Bitcoin Forum

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6ef2ka/some_great_quotes_from_bitcoin_core_devs_on_bip/

/r/btc, im not clicking on that cesspool.


Anyway I don't need to get brainwashed by anyone, I have seen what core devs say myself because I hang out on the slack, and there is a lot of variety, some think it's great, some are neutral, some thing it's crazy.

This just further proves Core is a decentralization organization, contrary to what antiblockstream-anticore shills parrot all day.

So you won't even read something because it doesn't confirm your preconceptions?

It doesn't give r/btc ad revenue or anything, it doesn't support them in any way... so all that avoiding r/btc would be doing is trying to stay in an echo chamber.

That's the same mentality that r/btc and r/bitcoin both have of staying in their respective echo chamber.

---

Jonald, I get your point.  However, I think most people on here as well accept that UASF is risky.  I would argue that if it has nearly universal business support (which it doesn't yet), the miners would move over.

It all depends on what companies move over.  In any case, if business support is mixed it would be a complicated split which could last for a while.  The thing is that this means a compromise from SegWit doesn't have to be going far to pull a few businesses away from UASF, which would in turn make it very difficult to complete.

---

I think it's a good thing that Core devs recognise this though.  It shows that they're not one giant evil organsation standing in their nuclear bunkers watching over us all like a halk.  It doesn't mean that UASF has to be impossible - they're just not deluding themselves into thinking that it's completely safe.

*i also refuse to click that jihan infested link either*

UASF has zero risks.

It is either going to get accepted or die silently. It is simple as that. If people are happy with the current situation, they don't need to do anything at all. They can trade the way they used to, they can hold,  or whatever. Legacy chain won't disappear instantly. They can ignore anything ahead.

However;

If the majority don't like what bitcoin has become, they have a chance to change it now. It may succeed or not. Now they have a choice.

That's exactly what I mean by "living in an echo chamber".  You're trying to talk in absolutes.
The way I understand it (I could be wrong):
-If 51% or more of the hashrate signals for a soft fork by that point, it's safe (ish).

-If less than that signal for it, there will be a chain split (which is the main function of UASF).  At that point there will be some blocks mined on the new chain and some on the old chain.  Unless most companies decide to accept payments on the new chain at the same time, there could be enough economic support for the old chain for miners to stick to their guns.
Err people can't just ignore what's going on if you want UASF to have "zero risks".

This is not the only option though, SegWit + 2MB HF has much higher support and if people want to finally solve the Bitcoin scalling, SegWit + 2MB HF is the way to unite most people out of all scalling options available.

more like , make a ton of noise, look like fools,...and then die silently :)

If Core devs would have increased block size a year ago, everybody would have just upgraded their client, and we wouldn't have this discussion now.

I remember when I was brainwashed and close minded like this. Try to actually open your mind and look into the other sides views without rash judgement. You will likely discover the uncomfortable truth that the BlockstreamCore devs are and have been purposefully crippling bitcoin and causing tx backlogs to make way for Blockstreams profitable payment channels. Seriously, take a view from big blockers perspective. They turned out being the right ones while the rest were duped by Cores astroturfing, lies and censorship. Warning: Extreme cognitive dissonance may result

There isn't anything there  which can open one's mind. We already know everything about BU/Jihan BU/Roger Ver. You are the one who's brainwashed.

What they want is 8mb blocks.
What we have is 1mb blocks.

They don't even want 2mb at first. Straight up to 8mb. They are insane. It will be impossible to run nodes for home users if we switch to 8mb instantly. We need to scale in time. Miners already got the hash power. Giving them the node power would make bitcoin a cartel coin.

I am pretty sure you know everything about this stuff already but you are either here to troll, being paid by shitmain.

Not to mention, no block size can stop the spam. Any block size will get filled sooner or later. That's why we have to upgrade to segwit.

"You're brainwashed!"
"No you're brainwashed!"
"No you're brainwashed!"
"No you're brainwashed!"

...Am I really the only person here who thinks that everyone doesn't have to be brainwashed?

25hashcoin is here basically saying "why not open your mind and accept that this side is 100% right and everyone else is brainwashed", and mindrust has the same twisted mind.

I really despair at what arguments on the Internet have come to.

OK. Here you go. In the words of the 'core devs':

• sipa - my opinion is that it would go against our principles to merge BIP148 into core
• jtimon - as said on the mailing list I think bip148 is rushed and that makes it risky
• gmaxwell - luke-jr: I haven't seen the kind of support required to justify your position on that; afaict so far no exchange or payment processor of note has said they would stick with 148. I think you'd have an argument if there was any of that, but right now I think it's hard to distinguish a subsanstive level of support. (And I've seen some clearly malicious parties pumping support for it too.)
• morcos - At the end of the day I think most of us have no interest in greatly increasing the risk of a devastating currency split. I think 148 does that..
• gmaxwell - luke-jr: there is a big difference between saying 'businesses get to decide' and saying that the fact that virtually no industry participant is resolute with 148 is a strong sign the support isn't significant enough.
• jonasschnelli - You can't measure "community"
• sipa - luke-jr: ... my expectation is that every economically relevant full node will revert away from bip148 code hours after the hashrate fails to adopts it
• gmaxwell - I think it's (148) a very poor and needlessly risky approach.
• sipa - luke-jr: i think you're insane
• paveljanik - luke-jr, in reality, it can even be much worse. People could signal UASF but not enforce it.
• luke-jr - great, now we get ad hominems as argument
• sipa - luke-jr: apologies for the ad hominem... but i believe your argument it nonsense
• BlueMatt - luke-jr: would you like me to buy you a plane ticket so you can talk to people?
• BlueMatt - I'd be happy to.. you spend too much time on reddit and not talking to real people, I think

This is what they should have done.. i dont see why it should be a problem.. Its not like the ETH Fork from DAO

Are you new to the internet?

Arguments like this been going on for 20 years. The internet is a tools for idiots to voice their opinion anonymously without feeling embarrass, when it's obvious the idiots is wrong.

So now I presume you support UASF because the only meaning of your existence is to contradict core   :P

"jtimon - as said on the mailing list I think bip148 is rushed and that makes it risky"

That I agree with.

That is what a lot of people do not try to understand, including the people who support BU. The Bitcoin network is already worth billions in market capitalization. The Core developers have to be conservative. Some viewed the 95% threshold for Segwit activation as "too conservative" when in fact it is the right thing to do to avoid a split.

What does that have to do with anything? As long as he is contributing good and sound code then that is all that matters. To the credit of the core developers they have not broken Bitcoin yet.