individual details to realize how crazy the big picture they are painting is.

i'm going to repeat myself:

what is the point of keeping full node running cost low, if we are just going to turn around and ask end users to use lighting network??

I say low IQ because there is an obvious answer to the problem and they failed to give the right answer: Don't think you are the god and make compromise to reach consensus with other actors

Gavin has demonstrated his ability to make compromise in negotiation with users (from 20MB to 8MB to 2MB), while the other devs do not make any compromise, they just play and delay and push in their own agenda continuously while ignoring user's request, isn't it enough clear that they are so stupid in social science?

Perhaps if you knew a bit more about Gavin and his history with the other devs you'd realise that no-one wants him as their leader now (but I guess you know nothing about that).

This is the unfortunate thing - you fail to understand the social science of what has happened in the project and yet want to put the one guy that no-one else wants back in charge (yes - Gavin is very clever at tricking people).

So you can keep on trying to push for Gavin but actually no-one wants Gavin (eventually he'll come to that conclusion himself but not until he has burned people such as Hearn and Garzik along the way along with trying his hardest to destroy the very project he once lead).

Gavin has become a cancer for Bitcoin.

It would be best if he would just remove himself entirely from the argument (but he won't and with support from people like you he isn't likely to give up any time soon).

we WILL

when Core refuses to implement 2MB blocks next year we will ALL fork off.

You know full well that SegWit gives you exactly the same as 2MB blocks (and will be done *this* year).

Yet you continue to say we need the 2MB blocks - why?

It is clear it is not for any logical reason - but probably for the same reason you have an ad-sig (you are paid and you haven't removed your ad-sig after I pointed it out either).

You should ask for better reasons from your masters about what to post as I am making you look ridiculous (and I doubt it is the porn ad-sig people that actually are your masters).

ahahaha, I can't wait for Segwit to be a complete disaster that does not increase effective blocksize more then 10%
and then watch as core says " this is normal because code is complex " and " we dont need 2MB blocks because lighting is simple"

Look i HOPE segwit actually provides 1.75x increase, and i'm reluctantly backing it because it seems to be the fastest way of getting a blocksize increase in a way we can all agree on. ( even tho to me it seems to be the riskier path )

but if i had my way, miners would have taken control 6 months ago when we saw >60% mining power vote for BIP100 or BIP101 or some voted for SOME form of block increas.

to me its not about right and wrong, i really want to see the will of the majority dissolve the will of the minority with >51% hashing power.

once i see this happen, i consider bitcoin a success.

i mean this IS the mechanism by which bitcoin was meant to evolve. watching it happen live would be mind blowing.

watching core / classic devs throw out retarded arguments back and forth in a futile attempt to reach consensus is not as fulfilling

What do you think about using ad-sigs to support Bitcoin Dev?
A healthy % of the "pay" could go to programmers salaries.  :D

Okay then jonny, you use some economist developed coin.

I'll use the one designed (and coded) by computer scientists for all 7 years of it's life. It's called Bitcoin. Don't let the door hit you on your way out.

yes i'm agree,i'm sure many peoples agree with this,Gavin Andersen is one of many people who dissapointed on bitcoin,and than he doing something dirty to comment and give not good opinion about bitcoin,yes he like a cancer for bitcoin.

Bitcoin's idea is not created by computer scientists, and Satoshi was known to be not fluent in programming, that's the reason it shines. Those so called computer scientists ruined it because they lack of the basic economy and financial knowledge, fortunately I have managed thousands of such guys and I am not so impressed by any of their tricks

Huh?

Where do you get that from - his style was certainly not that of a professional software engineer (more akin to that of either a home hacker or an academic perhaps) but he was certainly quite fluent in C++ (and I've never heard of an economist that writes C++).

Morning.  

No I do not support Monero,  (that must be popped into your brain as you mined an empty block there), but that single concept.

I support a proper industrial dev & deploy process where hard forks needs to be done  w/o panicing due to a really minor change ( say 1MB -> 1.2 MB).
And this is the best example I know to really start that training now (!), not when it's too late (typical human error ).

Your patronising tone doesn't really help your lost cause but go ahead and see if Gavin will start telling everyone that they need to do some serious hard-fork "training" (perhaps you can help him to organise a "keep fit for hard-fork" exercise regimen). :D

Maybe this was Gavin's biggest failure to not setup such a industrial style process, but who wants to blame him for that?

Yes - I'd like to do so, but I'm out of industrial software dev about 10 years now  and would mess it up as well...

EDIT: BTW: I do lots of software testing right now, and UAT testing often is not possible, so you really need to do tests in the production to see proper effects.

Yeah, that's fascinating Jonny. Use their coin, please. It's called "fiat currency". This is Bitcoin.

if you dont want a fiat coin carlton, then why are you defending a corporation (blockstream) who are trying to change the vision of bitcoin away from the 2009-2013 ideals. and are trying to implement economics, such as greed and increased fee's. while trying to use those same economics to move people away from bitcoin and onto less secure centralised networks like liquid, LN and sidechains.

if your mindset was truly about a decentralized currency with no authority, i find it strange that you are on your knees praying to the overlord blockstream rather than accepting the different mindset of atleast 100 individual programmers.

MANY programmers veered away from blockstreams roadmap in a decentralised manner, making things like btcd and other implementations. purely because letting one centralized company own the keys to the code and decisions is dangerous. yet i found it real funny that you would disregard, insult and FUDstorm anyone that wanted decentralized code, and instead raise the doomsday scenario of contention by defending the one central party that would cause contention.

you need to reassess what bitcoin means to you because outside of your little blockstream box, you will actually find more then 100 programmers who do not want to give control over to blockstream.

but im guessing you are going to play the ignorance card and waffle on how blockstream has no control. waffle on that if they did have control you would support them because they know best. and waffle on some more pretending your still for decentralization while weirdly trying to defend blockstream in the same reply.

goodluck with that.

You're in this for the wrong reasons. You think everyone is out for profit, just like you are, so you project baseless assumptions onto the motivations of others (with zero evidence). Some of us see the bigger picture and are interested in bettering the world. Gavin obviously does not. You have no technical understanding whatsoever, so you just rely on Gavin to support your self-serving position.

Yeah - now you got that - and yes I'd support any fittness trainings for this great experiment here, patronishly if needed.

just to add my 2 cents to this debate

though i do detest gavin for other reasons, i think that people need to stop being reliant on one overlord. especially if they are getting $50+million and consultations from financial companies.
hearne, gavin AND adam back are all guilty of it.

so thinking blockstream is your lord and savour is just as bad as thinking gavin is.

all people want is 2m+segwit. without 2 years of needless delays and pointless nontechnical based contention. if all 12 implementations had the 2mb+segwit code in by april. then people can upgrade to aprils version of their favourite codebase, be-it core, btcd, bitcoinj, classic, electrum, whatever. it wont matter.

and if people dont want it they wont upgrade.

but by trying to say that everyone should be in the core bandcamp and rely solely on cores roadmap and decision process, goes against everything decentralized.

there should be no single implementation. and no chance of any single person vetoing code. it should be added to all implementations and leave it to the users to adopt or ignore. then if it doesnt get consensus, it just sits there as unused code, or get consensus and become part of bitcoin as a whole.

the real funny thing is. if blockstream thinks people do not want it. they should have no problem including 2mb knowing that it wont ever get consensus. and thus not impact bitcoin in any way.. but by vetoing any chance of code in april they are just delaying any chance of knowing the truth either way

summary for shortminded CIYAM
its not a gavin vs adam debate about control. its about 2mb+segwit for the whole community or not.
trying to meander the debate into a gavin vs adam thing by saying dont follow gavin, dont follow hearn, dont follow garzic but blindly follow blockstream is the opposite of decentralized thinking

PS about earlier debate. out of 100 blocks i presume you looked at... only 4 of those were single tx blocks. (4%) but you keep spouting the "major", "majority" words out like confetti. 4%.. is not major, 4% is not majority

because you love exaggeration here goes.
of all the butterflies in the world, there are 4% in china that are causing all the tornado's around the world

We know full well that you don't know what you are talking about.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/492tnm/if_according_to_core_roadmap_segwit_will_be/d0p0jes?context=3

You quote that idiot and think it has any weight whatsoever?

How about you get a quote from someone that "actually knows anything about the code" rather than the non-coder Classic sponsor (who has a vested interest to spread FUD)?

Seriously you must think we are all stupid to think you just made some sort of meaningful point with that "redittarded" post.

last thing to note to ciyam

them 'empty blocks'(minority) that you love so much, are not done out of greed and desire of the pool to only mine empty blocks forever. the actual reason is that when they see a possible solution from a competitor. they begin a new emptyblock and hash it WHILE they validate and check the competitors block.
then when they see its valid they know what transactions to not include in the next block because they are already confirmed in the block they just validated.

so they can then know for sure what unconfirmed transactions are left to put into the nextblock.

the problem is that they are lucky enough to get a solution before they had time to add valid unconfirmed transactions to their new attempt.
this can be seen because ALL the empty blocks were solve in 1minute or less after the previous block.

your argument would be more valid if they had 8-12(10minute average) blocks that were also empty.

have a nice day

All we know is that the FeeMarket is already there. Just some years too early as expected....

I see - another nonsensical argument from the legendary idiot.

You do get that increasing the block size would not alter this behaviour of creating empty blocks and in fact the harder it is to propagate new blocks (because of their size) the more likely it is that we'll see such empty blocks.

Is that simple enough for your simple mind to comprehend?

(it doesn't seem possible that you'll ever actually "score a point from me" but please keep trying harder as it keeps me entertained - and yes I know you aren't so quick on your feet so I'll patiently wait for another 10 minutes or so for you to reply)

all i see is insults.. but you did not debunk my argument about the timing.
and by the way, difficulty grows much faster then the propagation time. so when miners make blocks of 1.001mb (as a safe toe in the water to test propagation time) the difficulty will jump by 10%.
meaning a 0.1% increase in propagation time (well validation time to be specific) vs a 10% difficulty rise, means less chanc of empty blocks.

infact in 20 weeks we can see 100% difficulty increase. yet miner would increase the data included much slower. meaning that in that 1 minute validation time. empty blocks over 20 weeks may become 2 minutes to get lucky. while propagation time may only still be 1minute 10 seconds, or 1 minute 30 seconds.. meaning that there would be less of those lucky empty blocks.

so if you think that miners would jump from 950k filled blocks to 1950kb blocks in only 6 months, causing conflict in regards to empty blocks, before difficulty increases offset that risk. then maybe its time you sat back on your sofa had a cup of tea and use some of your braincells for scenario's instead of insults.

please take a few minutes to think before you speak

WTF - you don't realise that the difficulty has gone down more than once before (and the propagation time has never done the same thing ever so trying to compare the two is simply ridiculous).

It's not my fault that you keep on putting your foot into your mouth - seemingly that's where you like it to be. :D

FYI - http://www.coinfox.info/news/5022-bitcoin-mining-difficulty-goes-down-for-the-first-time-in-eight-months

(now please do some reading before you post your next piece of nonsense)

lol last 28 difficulty changes 5 down 23 up

so is majority= 4% (your empty block majority debate)
so is majority= 18% (your difficulty drop occurance rate)

now over that same year difficulty went from
47,427,554,951
to
158,427,203,767

thats over 300% (i rounded to the nearest 50billion to give you amounts in your favour (336% is more actual)).

so back to my 6 month scenario of miners slowly increasing data load. lets say 1.250mb full.. (knowing it took 4 years to get 500k(2009-2013) and 3 years to get near the 1mb barrier. i am again moving the goal post in your favour with 250k growth in 6 month(500k in 1 year instead of 4 or 3 years), just to give you a fighting chance)

so block validation time goes from 1minute to 1 minute 15 seconds (25%)
difficulty goes up 150% meaning chances of an empty block solve moves to maybe 1minute 30seconds instead of one minute.

thus miners have 15 seconds to start adding unconfirmed transactions before they might get lucky

then move on another 6 months (your best chance of now 1.5mb blocks(numbers still in your favour))
validation time 1 minute 30 seconds, with chance of hitting a block 2minutes.
giving 30 seconds to start adding unconfirmed data

then move on another 6 months (your best chance of now 1.75mb blocks(numbers still in your favour))
validation time 1 minute 45 seconds, with chance of hitting a block 2minutes 30 seconds.
giving 45 seconds to start adding unconfirmed data

meaning that *cough* majority *cough* will go from 4% DOWN because they have MORE TIME between validating a block and adding unconfirmed data, then they did before

@franky1 - validation time is dependent upon signatures and other complex operations - not upon the size of the data itself.

Learn something before you post your stupid stuff please (I am getting close to putting you on ignore as you just continually spout nonsense which clearly hardly anyone else on this forum takes seriously anyway so I don't really care to deal with you much more).

Go back to trying to code Bitcoin in VB please. :D

more insults, littleweight or evidence,
well done. now sit back on your sofa in all your glory and have a cup of coffee and a biscuit

if only you just replied with some better numbers,, but no.. you wont
just becareful when you do throw numbers

because although 2mb+segwit offers a 4mb buffer for growth. please include the 5x decrease in validation time due to libsecp256k1. and also factor in how fast 2000 transactions would grow to 8000 transactions.

i tried to be nice and did not including libsecp256k1 benefits. and just done a flat comparison of basic numbers based on 2015 data
i tried to be nice and suggest that the transaction count would increase by 500tx (250kb) every 6 months instead of 1 year

so feel free to exaggerate, which i know you love, but atleast be honest. especially when i was being generous with my numbers

No - I won't bother wasting my time with someone who doesn't even understand the basics.

You should spend more time in the "newbies" area where perhaps you could actually find someone who you could teach something to.

insults and not bothering to supply evidence to back up your opinion..

maybe time you went back to not programming bitcoin

Maybe time you went back to creating your VB version of Bitcoin. :D

(am sure Bill Gates is very much looking forwards to reading your code)

insults and not bothering to supply evidence to back up your opinion..

seems its time to just copy and paste that last sentance to every reply to you. as its getting evident that you cant back up your assumptions without it turning into a insult.

by the way you can insult "franky1" all you like. it is just a name that has no birth certificate. you will not find any human being with a birth certificate of "franky1" so your insults are meaningless. but your lack of answering questions and inability of debunking theories and opinions using numbers and real proof is very revealing.

by the way if you ignore people that have differing opinions. the only people you have left are your oblivious circle jerking friends of blockstream all huddled up in a small little group all trying to act like gods.

goodluck with that.

Behold - the mighty intellect of @franky1.

And yes - fuck it - I've put you on ignore (you are really just too boring to entertain me even when I make fun of you).

(so please don't forget to "get the last word" as I won't be replying to any more of your posts here or anywhere else on the forum)

did CIYAM give up O_o?

Hmm.. did I say I'd put you on ignore?

Perhaps that might happen but no such luck for you at this stage (keep trying though).

yea, he and lauda both admit they dont code for bitcoin, but although i do not want to tarnish ciyam with the same brush as lauda, they are both heavily invested in the blockstream corporation control, and most arguments are more about trying to not let the community move away from the corporate agenda

i can see that CIYAM is a smart guy but instead of using his brain. he uses his emotion for the only purpose of protecting blockstreamers.
i have more respect for ciyam then i do for lauda. as ciyam actually knows how to code. and i do actually tailor my rebuttles in favour of him.
yet recently his rebuttles have lacked his intellect and just been pure emotion.
even when i have said its best he takes a break, chill out and think of a deep and meaningful answer. (i tried helping him out)

yet lauda and ciyam prefer to shout out emotional opinions but never back them up using facts or real data or scenarios.

their own doomsday scenarios collapse as soon as its highlighted that their leader (blockstream) is heading in the same direction,

EG summer 2015(pre-roadmap) 'the 2mb bloat is too much to handle' doomsday
turned into
winter 2015(post roadmap) '2mb is ok but it needs to be 2mb of segwit not real block limit changes' bait and switch

yet if all he can do is insult and ignore. then he needs to take a coffee break and realise he has ultimately achieved nothing, nor added anything concrete to the debate. so i will start to laugh when the only people he doesnt have on ignore is a small group of blockstreamers circle jerking each other until they are happily blind to the outside world.

then we will see him start to fight amongst his own friends, while still adding nothing concrete to the debates he tries to involve himself in.