Bitcoin Forum

Satoshi Nakamoto quote:

"on: December 11, 2010, 11:39:16 PM"" 'It would have been nice to get this attention in any other context. WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet's nest, and the swarm is headed towards us.'

Current Core Devs are compromised.

Banks/Goverments thought about a way to stop Bitcoin, but Bitcoin can't be stopped not even compromising the "Dev Team" so they saw this block size debate and they saw the perfect opportunity to do it: if bitcoin can't be stopped: lets transform it into another of us.

Nothing with the same specifications as money created by Banks or Paypal alike institutions can compete with them, because they are and will be the best on their space, so converting Bitcoin into another one means anihilating it or stopping its rise, only a superior technology can kill them.


Segwit is created

Segwit plans to launch an off-chain network AKA fractional reserve system.

A lighting network AKA paypal scheme.

A high fees for on chain txs AKA bank wires fees.


And the above mentioned is the worst option this secret organism has in play; their best option is their 95% approval consensus that will never happen since 25% of miners don't even care about consensus, do you really believe segwit was really made to been approved? wake up!

Any lock or deletion of this topic is clear evidence of current Bitcoin sabotage by the well known secret entities.

I do not understand. Segwit makes blocks larger and more efficient.

No one is forced to use LN (right?). You can do more onchain transactions with Segwit than you can today.

So even if what you say was true (LN=banks fractional reserver shit) it hurts no one.

Asicboost on the other hand, would hand over BTC to just one Chinese entity on the planet...much worse.  >:(

I like extension blocks best to be honest; Segwit is risky due to the all the extra code and vulnerability but so is BU.

Gentlemen, please don your tinfoil hats!

Core's goal has to be stall onchain scaling as much as possible.  Segwit offers only a modest increase in transaction capacity while
actually making transactions more complicated and likely taking more capacity... and years later than most have wanted it.

By artificially restricting on chain capacity, Blockstream hopes to price ordinary users off the main chain and force them to use their
LN solution.

It is better to simply increase the blocksize but Core has done everything possible to stop that.

I never took it off haha :P

considering how bitcoin poses an existential threat to the world's fiat money it would be HARD to believe "they" haven't tried to co-opt bitcoin somehow.

but i dont think ( however it is possible i guess ) that they tried to do what op suggests.

Instead they tried to dev there own "private blockchains"  in an attempt to eventually make bitcoin irrelevant. they failed. they missed the point.

"private permissioned blockchains"  Bahahaha, this has got to be the worlds most epic techno fail. they POURED MILLIONS into "private permissioned blockchains" i can't even! LOL!

we'll be fine.

faggot

I hope Buterin mutates you into a bug using Google's system.  You might think about wearing one as well. 

Lets take your comments, one at a time shall we.  ;)

No one is forced to use LN (right?). You can do more onchain transactions with Segwit than you can today.

Wrong,
Activating Segwit means it is forever ingrained in the Blockchain , it can never be removed.
Onchain transactions can be increased by simply increasing blocksize or moving to a faster blockspeed, without corrupting the blockchain.
Example, blocksize could be decreased or blockspeed could be returned to original specs with a simple hard fork.
Segwit if ever activated can never be removed.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5vbofp/initially_i_liked_segwit_but_then_i_learned/



So even if what you say was true (LN=banks fractional reserver shit) it hurts no one.

In this comment you show how naive you are,
Allowing others to create wealth out of thin air and you accepting that falsehoods makes you their slave, as they can create endless wealth, and you obey their commands trying to attain it.   If you truly feel the corrupt banking system is ok, you should stick with fiat.



Asicboost on the other hand, would hand over BTC to just one Chinese entity on the planet...much worse.

Chinese have over ~68% control of the ASICS, asic boost working or nonworking will not decrease that % at all.


I like extension blocks best to be honest; Segwit is risky due to the all the extra code and vulnerability but so is BU.

Extension blocks may be a valuable improvement in the future, but it will take time to study the benefits & dangers adding them would pose.
BTU is a simple blocksize increase, that requires agreement among the miners to reach consensus on the size.
It cuts out the years wasted , while people argue back and for what should be done.
Look at all of the time wasted, because btc core was stupid and made segwit a soft fork,
hard fork would have already been approved or denied, instead of wasting our time.

 8)

The pathetic thing is you come up with this without a shred of evidence. Just prejudice.

Obviously BU has been bought by banks. See how easy it is? Anyone can say anything, but without evidence the claim is garbage.

Core is controlled by Blockstream which is funded by AXA, which is tied to Bilderberg. 

Even if you don't believe the conspiracy, it should be clear Blockstream seeks to profit from Bitcoin at the expense of the users.  This is why they are blocking on chain scaling. 

I don't know. As far as banks are concerned,  bitcoin is a lost cause. Too hard to influence it's policy, and bitcoin isnver anti bank. So.much easier to make a.consortium with a new, malleable coin  (ETH cough ETH) then to pay the dues it would take to corrupt such an old, established coin.

Lack of Logic is your problem.

BTU keeps control of the coin with the miners, where it was anyway by satoshi's original design.
Which is why they are patiently waiting for consensus.

BTC core is threatening to replace the PoW algo,  threatening with UASF, constantly claiming BTC can't increase blocksize or blockspeed.
LTC has a 4X faster block speed.  Moving BTC blockspeed to 5 minutes would be a minor change, which would double transaction capacity.
ie: BTC core is LYING!

If you are unable to use Logic to piece the facts together , you will be easy prey to Liars like G.Maxwell.


 8)

FYI:

Observations
Litecoin and other Altcoins can be observed running at faster BlockSpeeds with no issues.
BTC Core claims that BTC is unable to move to the faster blockspeeds.

Facts
Litecoin & Altcoins moving at these faster blockspeeds, all derived from BTC code originally.
Therefore it becomes apparent BTC Core is Lying!

If that is not now clear to you , you're not that bright.  :P

Can you explain why codes can't be removed? That's unusual.

Segwit cannot be rolled back because to non-upgraded clients, ANYONE can spend Segwit txn outputs.
If Segwit is rolled back, all funds locked in Segwit outputs can be taken by anyone.
As more funds gets locked up in segwit outputs, incentive for miners to collude to claim them grows.
Reference:  https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5vbofp/initially_i_liked_segwit_but_then_i_learned/

 8)

One thing in which I fully believe is that if the banks wanted us to become irrelevant, it really wouldn't take much for them to lobby some money into some state legislators or congress itself to have new regulations passed to completely fuck Bitcoin. It's something that probably wouldn't even take much to go ahead and do, it's sad but it's how our government works as a whole.

I think they've probably tried, but not to a full extent yet as they don't think we're much of an issue at the moment.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5aktik/segwit_and_anyone_can_spend_questions/

In any case, the correct remark in that thread is that rolling back a soft fork, is a hard fork.

In the same way that imposing a 1 MB block limit was a soft fork, to UNDO it, you need a hard fork.

So, if you do a hard fork to roll back, you have to correct for that "anyone can spend" trick to introduce new stuff that the old nodes don't understand, but will accept as valid.

To the OP: there's no need for tin foil hats.   The fundamental problem with bitcoin and its block chain technology (like most alts BTW), is that there's no simple, fluid way for it to become a mainstream payment system.  That was pointed out to Satoshi very early in the discussion, and he waved that away, but the fact is that a system that needs everybody to know, in a cryptographically secured way, all transactions by everybody else, world-wide, before being able to accept a payment, is bound to be "computationally heavy" to say the least.

Satoshi's initial view on that problem was re-centralization: a few big data centres/centralized miners, which are the few big nodes in the network, no more P2P network, and those few data centres with those few big nodes (the "bitcoin facebook servers") are then connected to directly by all users.

In other words, those few data centres are then the "unique world bank".

He considered the P2P phase of enthusiasts (useful idiots) just a phase to get bitcoin accepted, but that would be fading away when network and mining competition would naturally lead to an oligarchy of miners/full nodes,  with blocks of about 1 GB.

So in a way, Satoshi realized that bitcoin was, finally, not going to get rid of centralized banking, only, those banks would now be the few full nodes/miners.  In a way, he admitted, without saying so, that bitcoin's invention was doomed not to succeed in what its outlined purpose was: a P2P "people's own money" system.  Nevertheless, he might have considered that those few data centres/miners/full nodes/world banks would at least be bound to something (even though they would have all the power needed to, for instance, increase the total amount of bitcoin, give themselves all the rewards they'd like, change the PoW or whatever.... if bitcoin were the unique world currency, people wouldn't have any recourse either).

So, Satoshi's long term vision of bitcoin was in any case a centralized banking/mining/node system, and not a P2P network.  I don't think that it is because he was paid by the Rothschilds, but simply because at a certain point he realized that his invention wasn't going to live up to the goal he set about: namely a peer-to-peer money for the people.  That was only sustainable on smaller scales, but not on world scale.

Is this the reason why he introduced the 1 MB limit, to keep bitcoin from becoming that horrible world bank unique money, and keep it small scale enough ?

That said, whatever is bitcoin, its basic idea is too heavy to become a light-weight P2P worldwide universal payment system.

When there is a valuable payment system that has some friction in "paying for coffee", then it is a NORMAL EVOLUTION that a banking layer is put on top of that, that fluidizes the underlying asset, with all that comes with it (fees, fractional banking, ....).  This is how normal banking got running on top of gold, which also had a fluidizing problem (security, weight, ....).  It was more practical to leave one's gold in the bank, and have paper substitutes, because the gold itself couldn't always be used easily.

In the same way as bitcoin cannot be used easily enough to pay coffee to anyone everywhere, a banking layer will naturally get on top of that.  LN is such a banking layer.

-->  banking is unavoidable in monetary affairs, until we invent something that is less clunky than bitcoin.

 

Wah it sounds good plus just love it.

Do you really think, developers will spend time on a project that are funded by millions of dollars and not plan to make some profit from this? Nobody does anything for free anymore and if you think Gavin and Ver are into this because they love the principle of this technology, then you are more gullible than I thought.

Everyone has some hidden agenda, including your beloved BU team. ^hmmmmmm^

I don't think that banks really care about Bitcoin, very few will understand it at a level to understand the block size debate.

There is less chance that they understood the block size debate, understood it in advance and managed to pay off the core team, who they would assume are going to look after Bitcoin's best interests, to do something that may be against Bitcoin's best interests!

Some things just happen, not everything is a big conspiracy!

Oh how I wish to be one of those "useful idiots" finding block after block on my CPU...

Craig Wright was paid $200 million by "investors"(probably banks).

But nevermind that. Core is the real danger?   ???

I think people forget bitcoin was never designed to compete with credit cards by procesings thousands of transactions per second.

If people want a crypto currency that can compete with credit cards, maybe they should make an alt coin rather than blaming core developers for staying true to Satoshi's original vision.

buying core team will not stop bitcoin either, core team is just there for support, isn't dictating the fate of bitcoin which is based on consensus for your information

and banks last tiem i checked were creating their own version of the blockchain, but centralized, i don't think they will give a damn about bitcoin anymore

i also don't like the centralization hub of LN, but currently there are no other better solution than segwit to scale, and i'm sure we can't wait forever to find a better one

It was.  Funny how people say that now.

http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/

Of course it is, this world would be a very different place if it wasn't like that, but that was pretty much expected. Money from the people, for the people is stil an ideal.

If you want an even simpler (non technical) explanation: 

Segwit transactions are in a new format from traditional bitcoin transactions. 

You can stop creating new segwit transactions, but existing segwit transactions
that are already in blocks will still need the segwit code to validated them,
in order to keep the blockchain ledger accurate.

So are we really discussing a flame post made by a newbie with a single post?
Really?

How many stories we have already about banks, governments, wall street, reptilians, soros  and god know who else bribing each of the rival team?

I dont want to disagree with you since there is also a possibility that you might be true but since you lack clear evidence to support your claim then your post will be considered as a conspiracy theory or was just done to damage the credibility of segwit. But if you are true and want to convince the community about this very important matter then at least provide some proofs to shed some light to the readers.

1. core bypassed consensus with the going soft backdoor. thus node consensus cant vote for or veto out. core thought that bribing pools with lots of paid weekend vacations was the fast route to get a "yay" activation quick

2. core have now found out that pools are saying nay/abstaining... cor have just last month found out the half baked sgwit is not as compatible as promised..
but rather than accepting its not an easy 'yay'. you have to ask... are core supporting pools, are they asking pools and the community what would be acceptable and thus making a plan B version of a 1merkle segwit with dynamics and a low txsigop limit and other community uniting features... nope

3. blockstream(core) have employed a guy to be the face(samson mow) for really FORCING the half baked segwit for upto another year and a half (UASF quote up to the end of 2018*)

4. blockstream(core) are not accepting 'consensus' saying 'nay' in any form... its just push or delay as their only options.. not make a recode that is community requested with features that would make it a 'yay'

please look beyond reddit and look at the reality, else this half baked segwit drama will continue until 2019*

*http://www.uasf.co/

Where is the point in saying that Bitcoin Core Dev Team is owned by banks?
That is kind of funny of me, I never believe in such a conspiracy theory, and this one is actually the same!

Indeed, I also doubt that SegWit will be implemented, because 95% is a really big percantage, when Im sure that not every miner cares about the whole conensus, if he prefers Bitcoin unlimited or Segwit.
For now, it looks like that hard-fork has way bigger chance to be done, than seeing SegWit on bitcoin core.

I really hope that LTC will do SegWit, and it will maybe show up the rest of miners, which solution is the best.

This is not really the case as long as they maintain the 95% threshold, no ?  

And no, node count explicitly doesn't matter, because bitcoin is a hashrate consensus system, explicitly rejecting node counting, which has no meaning, because it can easily be faked by Sybil attacks, and has no relationship to economic stake either.  People with essentially zero stake in bitcoin have just as much voting power than whales owning several percent of the stash if you count nodes.  Maybe even more, because bitcoinless geeks or people with special interests may have more nodes running than busy coin holders that are not technically versed into doing so, and have, for instance, most of their stuff on exchanges or online wallets, or are using a light wallet like electrum.

The danger is when they turn to less than 95% blocks soft fork, like LTC is doing.

pool X can have 20million exahash. and other pools can have just 5 peta hash
meaning the blocks from pool X could show as most common block being solved and hitting the threshold.

but if at a certain event. they were to make something that doesnt meet the rules of the nodes. its rejected in 2 seconds

what results in lots of orphans/rejects until a block is found that meets the rules.

nodes only build on blocks which nodes accept and seeing as exchanges look at the blockchain through their node they only see block and tx data of blocks their node accepts.

so to spend a pools reward. a pool has to make a block that a exchanges node would accept. and thats all about ensuring that the majority of nodes accept that block so that when the nodes sync with each other they are building a chain of blocks they are happy with and can see the tx's inside to spend what they can see.

thus pools are reliant on node acceptance

its a symbiotic relationship .. not just pools and not just nodes.. but both meeting the same set of rules they can both agree on and build on to reduce and prevent orphan drama..
this is consensus.

pools could however get a few select nodes that agree on a certain rule to blindly follow without the symbiotic syncing consensus mechanisms causing orphan drama.. by literally banning opposition. this is then altcoin making by avoiding the consensus and forming their own network.

Well, if until that point, they were following the rules, they have cranked up the difficulty on the "right" chain by a factor of 20 billion, right.  So now that they "stop making valid blocks" the rest of the world, with its 5 peta hash, will be able, at the given difficulty, to make a block
in about 300 000 years, and hope to get somewhat smaller difficulty in about 600 million years.   That's about the time it took for jellyfish to evolve into humans.

But it is true that your faithful nodes will reject happily all the blocks that come every 10 minutes from the nasty pool, and will wait for 300 000 years before they get a good block again.  As such, all people having "good coins" will at least hodle for 300 000 years ;)

Or, they will finally accept those "illegal blocks" in order to finally get rid of their coins against a bargain, but at least, before their superdupergreatgrandchildren are old.

nope.

the questionable pool would see their blocks are being rejected and in less time(than300k years) the pool will stop wasting its time making bad blocks costing the electric bill of 20mill exahash over 300k years.. and start thinking dang it.. lets start making blocks that follow the rules. or why are we bothering..

P.S
you can actually change the retarget rules without breaking the retarget rules to offset the 300k years doomsday.
EG
instead of:(in laymans)
if last 2016 blocks found in over 1210000 secs then lower difficulty..

do:(in laymans)
if last 2016 blocks found in over 1210000 secs then lower difficulty..
AND
if at 1210000 secs since last retarget, less than 2016 blocks found then lower difficulty..

which doesnt break any rules. but also helps ensure the difficulty adjusts every 2 weeks

Core wants to increase from 1MB to 4MB and that is more than enough for the time being....

The idea of unlimited blocks is nonsense. Should 32MB blocks really be required, the blockchain will be so bloated that no one except professional datacenters can handle it.

Not very Satoshi-ish.  :(

BTW the non-rollback-ability / non backwards compatibility is what pisses me off about Segwit but it is the lesser evil between Segwit and BU

sure extension blocks might work but they have as much support as Ron Paul  ;D

That's nevertheless exactly Satoshi's original vision, with 1 GB blocks and only full nodes in data centers.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1876752.msg18659688#msg18659688

There are other big block solutions available that don't use Bitcoin Unneeded levels of complexity with its acceptance depth mechanism.
It could be argued Emergent Consensus has been proved to work in an informal manner. Miners upped the block sizes they mined in a consensus move until they hit the 1MB limit. All it requires is for the block limit to be removed and miners to advertise the block size they are willing to accept, and then miners will produce bigger blocks when there is a consensus minimum acceptance size advertised. It is just formalising what used to happen before the 1MB limit was hit.

Actually it would only be 0.27 gig blocks and that's when we get to visa level... and by that time storage will be even cheaper than today.

One second, he refers to miners in that post not nodes in general

Trouble is if you have only data centers (for mining OR for relaying) then you have  a situation where courts only have to send out a bunch of subpoenas to shut down Bitcoin,

It is exactly the reason why Bittorrent has been so successful, it takes a lot more work to shut down Bittorrent than a single ftp site hosting warez or moviez

I wish we could ask Satoshi what he thinks about centralization today.....

your reading too many reddit doomsday scripts.

think of it this way. in 2009-2011 pools were making upto  0.25mb blocks even with the 1mb limit.
think of it this way. in 2011-2013 pools were making upto  0.5mb blocks even with the 1mb limit.
think of it this way. in 2013-2014 pools were making upto  0.75mb blocks even with the 1mb limit.
think of it this way. in 2014-2017 pools were making upto  0.99mb blocks even with the 1mb limit.

imagine the consensus.h 1mb limit was made as consensus.h 8mb or 32mb
then instead of pools setting the policy. in 25% increments below that as 2mb 4mb 6mb ... instead of the old 0.25mb 0.5mb 0.75mb

take a minute and think about that..

---

now.. imagine this.. that policy.h was not just pool decided.. but node decided..

NODES had a 'policy.h' where the NODES set their preference of what NODES can handle
and this was displayed in their useragent.

so now you know blocks will for now not get above 8mbor 32mb(consensus.h) but pools will only make blocks to say 75% majority vote of policy pr ference of nodes.
EG
say 5% stuck at 1mb
say 10% stuck at 1.5mb
say 10% stuck at 2mb
say 15% stuck at 4mb
say 30% stuck at 6mb
say 30% stuck at 7mb

a pool would see that 75% are ok with anything below 4mb.. and 25% are ok with anything below 2mb

so a pool makes blocks upto 2mb and that triggers a message to suggest users below the 25% change their policy.h because its getting low and pools are going to push that.

again all safely below 8mb upper limit. because the nodes are in more control of the policy.h..

welcome to dynamics.

---

now imagine say a node had a speed test that would help users define the upper and lower limits of consensus and policy so that pools NEVER EVER go beyond what nodes are capable of.

and all of this was user definable and controlable within the node at run time..
no more requirement of pleading to devs for more spoonfuls of capacity.

It might not be an issue though.

By the time we get to such HUGE volumes where 'data centers' are neccessary,
Bitcoin will be so mainstream that it will impossible to stop and many small businesses can run a node.
Plus storage/bandwidth costs will keep decreasing.

Let's say we went to 32mb (full) blocks tomorrow. 
That's 32x6x24= 4.6 gigs of storage a day.  ...or 1.68 TB a year.   
That's still quite manageable for a hobbyist.

franky you forget that these numbers happened with mining fees as they are

with BU mining fees could be close to zero and there is no limitation, just assumptions of the BU team that there will be "market balance"

In theory blocks could become gigantic, no matter what they say  :-\

HEY, if they are so sure about "market balance" then why not put a hard limit in, maby 8MB? Then watch and see what happens?

What the Fyook?

No one will transfer 150Gigs per month over his home internet line, and buy 2TB hard disks every year just to run fucking hobby bitcoin node on his PC

It was YOU who pointed me to extension blocks so do you not support them yourself? Are you indeed a BU shill...?

Yes that's right, the problem is simple, and the solution is even easier, Bitcoin needs only to make bigger blocks with original consensus
algorithm.



Bitcoin started to show clear signs of corporate banking contamination (bureaucracies) for a simple technical update.

Why people should believe an organization like Blockstream will have the "best" intentions for Bitcoin if Bitcoin as a decentralized product
represents a direct treath to the people behind the curtain of this organization?



Yes and even if that may happen, nothing stops another entity to build more asics and compete into the market.

What no one has said about Core Team is they are attacking other solutions as being centralized but the ones becoming centralized are
themselves, a straight centralized financial group is behind them for not saying a "company", Blockstream, they are no longer a Fundation.
They attack people wanting to follow original consensus algorithm but they want to implement new consensus that were not even wrote
in Bitcoin whitepaper, they want to radically modify how Bitcoin works, 'no one can modify Bitcoin but us' isn't that position
the most clear sign of centralization?.
Also, why centralize the power in just one region? it is healthy for the network to have "consensus" leaders all around the world, in North America,
Europe, Asia, among other regions. With hashrate anyone in the world can become part of it.


And.. for the record, Satoshi Nakamoto didn't dissapear for no reason, he dissapeared when other Core members started meetings with the
CIA at 2011, some of them decided to make some distance from Bitcoin when they got called from CIA but for Satoshi this was the trigger
to completely dissapear as any other post/message from him could bring new clues to people behind him.
Finally.. Whom current Core members repond to at this stage?

If they are mining, why wouldn't they?  People spend plenty of money on muscle cars, guns, guitars, and other hobbies.  If they are not mining, they only need the block headers.
Point is, enough people will do it so it is censorship resistant.  Not everyone needs to run a full node on their iphone.


I support many scaling proposals.  Extension blocks are fine ... they are still on chain scaling so that doesn't change the fact that a large capacity will require more storage.

mining tx fee's are not an issue today. and not gonna be an issue for decades.
pools do not care about the fee's  today. and not gonna be an issue for decades.

its core that have done the code changes to let the fees become absurd. not pools.

lastly.
yea jumping to say 8mb blocks over night may only get filled with maybe 3-4mb of tx data today where this could crash the tx fee's down to near zero cost to transact. good for users and not a problem for pools

but obviously pools wont go full wetard up to 8mb over night or 32mb overnight either. they would just like a bit of space to get rid of any mempool backlog.

hence the whole policy.h preferences that allow blocks to be more dynamic.

what results is that and equilibrium is found where by if a pool got to 1.5mb -2mb and started to see that the demand for capacity brings the fee prices right down, and a healthy level will be found.. symbiotically.

even a new priority fee mechanism could be brought in which rewards lean users that dont spend every block and penalises users that make bloated tx every block

Bla bla ...
If BTC won't get LN then anyway ETH will have it and will benefit from it.
Do you people think that everything can be kept on main chain ?
I don't insist to keep 1MB forever but common rewards will be payed till 2140,
Segwit doesn't cost anything if not work you turn if off and move to another solution.
From hard fork you won't go back.


If miners are so annoyed by Core they should tax themselves to hire best devs in universe but those people won't work for free.
Why people think that best developers will work for free to pride their coin - you are really believe in that :D ?

If you use free soft them don't blame core hire better devs and prove that they are better not like BU devs that their client crashed few times in row.

Increasing blocksize is easier and most non effective approach to make changes.
1st is better to optimize that space what is segwit doing then start to increasing it.

what you dont realise is that the crash. was due to BU using cores 0.12. where there was a bug in cores 0.12 that was not patched until core 0.13

so while BU were fixing the bugs . someone at core realised that some of the BU nodes were running the unfixed 0.12 and as such had the bug.. thus called out to attack them.

however BU already patched the 0.12 so all people had to do was download the latest BU.
not wait 3-6 months.. just download the patched BU the same day the core team publicised how to attack OLD bu version that had OLDER core bugs.

P.S.. if core was independent then they would help other implementations. but by devs being dependant to core shows they are not independent..

How much banks did pay,before War2 somebody sold Eifla Tower in Paris

Read this line in that post:

Eh???

Bitcoin is suppose to be decentralised. Giving Miners the to power to choose blocksize is centralisation. Any centralisation must be done outside Bitcoin - developers etc - thus any proposal is then decided by all the users. (or % of users).

This is your opinion.   Miners are the ones choosing and ordering transactions, and blocksize is clearly in that realm.

I can easily make the argument that giving developers this power is far more centralizing.

Nope. Fact.

Shouldn't be happening.

pools can put transactions in, in any order they please.

you would never know the order.
it could be first seen first entered.
it could be more mature (older first)
it could be highest fee first.

all that really matters is if they have time to add tx's (ovr 1min since last block solved) then there should be tx's in a block

Okkkaaaayyyy.... care to explain why it "shouldn't be"?  Because that's how its worked since day 1.

Should be.

I'm not sure you understand that proof of work is a timestamping mechanism.

but how would you know.

for instance i could make a tx at 11:10:01 but by the time it relays around the nodes it hits a pool at 11:10:05
yet someone else who was only one hop away makes a tx at 11:10:04 gets to the pools milliseconds meaning its still 11:10:04
so mine wont be first even if i sent it first

also because other tx's have been sat in mempool for a while my 11:10:01 and the other persons 11:10:04 are gonna wait for the others that got seen sooner.

then ofcourse people can fake the time..
.. inevitably making the first seen first entered unprovable and a useless technique.

By first seen, first entered, i assumed you meant first seen and in the miner's mempool. So it be based on when the miner receives the tx.

Satoshi payed by Rotschild made a decentralized currency to promote centralization? You really are a payed shill arent you?

That is generally how things are done but because the goal here is distributed consensus, we have to rely on the miners to decide what goes in the blocks and when.  There is no way to force them.  This is the entire mechanism that solves the double spend problem.

What has double spend got to do with accepting "first receive?"

Miners should be accepting all legal tx and reject all illegal tx.

how would you as an outsider know what order a pool recieved a tx
how would you know in a double spend whats a legal transaction and whats an illegal transaction to add to the block.

in the end there are more ways to play the system then there are to adhere to the system you think should be adhered to so the end result is even if they did adhere to the system you would have no clue it was happening

You keep using the word "should".

Yes, they "should"... but how do make sure they actually do?  (think about it)  ;)

Huh ?  I'm claiming he most probably wasn't paid by the Rotschilds...

But this is exactly the fundamental problem of a decentralized consensus system over a network with unpredictable latency, and hence the Byzantine General's problem ! 

Solving this is the hard part of a decentralized system: the order of reception of the individual transactions is not the same for all network participants.  So *someone* has to decide on what was the "consensus" order, to, indeed, apply "first seen".  This, together with the fact that you can't trust anyone on the network, is what makes the whole decentralized system difficult, and for which theoretically it is proven there isn't even a solution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault_tolerance

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAP_theorem

Note that the Byzantine general's problem is in fact easier than the reward-winning cryptocurrency problem, because in as much as in the standard problem, there are faults, in as much each agent is motivated to cheat in a reward-winning cryptocurrency problem.

In practice, although no algorithm exists that guarantees to find a consensus with 100% certainty, there is always a practical solution with high probability of consensus when the unrestricted parameters are in practice, restricted.

Very right.

In fact, there isn't even a way to distinguish a legal from an illegal transaction if you receive two unconfirmed double spends.   And miners are just as well non-trustworthy players in the system as users are untrustworthy (and can emit double spends).  The whole idea of bitcoin was to oblige a group of cheating untrustworthy antagonists to come to a consensus, by using their mutual antagonism.  This is what was brilliant in this invention, and also why you cannot change it.

Individual miners dont have to be trustworthy as long as there is not one central untrustworthy entity that the existence of bitcoin depends on.

We don't need a LN, waiting some minutes for a tx is ok, what we are discusing is to not wait 12 hours.

I meant first one in miner's mempool deemed legal and the 2nd one (possible double spend) deemed illegal. I wasn't talking whether it is legal or illegal from the recipient's point of view.

That's usually what they do I think.  So whats the prob?

In the end this all just baseless allegiations.
If you're planning to make some conspiracy theory please make sure to provide some proof or some sources.
If you're so against Segwit then would prefer BU then?

Now we are talking about banking system taking over core devs of bitcoin(tho i wont believe it as for now). Yet as far as I am concerned bitcoin fees this days are getting worse(higher and higher). Then we should find a way to kill the paypal and bank wires alike

OK, just thinking of the top of my head.

Scumbag buys a coffee with BTC and then proceed to double spend. The first tx is then broadcasted to all nodes. At this point what exactly in detailed logical process do the nodes do according to the codes?

I think the banks buying Core was not only entirely expected, but its good for Bitcoin in the long run. We need multiple competing development teams and clients to make bitcoin truly decentralized. In this aspect, bitcoin can move out ahead of other coins in a really meaningful way (not just by network effect).

But... but... then you didn't get the essence of what bitcoin's invention is about !

--> if it were true that all nodes, all over the world, received all broadcast transactions all in the same order, there would, indeed, not any need, nor of miners, nor of block chain, nor of anything: as you say, the first arrived spending transaction of given output is considered the right one, and all the others, as rejected illegal double spendings of the same output.

It would then be very simple: all on-line nodes just accumulate in their local database, all these legal transactions, and because everybody is perfectly synchronized, all these local databases will be identical, because all nodes will take the same decisions.

What is the problem with this view ?  The problem is network propagation delays, and the fact that your node is not always online !  THIS was the hard problem to solve in bitcoin !

What is needed, is a global consensus of what transactions are the legal ones.  If half of the network thinks that Joe spend 5 BTC to Jack, and the other half of the network thinks that Joe spend those 5 BTC to Mary, then the day that Jack will want to pay his 5 BTC, half of the network will think his transaction is OK, and the other half will not recognize this.  As this will propagate further, you imagine that after a year or so, no bitcoin holding is certain, and nobody knows any more who owns what.

How can it be that half of the network thinks that Joe spent to Jack, and the other half that Joe spent to Mary ?  Because of network delays !  If Joe sent a double spend, one to Jack, and one to Mary, on different P2P nodes, then these transactions will propagate differently through the network.  Some will receive the spending for Jack first, others will see the spending to Mary first.  Other nodes won't see anything because they were off line.  So what do you tell them when they come online again ?  Depending to which nodes they connect, they will learn about Jack, or about Mary getting 5 BTC.

This is why there needs to be a "consensus mechanism", that is to say, a rule so that all nodes, when presented with different alternative histories, will all pick the same history as the "consensus" one and hence, agree upon said history.  In bitcoin, that is "the chain with most PoW".  Note that the consensus rule must be cryptographically protected, so that it is not easy to make nodes switch regularly on the consensus history.  In bitcoin, that cryptographic protection comes from the economic cost of proof of work.  Because everybody on the network, it being permission-less, can *propose* alternative transaction histories.

Yes, I think Satoshi made a fundamental error by giving the "keys to the kingdom" to only one team, Core.  He should have created 20 different copies on github, and handed them out to 20 different and competing teams.  He was of course the centralized force at the start, but that was inevitable.  Him leaving was most probably done to avoid the continuation of this centralization, but by having one Pope, (Gavin at the time), the central authority remained.  If there would have been 20 different Sultans, that would have been much more decentraized.  But, as you say, I think this is the fight that bitcoin is now fighting.  The funny thing is that it needed centralization of the miners, to have enough muscle to attack the centralization of the protocol in Core's hands.

You are asking about double spend protection for unconfirmed transactions.

My understanding is that not all nodes deal with transactions the same way, and there is no way to force them to.  Probably most or many nodes would not allow the second transaction if it contained insufficient inputs after the first was processed, but that also depends on if the transaction was accepted, which in turn may depend on the fee used.   To be on the safe side, the node could reject the transaction if it appears it could be a double spend.  As to which versions of Bitcoin actually do this, I do not know.

If a double spend attacker wanted to get really fancy, he could broadcast a prior coffee tx to another node a few seconds before (send to himeself) , buy the coffee, walk out, and hope the coffee shop node doesnt even see it.  It is possible for the coffee shop node to query other node's mempool to mitigate against this, but I think the bottom line is that in real world, fraud would be rare for small transactions, just like you wouldn't run out of the coffee shop with your drink and not pay... or write a bad check, right? 

You know what this is all about? it's all about the competition in mining, imagine big pools if stop mining for 1 second they could easily fall behind and lose 12.5+ fees in bitcoin which would be something around $16000.

All this hard fork and soft fork will cause miners orphan, rejected unsuccessful blocks and that's something no one wants.

Reason why people say 95% consensus is to minimize the loss as much as possible for all miners.

Someone tell me if SW doesn't have a solution to minimize that drama?

I agreed with everything until you said centralization of miners. I've been around long enough to know that mining has never been more decentralized than it is now. How many pools were there in 2012? Like 3?

If a single entity like Bitcoin Unlimited controls 50% of miners & seeks to gain majority control to fork and kill bitcoin core.

That's not decentralization.

Its the opposite.

Bitcoin Unlimited is not an entity.  It's an implementation.   It doesn't control miners.  Miners freely choose to run it.

Anyways, how does BU 'having' more than 50% any different than Core having more than 50% (which it currently does)?

I don't know how many.  Point is, that since there were asics and pools, mining is centralized in a few deciding entities that have at their disposal the majority of hash rate.  As long as this number is more than 3, you could, strictly speaking, say that there is enough decentralization, and enough multiple points of failure, but in practice, that isn't true, because with a handful of actors, it is never possible to be sure that they don't collude over something, or are at the mercy of, say, a government that has "propositions they cannot refuse".

The question is, right now: how many independent, non-culluding deciding entities have 51% of the hash rate at their disposal ?  Officially, it are 5 pools, but one says that they are in the hands of 1 or 2 people.

Note that a centralized system like that can very well continue to function correctly for a long time.

I wanted to say exactly that.  The principal problem bitcoin is facing, is that there has been, until recently, only one single "reference implementation", by a single team.  That is total centralisation in my book.  This is as if there were only one single web browser in the world: they would define what http and html is, and could change it at a whim.   

The problem with the single core team is that there was a confusion between the software and the protocol, as there was only one dominant software implementation: all changes to the software, that changed the protocol, were automatically implemented by most actors.

to add to this point

bitcoinEC
bitcoin classic
bitcoin xt
plus other implementations(some bitcoin core with dynamics but showing core in user agent to hide from DDoS attacks)

would all happily accept blocks should pools create native blocks that are simply over 1mb

Bitcoin is developed by dozens and dozens of people (something like over 400 total contributors to the Core project overall). It is a bit open source collaboration of many independent parties. Not a single team.

Bitcoin's creator was vigorously opposed to multiple implementations for sound technical reasons,  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1611#msg1611 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1611#msg1611)

Satoshi understood the dynamics, and so do most competent potential contributors-- which is why they choose to collaborate with the Bitcoin project rather than go off and create something that will almost certainly be incompatible.

To the originators of this awful troll thread:  What banks?  If you can't name them you're fking full of shit.

It's so absurd we went _YEARS_ with the whole fking bitcoin industry barely spending a cent to support development,  and then when a couple developers founded a generic blockchain services company and choose to fund just one and a half full time headcount to contribute to the Bitcoin project the shills rain down about bank take over-- never mind that our company isn't even funded by banks.

I think it's no coincidence that the leaked hacking team newsletter was warning governments that blockstream might fund privacy technology for Bitcoin and then later all these absurd attacks started when I published the confidential transactions design and implementation.

Welcome to being pawns of state actor driven social manipulation teams, all of you.

Yeah, out of those 400 contributors, how many can actually add a commit?



I guess one could argue that technically AXA group isn't a bank, but I think OP is just using 'banks' as a catchall for the elites that run everything. Certainly doesn't help that the CEO of AXA also happens to be the chairman of BILDERBERG.

Y'know Greg, your rudeness doesn't help your cause. It doesn't look good when the lead dev uses profanity like he's from a trailer park. Try toning down the F-bombs a little, ok?

"couple developers founded a generic blockchain services company and choose to fund just one and a half full time headcount to contribute"

lets see who is in the blockstream team and also have bitcoin github commits.
1. Gmax
2. PWuille
3. LDash
4. Matt corallo
5. JTimon
6. MFriedenbach
theres more i just cant be assed to go full hog to disprove gmax


but only 1 and a half people get $70m... DANNNGG
is that $45m for Gmax and $25m for im guessing PWuille

no wonder why (in gmax's own non verbatim words) matt corrallo walked away from blockstream to work for chaincode..
...but still has a blockstream namebadge

P.S how can you have half a fulltimer??

They are obviously not independent, and competing, right ?  You can say that there are dozens of colluding entities, not antagonist competing entities, what decentralization is about.  OPEC can also say that they have dozens and dozens of different oil wells.  Does that mean they are not a cartel and are a competing open market ?


This is also why I said that he made a fundamental mistake, and, no, Satoshi didn't understand, or if he did, he took an opposite public position, to what decentralization and immutability resulting from antagonist consensus, was about.  He didn't realize, or fooled other people in thinking he didn't realize, that "consensus" in matters of money is of a totally different nature than consensus in any other collaborative open source community system.

The reason is that contrary to any community system, a monetary system is about antagonism of all entities, not about collaboration.  A monetary system is about wanting to cheat the system and not being able to, wanting to scam the counter party and not being able to.  Indeed, in a monetary system, we all want to have a lot of money, and all want others to want a lot of money, and a monetary system is such that we are *forced* to diminish our own holdings if we want to pay someone, even though we don't really want to.  It is the fundamental desire to be able to create money at will, but not to want others to create money at will.   Money is fundamentally an antagonist game.

That is totally different with, say, the development of an e-mail system, or web page browsing software, where there's no antagonism at the basis.  Me wanting to send e-mail to you, has no necessity of antagonism, and we can perfectly collaborate over that.

But in monetary affairs, if I pay you, I have lost my holdings, and you have them now, and if I had my say, I would like to be able to spend them again, and if you had your say, you would like to have obtained my holdings without having to deliver goods and/or services for it, but both of us are FORCED to act this way, because the monetary system is such that we cannot get it our way.

As such, a monetary system has to be fundamentally immutable for its subscribers, because anyone that can modify its functioning, or its history (both are intimately related) can (and most probably will) bend the rules in his material advantage.  

As to why both the rules (the protocol) as the data (history) have to be immutable is obvious: the data only give rights and limits through the rules, and these enforced rights and limits is what the monetary system is all about.  

And now, Satoshi invented, but publicly seemed not to realize, the immutability mechanism of decentralization: sufficient non-colluding antagonists that are not able to agree over anything else, than the existing consensus (including the rules).  In other words, all players/antagonists in the system would like to bend the rules and history into THEIR advantage, and NOT to the advantage of their adversaries (the other members of the system), so as to get a maximum of material advantage out of it.  But as such, if they are sufficiently diverse and disagreeing, they cannot settle over any change, and as such, immutability results, as it is the only thing they, de facto, agree over, because they did so when joining.

A single team providing the software, however, is of course way too powerful, and  much too colluding amongst their community members, for this mechanism to work, but there is now, finally, some counter action from other members/antagonists in the eco system, to turn bitcoin in a truly immutable system (protocol included of course).

Satoshi's public stance on "modifying the protocol later" make me think that 1) he didn't get a clue about immutability dynamics or 2) he did, and was being extremely deceptive about it.

There's a fundamental difference between the immutability of the protocol and history on one hand, and the software implementations of that protocol on the other hand.

Greg, can we discuss this?  The last time I tried to engage in a dialogue with you, all I got was accusations of harassment and some ominous warnings.

Let me ask some polite questions here:

1. Why do you only talk about centralization threats via node cost increases and never (at least that I've seen) discuss the possible centralization that comes from forcing users off the main chain via high fees.  This moving of users from 'Layer 1' to 'Layer 2' is the obvious outcome of transforming the peer to peer electronic cash system envisioned by Satoshi into a 'Bitcoin-as-a-Settlement-Network'. 

Will you even confirm or deny that you want Bitcoin to be a settlement network?  You should at least be able to answer this simple question.

2. Why do you still refuse to give the community the blocksize increase we've been asking for, for years?  Please, no political answers of "but Segwit IS an increase".  The miners are rejecting this.  50%+ of hashpower today is signaling for big blocks.   Why can't you accept the 2mb+segwit proposal?  Are we still stuck on the "HF are bad" narrative?

You accuse everyone of being manipulated pawns when we don't embrace the core roadmap, but what is so bad about 2mb or a well coordinated HF?  Can you admit that a large section of community (including prominent developers) feels the arguments against these things are unconvincing?

3. You called for a 'fee market', you got it.  Are you happy with the high fees and network congestion?   Are you aware of the significant decline in Bitcoin marketcap dominance, or that companies like Dell and Fiverr no longer accept Bitcoin?  In other words, do you still think your economic policies are good?   These are serious questions.
 
Can you understand why some people have rational, logical reasons to believe that you actually WANT to either cripple Bitcoin or radically change it?

I would love to believe you are not a bad actor and that your "generic blockchain services company" is benign. 
 
You say Core is not controlled by banks... you say your motives are pure...

...but are you willing to actually compromise instead of dictating your roadmap?

We will see.  Actions speak louder than words.

This is a pretty ridiculous accusation, isn't it ?  Monero is already a private crypto currency, and ZCASH an optional private crypto currency.  So the tech is out, up and running since 3 years now.  Hell, even DASH has some privacy elements to it (somewhat doubtful, I agree). 

BTW, I consider the open ledger of bitcoin one of its biggest failures and dangers, but bitcoin is bitcoin now, and will, if it becomes sufficiently decentralized, never change fundamentally.

I will of course not answer in Greg's place  ;D but the very fact that you go with your wish list to Santa Claus, isn't that the very proof that bitcoin's protocol is centralized with core ?  Core is free to impose whatever it wants ; the fact that the bitcoin "community" seems to accept that (until recently) is the centralization.  If anything, instead of sending your wish list to the central authority, one could make just an alternative, no ?  Ah yes, that one exists: classic, BU, XT ... but it doesn't work out either. 

So there are only two possible conclusions at this point:

1) Core is still the central authority of bitcoin, and all change to bitcoin has to be asked Core, and approved by Core

OR:

2) Bitcoin finally got decentralized and hence immutable, and nobody, including core, will change anything fundamental to bitcoin.  So no bigger blocks, no Segwit, no any other features.

(I am thinking that 2), finally, got in place)

debunked by gmax thinking anything not core is not bitcoin.

so all of the dozens of implementations that are actually running and have been running on bitcoins mainnet with active code and wallets in gmax's eye are not bitcoin.. thats a centralist mindset in my eye.

P.S it was Gmax and icebreaker that started the drama with the REKT campaigns.

how can gmax say its al independent and then REKT anyone that actually goes independent.
and dont get me started on the many closed door 100 only special invites to roundtable meetings

gmax is just angry that even with all the effort of using the anyonecanspend backdoor to avoid a node community vote and using the two merkle header backdoor that he now realises is not as backward compatible with asics.. so now needing to threaten to kill off pools too and push through the half baked code...

gmax refuses to listen to the community for a proper version release that has all communities needs met and can unite around. and instead wants to complain about why his half baked code is meeting such resistance.

yep he bypassed node consensus. and willing to keep the drama alive until 2019 by employing samson mow to keep the half baked version pressure cooking until late 2018, without checking or caring if its missing any ingredients that would actually be happily accepted when served

Wrong quantifier.

In UK it's part-timer.

Most important of all, the simplest solution one at a time is better and easier to implement. I.E 2MB block. Analyse block creation and propagation using time. Check for stability. 6 months later 3 or 4 MB block. Analyse block creation and propagation using time. Check for stability.

The roadmap isn't working, self-evidence by the division of two main developers, Core and BU, and miners in 2 main camps.

Fee market is rubbish and needs to be scrap.

Privacy from whom?

He didn't need to create 20 github clones, because anyone can clone it and have their own keys!

No, because classic, xt, BU, BitcoinEC, Core infinity patch etc.. would happily accept blocks created by each other. Think of it as a bigger block vote, not BU vote. Only core would stop working if the blocks are created above 1 MB in size, unless they changed their code.

Why do I always hate the Government?. I willingly quit College to become the Government's not interested. I've understand how Government works. their work almost 100% with politics. and politics that his works lie

So you are saying that Ver and WU are the ones to save us from being annihilated by big banks?

No kid. You are clearly mistaken. Let alone that you are another alt account of the Fyooked dude, Those two don't have enough wisdom and education to rule over bitcoin. Whoever created bitcoin was a smart person (satoshi) and i trust him till the end. Not those incompetent fucks.

If team BUer wants to have their own bitcoin, nobody's stopping them to create their own.

Honestly, I do not know why you (and others) said or speculate that government hate bitcoin, trying to kick it out of the game.
Bitcoin just a little currency compare to others official currency such as Euro, Pounds, USD. Bitcoin just provide another alternative medium of exchange, it won't harm a country instead giving great opportunity for many citizens to earn profits through bitcoin business.

However, bitcoin value rated from fiat money and people need it in the first place then make bitcoin worth.
We can't buy anything using bitcoin, so we do need banks and fiat money to fullfil/support bitcoin environment.
Yes, I think SegWit won't ever be activated as 95% approval consensus cannot be achieved, so what we have to worry about? Core devs won't harm bitcoin for government.

"rule over bitcoin"?

no one should rule over bitcoin.
as others have said there are dozens of different implementations that can all run side by side on a diverse decentralised peer network.
thats what all the different implementations want a single network of diverse decentralisation..
only core oppose this and want a TIER network

if you think that only core should "rule over bitcoin" then take a step back from the keyboard have a cup of coffee and actually think about the words you are saying

I agree 100 percent. That's why i don't support BU. Ver and Wu do want to rule over bitcoin, that's clear as day. If you think Bitcoin won't be a centralized piece of shit after BU becomes thee "bitcoin", then you must be high.

Luckily even if they get their fork, nobody will care because what they get will be another pump&dump ultra scamcoin.

I support the dude who created bitcoin in the first place and if the current dev team are the descendants of him, then i agree with them as well. I don't agree with a bitcoin angel guy or a chinese turd.

its time you put reddit on your blocked site list. its filling your mind with FuD

all the implementations such as classic bitcoin ec bitcoin xt and bitcoin BU all can happily play side by side on a peer network. core can be part of it by just allowing a base block size increase.

its only core opposing being a peer network supporter.

core want a controlled and ruled TIER network. its literally written in their code and documentation (upstream filters)
core are the ones begging all other implementations to F**k off, get REKT,

however the other implementations that want to remain as a single network are just going to use consensus and stay as a diverse decentralised peer network

look at cores tactics
1. go soft, avoid node decision of consensus vote
2. go soft to give only pools the vote
3. if pools say no, UASF bomb the pools.
4. if the community say no to UASF then do a mandatory activation with a trigger for late 2018 no matter how many pools or nodes vote or veto

core cannot take no for an answer.

yet other implementations that have been running for 2+ years have made no threats of bombing pools, or threats of killing opposing nodes.
and are jst plodding along waiting for natural consensus to form, no deadlines, no threats

now before you reply. please take a step back from the key board and think about it.
remember to not wear a core defence hat.

and answer this simple question.
if hearne wrote segwit and it was line for line identical. would you support it?

These freaks want to have a harlot of a system where everyone can come make love(make changes) and go their own ways, it's like $20B ecosystem is a play ground for some snob coders and nerds to do whatever they want.
Who do you think brought the price up to $1200+? not BU nor any other wannabe boss implementations, I think most of you have forgotten why there are some rules in the universe.

Have you ever asked yourselves why there were so many kings and queens and still are? besides the man power and armies supporting them of course yet most of the people were living in happy and healthy communities.

Show me one community without a leader, without some sort of overlord, or whatever you want to call it.

Imagine the DNA sequence if DNA didn't have the sequence that it has none of us would be here, there needs to be someone to set rules and enforce them, you guys please don't act as UV light and come in with your BU fork causing cancer.

But you've actually got it backwards.

Satoshi always wanted big blocks and big nodes.    The current dev team wants small blocks and small nodes.

since when do i need some tyrant to tell me who i can get pregnant and be part of the same DNA as me..
thats a decision between only the parties involved on the same equal and mutual decision agreement.

its called consensus. a relationship of unity. which is different to centralised control

it seems you prefer the domestic abuse BDSM relationship. so i think you are missing the whole point of bitcoin

you live in the fiat world of control and dominance where you have to reply on someone above you.

it appears you also need to rely on the reddit scripts of FuD to spoonfeed you. please take a step back from the keyboard for 5 minutes and really think what you are advocating.

So basically you only support Core because the developers are "white"? Your judgement is clouded by nationality. Just focus on the offers.
Core - Segwit, poor idea and no guarantee of higher capacity as it requires users to use segwit. Roughly 5000 lines of codes. Follow by LN - crap idea.
BU - dynamic mb decided by miners/market - crap idea. Flextrans, better than Segwit.

Common proposal by users - raise the blocksize to 2mb for now.

LN isn't a crap idea.   

But its also not the scaling panacea some falsely believe it to be, it is not implementable as a p2p solution as easily as some believe it to be, and it is absolutely, positively not a reason to restrict the blocksize as some people believe it to be.

The others.  A financial transaction is a private affair between two entities, that is nobody else's business.

Yes, that's what happened, and people made alt coins.  But as there was one team "singled out" with the "real, original" code, that propagated the centralized authority of Satoshi in this single one team.  There was a breaking in the symmetry.

In fact, you have a better idea.  He shouldn't have given the keys to anyone, you're right.  That's even better.

I agree with that, at least, if one considers the protocol. The protocol is what it is, without segwit, and with 1 MB blocks.  That's bitcoin, for now, and most probably for ever.

However, people are free to make software that follows that protocol, or they are free to make other coins, that have new genesis blocks, or that fork off bitcoin's chain.

This whole battle is only about a NAME.  People want a new protocol (one with bigger blocks, one with segwit, one with this, one with that), but they want to keep the name of bitcoin (the brand), and for that reason, they don't want the old chain, the actual bitcoin, to survive: that's the only way to get the name to a new coin as the original bitcoin then doesn't exist any more.

If it weren't for any brand name, people could make as many forks as they like.  In fact, a big error has been that bitcoin doesn't have a version number in its name.  (I'm not talking about the *software*, I'm talking about the protocol).

It is even more amazing that litecoin doesn't fork off, and lets a litecoin with segwit, and a litecoin without segwit, exist.  Because bitcoin being the first mover, its brand is what makes its value ; but for litecoin, I don't see what is the problem to create a LTS (lite coin segwit), which is a bilateral hardfork of LTC at an announced point, and which will exist next to LTC as another alt coin.

In another word privacy from the law enforcement. If crimes committed by using bitcoin which currently can be traceable to a certain degree like cash, cheque, etc - you then want to stop the law enforcement from doing their job? What do you think will happen? The police will go to the politicians and complain about Bitcoin. Politicians then agrees and ....... you can imagine what will happen next.


Forget about the swarm - a shitstorm of bricks will land on Bitcoin.