Bitcoin Forum

You guys are missing the most important aspect of Bitcoin.  The scaling debate is being done by people who don't understand Satoshi or Bitcoin. 

We don't have to settle which is the best path to take - either large blocks or small blocks.  In fact, deciding on either and leaving the other is FREAKING DANGEROUS!!!!

The way Bitcoin is supposed to work is we test both possibilities at the same time.  We run an BU experiment at the same time we run a SegWit experiment.  One will kick-ass, the other will fail.  We don't need to sit around for 18 months arguing about why one is bad and the other is good. Instead, we just run both systems and examine the result.

It's called a 'fork'.  A fork is not bad.  Forks are good, necessary and important.  Preventing a fork also prevents us from discovering what would happen on the other chain.  We need this valuable information. 

Not forking is stupid and dangerous.  Please fork now.  BitcoinA and BitcoinB.  Next year, we will have certainty as to which system is better.  We've been guessing why the 'other' chain is going to fail for years now.  We need to stop arguing about it and do the experiment.  Fork the chain now.  No more stupid control by GMaxwell/Blockstream.  This is precisely what Bitcoin was supposed to prevent. 

Not forking is bad.

yep, fork it!
ETH already showed us how good a fork is! let's do the same with bitcoin!

ps: bitcoin already have forks.. most of the altcoins are.

Yes.
SegWit is just another altcoin.  Only difference is the Blockstream parades around as 'Core' holding themselves to be something sacred. 

OP, are you suggesting we have two clients, two networks, two chains live, at the same time? Are you aware that what you're suggesting is the chaos you've set out to prevent in the beginning of your post? That's not getting along.

By 'get along', I mean both exist at the same time together.  A fork is good.  Those who seek to prevent a fork are removing the most important tool of bitcoin - the ability to arrive at a concensus regarding a better system. 

two networks, two chains is precisely what I propose.  Let's do BU and SegWit at the same time.  Get 50% of mining working on each.  Then, let free markets pull miners to the 'other' chain in time as they make their bets on which will be most successful in the future.  All we really need is about 25% or more of mining power to go to the minority fork prong - and then BAM! the experiment is on.  May the best man win.  This is good for bitcoin - bad for BlockStream.

If we run two concurrent forks then anyone on the failing fork will be left holding a wallet full of worthless coins and any transactions that occurred on that chain may as well have never taken place.

Investors hate uncertainty and just the proposition that the chains may be split could destroy the value of either.

Better to use testnets or another shitcoin or something and leave the main network alone until we know what's best.

Yes, a fork is good, depending on what kind of fork it is.

So let's do this two forks/chains/coins thing. How will services decide on what to use? If they use both, will you pay for the extra infrastructure needed to operate servers with both blockchains and integrate the new one on these services? I'm talking about exchanges, online wallets, online stores, gambling websites, etc.

How are you going to convince miners spliting hashrates evenly? That's probably even harder than getting some services to use both chains, as there's no guarantee of breaking even if miners change chains (and there you have an example of a fork that can be perceived as bad).

This is bad for Bitcoin. This will create chaos. We cannot at any given point say "let's start both these systems with even force and see who wins". It's impossible to reach an equilibrium that allows us to do that. We have to build upon what we have and see if whatever is introduced is strong enough to win and become Bitcoin.

Why people want to scale ? Can't we have the perfect working environment like Bitcoin is actually now ? I vote NO against the scaling as that will bring us a few problems for sure. Personally I don't like problems, I like things that are working and don't like to change working things.

only reason this topic is proposing to avoid consensus and instead split is simple. those that want a split dont care about bitcoin they just want to double their money by having coins on 2 networks.

simply a boring greedy reason with no thought about "bitcoin". just quick method to double money and then to run to fiat.

guys if you actually care about bitcoin. learn consensus/orphans which allow the strongest desires to continue on a single chain and the minority left not able to sync (hence requiring a very high desire to even upgrade the single network without risk/headache)

and stop thinking forks are only about intentional splits.

funny though.. the title of this topic..

Can't we all just get along?

and the OP's solution is not to find a middleground where everyone is happy
EG
2mb base 4mbweight  so scaling can occur and segwit still functions..

but instead OP proposes splitting away from each other and going in separate directions.
that is not "getting along" but avoidance, ignorance, separation and other terms that are the opposite of getting along

Well, you see something good about forks here but think about what it will cause in future. People choosed bitcoon because it was first and it's number 21 million was limited. Situation is stable from it's begining and imagine how many people is using regular wallets, how many website has integrated it as a payment system, how many people is mining and etc. Fork in bitcoin will cause chaos in people.
P.S stuff isn't going to make what you wrote.

The grass is not always greener and you risk potential rift that would shatter a established crypto,its not a as easy as you may think to just apply this solution.
With every move we make with bitcoin we risk isolating more people that do not follow for a multitude of reasons and a fork it a really major alteration to the path we are on.

Its important when discussing we stay clear of black and white thinking,as it shows the biases that block a honest discussion. With any bitcoin discussion so far it seems like this is not something we can achieve without moderation that both sides could agree to. Even then there would be discord with who was chosen!

The unknown for me is to big a problem to just say everything is going to be better,we just do not know that to be fact.

So what, you also hold the identical coins on the valuable chain.  Awesome!!!

Who fucking cares about 'investors'.  We are trying to build something awesome here.  We are not trying to please speculators from China.  Fuck them.  Let get to work and build great things with no regard for stupid fucking speculation.

LOL - 'testnets'  The whole fucking thing is a test net.  Bitcoin is a test.  Let's do this for real.  On the 'real' net.

I don't know if intentionally allowing the chain to fork is a good idea considering the amount of capital that's been confidently invested into the platform....if we can avoid causing a situation that may result in a loss of confidence, then that's what we should do.  There have been "evolutionary" studies that one can analyze among the alternative chains....However, I agree that the debate shouldn't be so centralized; there should be a more readily available, decentralized, method of attaining consensus then what we have now....It seems that individual nodes in the network have been disenfranchised during bitcoin's evolution toward the larger mining farms and network pools....

Forking = ETH/ETC like situation, we don't need another bitcoin.

You are suggesting two seperate chains of bitcoin and wait for which one will win? Take a closer look at what ETH and ETC battle have done to both. ETH still trying to get some movementum rather than usual swings while as ETC still holding some marketcap of ETH.

Split of network  = split of marketcap = split of support = disaster for any coin including bitcoin.

It's not just block size that's significant, there is block generation intervals as well. So lets have four forks, Oh wait there is the problem of miner localisation, so lets have some forks for geo-located miners. Then we need some knives to cut out the failing ones.

I know, lets have a whole canteen of Bitcoin blockchains with side servers as well. :)

You say everyone must get along, but you taking sides by bad mouthing the GMaxwell/Blockstream side? You either have very little invested

in this technology or you just do not get the risk. If a fork happens... then it would be a decision made by the people. Would you tolerate

it if banks gambled with other people's money.... Uhm, on second thought ... they are doing it... So we should attempt to be better than

them... right.  ???

There will always be a solution found in the end. I mean we all want to make money here don't we?
Eventually we (well, the people that matter) all have to agree to pull in the sake direction.

Fork is not necessarily a good idea I think, but testnet could be used for that purpose. Is it still running or has it been left to death ?

Re: Can't we all just get along?

Nope ,

BTC Devs need to fork to fix BTC transactions problems.

Chinese Mining Pools don't want those forks , because it would threaten their over 51% control of BTC.

Chinese are winning due to their over 51% control, don't really see them letting things change.


 8)

we can't, we wont.

we are humans, we are smart and stupid at the same time.

a fork only makes sense if one of the chains dies out almost completely and there is no doubt which all will use in the future. if we have two chains split 50/50 this will be bad and with further forks we might end up with 20/20/20/20/20. not a good idea look at the history of money. look at places with several currencies and how superior it was just having one. bad idea.   

Everyone has their own interpretation of what is "right", not everyone agrees that one way is the best way to fix things and vice versa.

Debate is health because it forces people t consider the benefits and detractors of each potential course of action, much like how a capitalist or anarcho-capitalist system is supposed to work. The best products compete and each has to one-up the other until there is nothing left to advance.

You don't need to touch shit to understand that it is not edible

Other than that, what you suggest to do basically boils down to cutting a live man in half to find out what will happen. I don't think this approach would be very useful if you expect to see that poor fellow still alive after the experiment. You don't need to actually cut him in halves to find out the outcome, right? So why do you think it is impossible to evaluate what this or that "improvement" could end up with even without actually trying to "improve" something in practice?

Why not go ahead and fork it then and see how many people you can get to mine your BU Alt ???

Because they know they will be wasting their time,
Chinese Mining Pools will not switch and neither will the Chinese Exchanges.
So you lose the high security difficulty they provide along with their markets, which keep the manipulated price insanely high.
(You don't actually believe the Crap coin know as BTC is worth over $700 ?)

 8)

FYI:
BTC= Better Trust China

So you're a UnlimitedCoin troll, repeating disinformation a thousand times in the hope it will become truth. Blockstream control is a pure myth and Gregory Maxwell is a very smart guy who is contributing a lot in terms of privacy and security - features that are essential for Bitcoin to remain a truly decentralized currency.

But as a Ver worshipper, you simply won't be able to realize that. The perceived dissent within the Bitcoin community is mainly a Fata Morgana, manifactured by the Andresen/Hearn/Ver-clan. Their shills and trolls spam all day long to maintain the public perception that UnlimitedCoin and the other altcoins have some meaningful support, while in fact they have not. The vast majority of the Bitcoin community is behind Core, simply because it has the best development team and has proposed the only intelligent solution to scaling Bitcoin without sacrificing decentralization.

SegWit support will soon show the real support for UnlimitedCoin: Ver and a handful of paid shills at ViaBTC.

ya.ya.yo!

Everyone getting along would likely result in nothing changing to be honest; forcing people to change something that is fine and then whining about why everyone else can't follow through with their ideas isn't getting people to "all just get along". A "just get along" scenario results in people being mad that everyone else aren't going their way.

Discussions are healthy. Debates are healthy. Competition is healthy. Blind agreement is not.

no not really as everyone is different that is wont makes the world work
if everyone agreed with each other then there be no debate meaning no improvement and people will stop trying to prove
they are right so making a better future for everyone.   

Why yes. Yes I do. Perhaps you have a fundamental misapprehension about the value of currency.

As long as I can quickly and easily surrender 1 of my BTC, and receive $700 USD for it, then $700 is what it is worth. On a website devoted to magic internet money as a topic, I wouldn't think I would need to explain this.

You a such a punk-assed pussy.  You are a BlockStreamCoin troll.  

None of the information I published is 'disinformation'.  Just because you don't agree with something - you call it disinformation.  Blockstream is gunning to take control via Lightning.  They are punk assed bitches just like you.  Saying it is a 'pure myth' doesn't make it a myth.  

"G Maxwell is a very smart guy" - you sounds like you can't wait to suck his dick again.  

'truly decentralized'? lolololololololol.  Bitcoin hasn't been decentralized since G.Max stood up and took control of those few timid Chinese miners via his lies and BS about scaling.  Blockstream has done everything imaginable to remove decentralization and take control to make their SegWitCoin come true.  

You are the shill my friend.  The only way you get your word out there is because the mods keep deleting posts like mine.  If you didn't have that advantage, you'd lose the argument 100:1.  

Blockstream can only win this battle via extreme censorship.

Why not go ahead and fork it then and see how many people you can get to mine your SegWit Alt ???


Let's face it, SegWit is the alt.  BU is just one very small tweak to blocksize.  SegWit is a whole different coin/system and it is full of attack vectors and other bullshit to make Blockstream take over the blockchain and get fees outside of mining.

Roger Ver is it you? :D

Hilarious to read the mix of even more escalating FUD, professional victim playing and personal insults...

The whole argument of Ver centers around an imaginary censorship accusation, when an army of first XTCoin, then ClassicCoin and now UnlimitedCoin trolls completely derailed all Bitcoin discussion by engaging in Hearn-style "advertising". In fact, Ver has zero technological argument against SegWit. Moderation of off-topic and pure propaganda posts was completely necessary to allow the majority to continue to use the forum. In fact, moderation was highly reluctant considering the repetitive spamming by altcoin trolls. If you ask me, permabans should have been handed out in quite a few occasions. XTCoin, ClassicCoin and UnlimitedCoin have their own place for discussion after all. Moving off-topic posts and deleting spam is not censorship.

At least you indirectly admit that Ver will not succeed with his narcissistic and outright dangerous approach...

ya.ya.yo!

You think that is very clever.  SegWit is the alt.  But since your beloved G.Max wants to own Bitcoin, you consider it 'Bitcoin' and move all the other topics to never-never land.  And then you pretend it is not censorship.  So clever.  Didn't fool anyone. 

SegWit is fucking garbage that does little at all to increase throughput.  It's only true reason for being is to get the network ready for the proprietary side chain bullshit called Lightning  Once you force SegWit on people pretending to address throughput, you'll be in a perfect position with a crippled Bitcoin having no ability to get beyond 5 tps, and your proprietary network to handle all the txs with a small fee going to core investors.  How could miners be so dumb to get sucked into this? 

Blockstream is the biggest scam that every happened.