Bitcoin Forum

From his recent thread on GitHub:

https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/3332

And then, I saw this:

https://i.imgur.com/Gl56CxV.png
https://reddit.com/r/btc/comments/gj36c9/bitcoinorg_owner_cobra_on_blockstream_fucking/fqiaylq/

Though I doubt Cobra will just sell the domain to someone like Roger, holy fuck if Roger actually gets to own two high-authority Bitcoin domains.

It's kind of crazy that any one person can control such an important part of the ecosystem. We basically have to just hope he gives it to someone responsible, and hope is not usually a strategy. Not saying I don't think he will be responsible, just that having to hope goes against why I got into bitcoin. I wonder how long the current ICANN monopoly will last. It surely wont be the final word in domain naming. If I had to hazard a guess, I would say we end up with a lot of different ones, and which actual websites you end up at will depend on which naming authority you decide to trust. So for me bitcoin.com will go to a site about bitcoin, and for others bitcoin.com will go a site about a shit coin.

Of all the blockchain projects, DNS seems like something that could actually benefit from a distributed ledger.

Cobra isn't a huge fan of Roger Ver (and that's an understatement) so I wouldn't be too worried about that. Cobra recently replied to one of Roger's tweets:

Source: https://twitter.com/CobraBitcoin/status/1256615915556306954

i am almost sure nothing like that would happen but even if it did i seriously doubt it would change anything except the number of posts newcomers make on different tech support forums complaining about being scammed trying to buy bitcoin and received a shitcoin instead.

If you do a Google search query for "Bitcoin", the number 1 spot would be Bitcoin.org, followed by Bitcoin.com. I don't think the damage will be that little.

Personally, I spent very little time on this site, so even if the domain goes into other hands, I will not be particularly affected.

Nah, nothing will happen like that. On the whole post Cobra doesn't mentioned he want to sell the domain. As he said he want to retire, although I don't know the real reason behind of this but I believe he will take an appropriate decision. But the real concern is about trust.

It doesn't matter either you are using this website or not, but this website helping lots of peoples and it's quite important for bitcoin community. Lots of info there and the website keeping role to spread the word about bitcoin.

A bit sad that people who have cash in hand and who are willing to splash it all are all these guys. Of course BCH people have cash in hand. They forked, made free money out of thin air, and people got sold on their idea. Worse, it wasn't just the single fork but many. Ver's done enough damage with .com hope it doesn't double down.

get ready for bitcoin.org website to be more commercial centric in near future. no matter who takes it over. expect it to change left or right. the network itself has already swayed more to the 'reserve currency of industrialised commerce and has moved away from the 'digital cash' of everyday users.. so expect whoever takes it over to sway the website to favour industry instead of user

He didn't mention selling it but it doesn't automatically mean that it's out of the picture. I'm not doubting Cobra as I really don't know him but he's quite reputable as far as I know, but let's not forget that he's using a pseudonym and that his reputation wouldn't matter that much in the end as he's planning on retiring the pseudonym anyway.

Not only more commercial-centric. POLITICAL MANIPULATION and FRAUD! Did you see which name offered cash?

I believe theymos should be the "guardian" of the domain, temporary or not, to ensure that nothing will change.

Giving away a domain that costs thousands of dollars isn't the best decision,if you ask me.
What if the guy,who gets the domain decides to sell it to Roger Ver?If you get something for free,you just don't cherish it that much and you are not so emotionally invested into it.
Perhaps all the true Bitcoin Core supporters and developers should start a voting poll and vote for the one who truly deserves to own the domain.
Roger Ver,the BCH shitcoin creator,to own the 2 most high-authority domains in the cryptocurrency world?
That would be a f***ing joke.

If both of the most prominent Bitcoin domains were owned by one conman phallus that would actually be a pretty neat demonstration of it being bigger than any single entity. The average shitcoin would go down in shrieking flames if that happened. Bitcoin would truck straight past it, though there would be noob casualties.

I guess the outcome will depend on which person is claiming to be Cobra that day. There seem to be several of them.

Roger has the audacity to say a smug "I have cash in hand". Yeah, you moron, like that'll ever happen.The changing over of hands for Bitcoin.org is going to be one of the most important decisions for the bitcoin ecosystem. This may well also be one of the few times when an organisation, individual or a collective of individuals will come forward to take responsibility for bitcoin.
Is there a list of early year bitcoiners who joined the league of wealthy gentlemen and who are available publicly. Most of the early people who are well known are mostly just developers. What about the other investor variety of people. Do we even know who they are?

Only thousands? it's going to be far above 100k if it ever gets sold.
Ver is still scaming on his site, that people go to when they google "bitcoin" and find out it's all about BCH. You have to admit that if you were a newbie and went to a "bitcoin" site, you'd expect to find Bitcoin there, not an altcoin forked from it.

It should be someone who actually cares for the Bitcoins ecosystem, not someone who is trying to control it just like everyone else ..this is going to be a very hard task and I do hope in the future we can have someone who is unbiased and does not hope to be like North Korean leader.
Bitcoin.org is a place where it all started , it is a place where the newbies come and learn more about Bitcoins , it's where the companies are actually getting involved. I still remember the time when there were so many users that the site started hanging for a while.
I do think in the future one should actually get some kind of voting system , like choose bunch of people who are interested in buying it and we can vote for it .
Plus the significant people should also get a veto power plus explain their disregard to everyone so that the decision is made efficiently . 

It would be interesting to hear from someone who was drawn in by Bitcoin.com and didn't realise what it was until they had parted with some money. I guess they'd be too embarrassed to admit it but I presume the main reason he puts so much money into it is for that to happen.

That's not how ownership works, though.  When someone owns something, a bunch of random people on the Internet don't get to decide what happens to their property or who should inherit it.

Whatever your personal opinions on the matter might be, it's Cobra's choice.

I don't think Cobra will just hand over the domain to Roger, as we can see the reply on twitter. He will definitely hand over to someone trusted and of course a supporter of BTC.
It would be better if some trusted from the bitcointalk forum could have the access of it, may be theymos?

Cobra though have made some conflicting comments, he has always spoken his mind and human opinions are never constant. There's still more to learn and know. As of the domain, it's not a personal thing for Cobra, with it comes the responsibility and he knows properly who owns the domain. It's the bitcoin community. Handing it to any other community is not in question. 

Don't know much about Roger Ver but there is no doubt, if he owns bitcoin.org domain, the he will start cheating with innocent people badly. Cobra should sell Bitcoin.org to other, although my opinion is valuess but Roger Ver doesn't deserve bitcoin.org  :(

That's unlikely to happen & I doubt Cobra would accept the most sweetest deal for selling it to Roger. Cobra would never be a guy to support BCH. Nevertheless, as Cobra expressed his opinion & willingness on this matter, it's unlikely that he will sell it even. He will look for someone who can care for the domain and hand over to them for nothing.

That seems unlikely given recent developments (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5241347.msg54243783#msg54243783).  Further clarified here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5241347.msg54250388#msg54250388). 

Why should Roger Val says he has cash at home? That is too degrading of his personality this is why he won't be handed the domain. I don't trust someone who advertises BCH and BTC to noobs.

Actually, there have been several cases already on Reddit and even on bitcointalk I've seen before. Newbies who thought they bought Bitcoin and then came looking for help when they couldn't find anything.

I think they changed the website shortly after all the complaints but they got what they wanted.

I did not believe theymos to even be in the mix of anyone who would be potentially involved in bitcoin.org.

I mean, theymos and cøbra just recently separated their interest by dividing the pie (separating the two domains), which seemed to have made it easier for cøbra to thereafter be able to unilaterally decide what he wants to do, with bitcoin.org within his complete discretion...


As pointed out by DooMAD above.

although this may not be what you say here but it is pretty close, bitcoin.org is open source and you can see and edit the contents here: https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org
for example you can participate in reviewing services like exchanges that are listed there, review wallets, suggest add or removal of parts that need changing.

Then who? Whoever it's going to be, it shouldn't be someone like Roger Ver, or Gavin Andresen, or Jeff Garzik in my opinion. It would start another political debate/war from within the Bitcoin community.

"Bitcoin" has always referred to "Bitcoin Core". It should be someone who doesn't have an agenda vs. the Bitcoin Core Project.

What shouldn't be done is pretty apparent to most.

Maybe it would be more helpful to make recommendations about what should be done? :)

I believe "what should be done" is to give control of the domain to theymos, or someone neutral/impartial to the politics of Bitcoin, and yet an advocate of the technology and its ethos.

Or a community purchase of the domain, entrusted to theymos.

Anyone who is trying to buy it should under no condition be allowed to have it.

Buying it would create a need to recoup the investment which would be at odds with the public interest.

Moreover, it's not simply anyone's to simply sell.  The domain was created by satoshi, the content (and traffic) by the broader community... control handed to the current operators for good stewardship, not private profit. I don't think they have any interest in doing so, either.  The bigger concern is just having confidence that the recipient will be equally committed.

a certain group of devs have been the biggest paid corporation in bitcoin in relation to controlling the coding decisions.
and you have to ask how are their investors/sponsors going to get their returns.

even 3 years after the biggest debate on the direction of bitcoin, certain devs/forum mods still sway in favour of the corporate business mode. even if they pretend to no longer be affiliated with the company they were part of creating.

id want to see bitcoin in neutral hands where it stays open to decentralised processes of trying to scale up bitcoin.(not other networks) and concentrating on bitcoin(not other networks).
i can easily see it will very much turn into a promotion tool to get people off the bitcoin network and become very much a advert for things like LN and liquid and other offchain stuff for corporate profit.

certain people have too much power. with having priority decision approvals in the github, owning dns seeds, and even having certain privileges on what can and cant be said in certain forums. it already has become more centralised to one brand of a certain group

ofcourse they dont like people opposing their corporate strategy. but bitcoin should not be about corporate plans/agenda's it should have always remained the digital cash for the unbanked. and not try becoming the reserve currency only for the elite custodians to use

promoting schemes that do not give extra REAL transaction throughput, while allowing bloating is not for the good of bitcoin. nor is causing tx fee increases with false promotions that its discounts
the byte/tx efficiency has gone down due to certain dev decision

so however the next owner of the website is. i sure hope they dont turn it more into the corporate arm of advertising bitcoin as an elitist reserve currency just for the custodian vault utility of other networks

I knew this subject would cause the usual characters to reach into their Snoopy shorts, pull out their filthy, unwashed member and start yanking on it in public before their carers can bundle them away.

Welp, that's interesting. I see that Cobra has spent the last few months at the very least criticizing blockstream, sidechains and the lightning network very heavily.
I'm sure he won't be leaving bitcoin but as he says that he will be retiring the application, I suspect that he was sick and tired of being coerced to pick sides all the time. I'm sure many old timers in the bitcoin space would have an equally hard time in his place.

I'm not sure however if he'll be able to pass down his anti-blockstream sentiment down the line if he leaves. To be honest, I'm not even sure if Cobra's existing influence was enough to keep block stream from getting a firmer grasp over bitcoin. You can see more of Cobra's thoughts on the matter in an earlier comment he had made. Just food for thought...

---

https://i.imgur.com/Ino5WMT.png

---

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/gb7z17/psa_lightning_network_vulnerability_allowing_to/fp5frnq/?context=3

If it were me I'd link to the white paper, the blockchain download and not a great deal else.

I wouldn't list any third party services. I would regard layers as someone else's problem to educate people on. I'd want to keep it as a place beyond whining and politics. I think they're doing a very nice job with it considering the potential it has for mess. I'd still want to strip it back further.

Pick me Cøbra, pick me!

I, BitcoinFX would solemnly swear to guard the bitcoin.org domain until the end of time or at least until my replacement arrives ...

*NSFW*
- https://youtu.be/c3RN9zz77Cs

D .  O . U . O . S . V . A . V . V  M .

It's okay, though.  These troubled individuals might have convinced themselves they're right, but anyone with an ounce of sense will look at them the same way they look at other conspiracy theorist screwballs like Flat-Earthers, Anti-Vaxxers and people who believe 5G somehow causes plagues.  If they had just one idea about the Bitcoin protocol which held even a modicum of technical merit, someone would be coding it, but no one is.  So they continue to scream for attention for the rest of their sad little lives because they'll never get what they want.



I can see why corporate interests are a concern in a decentralised and open-source platform, but I honestly think people take it too far sometimes.  If developers are only coding something because a company is paying them to, that would indeed present a conflict of interests.  However, if developers are producing code that they personally believe will be beneficial to Bitcoin and also happen to be receiving an income from a company to continue their work, that's an entirely different matter.  I'm not convinced that any one company has a "grasp" on Bitcoin.

The difference should be obvious in practice.  When Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja published their ideas in the Lightning whitepaper, people took notice regardless of where their income was sourced.  Those who understood it recognised the potential and it sparked enough interest to result in multiple implementations, each with numerous team members, all producing code.  There wouldn't be several teams of people working on it if no one thought it was a good idea, no matter how much money someone might be willing to throw at it. 

In stark comparison, when some of the more vocal anti-blockstream evangelists (some of whom are here in this topic) present their ideas for how to "improve" Bitcoin, those who understand development take absolutely no notice because the ideas are often terrible, would likely centralise the Bitcoin network and generally have no technical merit whatsoever.  No implementations, no teams, no code.  Just incessant, whiny noise and half-baked concepts that go nowhere.  So these people, with their wounded pride, bitter and resentful over the fact that no one is paying attention to their "vision", rather than accepting the reality that their ideas are terrible, seemingly have no alternative but to engage in the fantasy that it's all a big conspiracy and that a shady company is pulling all the strings and manipulating the protocol to suit their evil corporate greed.

It would almost be amusing if it weren't so sad.  It also doesn't help that these self-righteous, ego-maniacal zealots are openly hostile.  They can't present a coherent argument without there being some boogeyman to attack and blame for all the things they can't understand or rationalise.  And then they wonder why they receive hostility in return.

At the end of the day, developers in a project like this are ideally not beholden to anyone.  Not the corporate entities and certainly not the conspiracy-theorist crazies who seem to believe they're owed a client that reflects their own unique interpretation on how this should all work.   ::)

Why not ask Gavin ? Jon Matonis? Who created it?

gmax, sipa, and rustyrussels involvement in bitcoin was for the corporate benefit of fitting in code purely for the utility of other networks like liquid and LN for financial gain of custodial transfer services of their corporation.

as for your out dated idiotic rhetoric about 2mb base block centralising the network.. sorry but core implemented 4mb weight. so your foolish rants that 'data is bad' got abolished and debunked as soon as your celebrities you idolise actually implemented 4mb instead of 2mb

cant you atleast come up with something factual and relevant rather than your stuff thats 4 years out of date and not backed up by code/bips/data/fact. you seem stuck in the 2016 excuses and falsities.
but continue with the insults. but it was fun teaching you how wrong you are. sorry but taking people off the network and making them custodian vault up with 'watchtower's, will centralise more than what 2mb base block would ever have done

to prove you are a centralist:
it was your own rhetoric that said you dont want users to buy things on bitcoin(no coffees).
it was your own rhetoric of you wanting it as a reserve currency, not a digital cash for the unbanked
it was your own rhetoric where you want people who dont like the centralist idea to fork off..
yep you yourself have been promoting people should use other networks more than most
in short. you want bitcoin centralised


now grow up. you been called out many times over the years.
everyone knows now that you dont care about bitcoin as a digital cash for the unbanked

show just man up admit your a centralist/other network lover and stop pretending to care about the bitcoin network/decentralisation

theymos controls too many resources, it's better to pick somebody else, even though he's obviously very trustworthy.


Smart people can waste decades on things that don't turn out to lead to anything. Academia is filled with scientists and mathematicians who spent a good portion of their life creating new systems and concepts that, with respect to them, can be described as a waste of time and a net negative for the world, because that person could have been pursuing better ideas with their time. I personally know a physicist who regrets spending years involved in string theory research. You would be surprised at how common it is for smart and highly technical people to fall into toiling away at flawed projects.

Lightning has a lot of flaws. How do you train users that to spend money, they need to put it in a channel first? OK. Maybe the wallet can automatically open channels. How do you explain that some of the users money is gone because transaction fees spiked on Bitcoin, and more satoshis had to be reserved for when the channel needs to be closed? OK. I guess you can put a disclaimer, or alert. How do you explain watchtowers? How about backups? The user probably expects to receive arbitrary amounts of value, but you're going to need to tell them to get some inbound capacity if they want to receive anything substantial. At some point, Lightning Labs will choose to abstract all this away, but that's going to pressure them to centralize (a centralized directory of liquidity providers, watchtowers, well connected nodes, etc).

Blockstream is a hostile actor in the space. They don't want Bitcoin to succeed. There are some good people working there, but those few good apples mostly collect their salary and focus their time on Bitcoin Core and cryptographic research, they tend to distance themselves from Blockstream's damaging products. Have you ever seen Pieter Wuille shilling Liquid? Nope. It's unclear to me how they ever plan on making money, but they will no doubt abuse their position of influence in the community for their own business interests at some point. They already attempted to market Liquid as "trustless", which lead to founder Matt Corallo publicly shaming them on Twitter.

The worst thing Blockstream has done: they made a block size increase on Bitcoin absolutely impossible. They whipped up a mob to such an extent that, for the foreseeable decade, we're not going to get any increase because a mass of uneducated morons will oppose it. I don't ever see a hard fork in general as a possibility, which sucks because some nice things could have been fixed with a hard fork, and the "no hard fork" mentality hurts Bitcoin as more and more technical debt will accumulate because of ever messier soft forks. I suspect this is what they want: an ugly system, that is slow and congested, so they can market their sidechains as better alternatives.

Before Blockstream, the general consensus was that hard forks could be done in the future, carefully and far ahead in advance. They ripped that consensus out of the community. Any Bitcoiner who doesn't view Blockstream with some level of suspicion has no intellect; you don't need to call them a fucking conspiracy, but you better raise a bloody eyebrow when there exists a company that benefits from Bitcoin not working.

Just because it has been four years and you STILL aren't even close to having the slightest clue about anything, that doesn't mean what I'm saying is wrong.  It just means you're too obstinate and belligerent to understand the reality.  

Also, I think you'll find you're the one who doesn't have any code or BIPs because none of your astonishing ideas ever get past the brain-fart stage.  The ideas I support have been fully peer-reviewed and coded into existence because they actually work and people want to run the code that has been produced.



Show me in the code where it says you aren't allowed to buy or sell coffee on-chain.  Anyone can do that if they choose to.  But from a networking perspective, it also makes sense to incentivise making smaller transactions off-chain by offering lower fees to those who don't believe they require the same level of security for a $5.00 transaction as they do a $5000.00 transaction.  Why is that such an abomination to your dogmatic beliefs?



As it happens, I don't particularly care who stays or goes.  I believe everyone is free to use whatever networks they want to.  You're quite happy to sit there and tell all the LN users that they basically have no right to exist, but sure, I'm the bad guy here.  It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if most of the active users of the forkcoins disagree with what we're doing on this chain, but at least they had the sense to use the coin that works like they want.  Because that makes for more sense than berating devs and making up fairy tales in a wasted attempt to get what you want.  I only tell you to fork off because you are the most obnoxious, tedious, loathsome specimen in the entire crypto community and none of your beliefs fit with the direction consensus has set in motion.  Your efforts are utterly futile and it makes no rational sense for you to continue because it's never going to pay off, yet you keep spouting meaningless drivel anyway.  So keep calling me a centralist if that's what it takes to ease your misplaced rage about how pitiful and inconsequential you are.  Makes no difference to me.  

Right, so what s the plan? Give it back ...

agree, give it back...

Who took it off you? Name names so they can reported to the authorities. This will not stand.

Once they're in jail 'give it back' to whom?

Errr, this guy?

https://i.imgur.com/y6zLSnC.jpg?1

This hunk of burning love?  

https://i.imgur.com/EKHXXFe.png?1

Fuck it, let's get some referrals going. Why turn down money waiting to be made? Let's fuckin' party.

https://i.imgur.com/325LXEr.jpg?1

Cobra might know, and there should be the receipt from 2008 ...

That's a distinct possibility, sure.  But similarly, private companies can also waste their time and investments by attempting to cash in on the latest tech trends and have it all amount to very little profit when people realise they don't need to rely on that company to use that tech.  And there's a much bigger risk of that happening to a company in a field like this one where the tech is primarily open-source.  If particular companies are taking aggressive or predatory stances, I'd guess it's because they know their proposed business model has a limited shelf-life.



There's a long way to go, no arguments there.  I don't think anyone can promise beyond doubt that Lightning doesn't remain a niche thing for the more tech-savvy users as it is at the moment.  But I don't see the harm in other dev teams attempting to make Lightning software more user friendly over time.  There's still a fair amount of impetus behind development of the underlying Bitcoin protocol and further scaling and privacy improvements are in the pipeline.  That said, even the transactions that are being made off-chain right now are still contributing to scaling, because it's fewer transactions that need to be included in the blocks we're currently producing.  If that number does grow in future as the software evolves and more people start using it, then it stands to reason that more people can make transactions that are still cryptographically secured (albeit to a lesser extent than on-chain) without creating too heavy a burden for people running full nodes.  It's an elegant compromise.



I tend to view it the same way as the early dotcom days, where companies attempted to monetise walled-gardens and create something like a subscription service for their customers to have access to an enclosed intranet.  The bigger idea resisted the corporate attempts to co-opt it.  I'm confident the same will happen with Bitcoin.  I just don't see a way for big business to "control" it, unless we centralise the network to the extent that only companies would have sufficient resources to run a full node.  That would definitely weaken Bitcoin's innate resistance to regulatory shutdown or corporate takeover.

Out of curiosity, do you feel the existence of the Lightning Network is the direct result of Blockstream's influence?  Or is there a possibility that the idea would have been pursued without Blockstream having their fingers in the pies?  If this email excerpt (https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2013-April/002417.html) is genuine, then it appears satoshi theorised something vaguely akin to Lightning several years prior to the Lightning whitepaper being published.  Maybe it was something that was always on the cards?

He will never stop till he absorbs the whole fucking thing or he dies.

He never showed any signs of stepping back. Not even once.

I understand cobra it gets tiring af to fight an army of trolls every day. He probably has the money which he can spend forever... why make life more complicated?

Let the others fight.

Tbh, I am starting to feel like that for the whole crypto space. It is filled with scammers like Vitalik, Roger, Craig etc and their minions trying to scam each other. Why would I invest my hard earned money in it? Doesn't make sense.


I may agree with some of your points but this looks like it was written by Roger himself.

I tend to agree, more-so over time.  Huge blocks may not be the answer, corporate take overs and stupid backroom segwit2x agreements are definitely not the answer, but the fact that reasonable discussion around small blocksize increases and hardforks in general are now verboten is bad for bitcoin. It doesn't help that the Blockstream corporate strategy seems to be based around being insufferable internet trolls who both simultaneously love to mock everyone who disagrees with them, whilst crying victim when anyone mocks them in return.

It seems Bitcoin now has fucking "influencers" who use social media and combative shit posting to raise their profile in order to personally profit from bitcoin, gain influence and raise their fucking twitter followers. A plague on all their fucking houses.

Personally I think lightening is not terrible code, which is basically pretty high praise, but putting all eggs in one basket, especially an unbuilt, untested basket is fucking stupid, and while the most simple solution of a small block increase may very well not be the correct one, it should be open for discussion. Bitcoin at a high price will make >100 sat/byte unaffordable to anyone who isn't rich, which is not the kind of censorship resistant money I want or got involved for.

Some kind of layer two solution is needed, but it's taking a lot fucking longer than expected, so maybe a reevaluation is in order?

 

Then contribute? It doesn't get built on its own.

I've yet to see much that's convinced me that LNs are anything other than an interesting curio but I no doubt would've thought the same of the internet had I been introduced to it in its nascent stages.

I don't have time to contribute. Are you suggesting unless one contributes one isn't allowed to discuss or criticize the current approach? When I tell organisations what the roadmap looks like for the code I'm writing them, they make decisions based around that, and if my shit was still unusable 5 years later I would be broke and they would be pissed. I opposed segwit2x and BCH because I oppose everything they stand for, and I prefer the smallest block size possible because the smaller the better if second layer solutions are available. But its been fucking years, and if its going to be another 5 years, 10 years, 100 years, we need to start having a conversation about wtf we should do. What if they are never really possible? Do we just give up and say, oh well, I guess bitcoin doesn't work, fun while it lasted? What is it takes 10 years to iron out all the bugs? Do we just have censorship resistant money for the wealthy?

People have stopped fighting over this, which would be fine if there was a working solution. But there isn't, so we should keep fighting over it, because that's how progress it made. Luckily BCH happened, so we can have the fight with hopefully most of the morons out of the space.

Probably not the thread to start fighting over it, but on twitter, reddit and here to a lesser extent, it seems like everyone has decided that the bcash war being won decided all future wars relating to blocksize and hardforks. Just because bch was wrong in their arguments about them, doesn't mean all future arguments about them are also wrong.

I have zero doubt that the people working on it are doing their best and if they could have delivered something perfect and shiny they would absolutely loved to have done so by now.

If they're 'fired' then I can't see who or what else is going to appear out of nowhere and magic up what they haven't yet pulled off. I can guess we'll be kindly offered our own Paypal by the usual suspects but we could've had one of those years ago.

No one knows where this is going to end up or how it'll resolve or whether it'll resolve.

Sometimes I feel a bit out of my depth with the technological aspects, but I understand that both open source and attempts at somewhat censorship resistant ways of interacting does not just happen without a lot of snags along the way, including that sometimes regular peeps might not be able to just jump in and start using it... until the interface is like just downloading an app or some kind of easiness like that.


Second layer development can be done anywhere that people want, and there are other second layer projects besides lightning network.  Sure, none of them seem to be even close to mainstream.


That BIG blocker discussion was batted around intensively, does not seem to have any reason or justification currently.


There are quite a few bitcoiners who want a fee market to develop... whether that is more than 100 sat/byte on a regular basis or some other amount.  Seems to me that having a fee market does not really hurt bitcoin, even though you are personally complaining about it.  Having more fees can also inspire more use of segwit, batching, or even second layer developments and improvements.


A re-evaluation by who?  By you?  You can re-evaluate if there is some other project that you prefer.  There is no bitcoin marketing team, so I am fairly sure that all kinds of evaluations are made by various developers to figure out if there is some kind of niche that they can exploit or develop into.


This makes sense to me.


Of course, sometimes we cannot go back in career choices that we made early, and we figure out that we may have wasted opportunities by going down the wrong paths and there ended up being a lot of bad presumptions that we relied upon in making our career choices that end up being wrong.  I doubt that this applies to various ways of working on bitcoin or bitcoin second-layer solutions, but it likely does apply to a lot of people fucking around with various shitcoins... but there may be some shitcoins that end up adding value to the space.. perhaps?  



Maybe you can see more than me in terms of the technicals?  Does not seem to be a waste of time to me, and maybe some of what is learned in various second layer explorations, including lightning network, can be incorporated into some other areas in the even that lightning fails or has too many uncorrectable flaws? perhaps?


Maybe you have insider information about purported Blockstream bad intentions?  I just don't come to the same conclusions of you that blockstream is purportedly striving for bitcoin not to succeed.. just seems a bit contrary to both facts and logic, in spite your attempted justification, here.

Those who were shilling liquid were bad guys because they wanted to convert it into a kind of trustlessness?


I doubt that preferences for no blocksize limit increase nor hardfork is the achieve of blockstream.  Seems to me that there still has been no justification for either an increase in the blocksize limits nor reason to hardfork, and it is not because of blockstream's purported propaganda.  

Seems to me that if there were some legitimate reasons to either increase the blocksize limit or to hardfork, then likely there would be work in that direction and maybe even increased consensus regarding the necessity of either one of those.


Bitcoin seems to be working quite well in a lot of ways.  Of course, it might not be perfect, but there is a lot of good paradigm shifting aspects of bitcoin still changing the world in a variety of ways, and no one needs to be any blockstream cheerleader to recognize that bitcoin has already been a success and continues to be a success in a lot of ways of both where it has been including some of the softfork changes in 2017 (segwit related) and where it seem to be going which is a preference for both onchain and second-layer solutions (and, yeah, lots of work still being done and attempted and maybe some slower than preferred progress, too).

Seems to me that we have seen those projects related to bcash not really justifying any kind of benefits of BIG blocks, but hey maybe they might inspire with some of the ongoing experiments.. And sure there are thousands of other coins experimenting, but frequently, if they do not have enough traffic, then it becomes more difficult to recognize whether or how their traffic or fee dynamics would play out if such onchain changes were made to bitcoin.

Maybe part of the problem that you personally are having cøbra has to do with some personal battles that you are having with blockstream conspiracies..? and sure I can see that you are inclined towards wanting everything done on layer 1 and you seem to be skeptical of segwit, even though it was passed though consensus nearly 3 years ago.  So I am having trouble understanding seemingly bitter pills in that direction.

 I cannot really know why you seem to be so negative about current bitcoin direction and seeming to not accept some of the segwit related matters and to attribute so much bitcoin's current direction to blockstream, but you are coming to some pretty strong conclusions that seems to want to require more blockstream suspicions, but you are linking these matters in weird ways, too to assert that the incentives of blockstream is for bitcoin not to work so that they make more money or they benefit from more obscure products and putting themselves in kind of monopolizing places or something like that blah blah blah.. just seems weird to be arguing such seeming conspiratorial angle.. but I suppose.. maybe I have been just brainwashed because I have not yet seen enough of the subtle effects that some of the blockstream folks are having upon my thinking and my being o.k. with the various ongoing second layer solution efforts that are done by blockstream and there are other second layer solution developers too besides just blockstream, right?  

I am having troubles seeing the blockstream monopolies or undue influences, but maybe my intellect is not strong enough? perhaps?

Segwit was passed by overwhelming consensus in August 2017, and thereafter (same month) implemented.

In other words, node operators and miners saw it in their interest to pass segwit... 

If you want segwit reversed, then you are likely going to need to muster up overwhelming consensus to reverse it, and you are likely going to need more than some vague claims of purported undue influence including overcoming lots of reluctance that building has been done and continues to be done upon segwit related systems.. not impossible, but an obstacle since bitcoin is a community effort rather than flopping around because some people are whining that they do not like the direction of bitcoin blah blah blah.



Sure Satoshi set up a lot of parameters in bitcoin that are still followed but they are also a product of a community, so even though Satoshi set up a lot of parameters, it is likely that he disappeared for a reason, which also allowed bitcoin to continue to evolve and to be developed on and to improve as a community... and surely there are ways to contribute and to propose changes and to get involved in order to attempt to affect various changes that you want to see or you believe that you can achieve consensus for your proposals.


They do not run bitcoin... remember consensus?  Blockstream and Greg could both disappear from the scene and bitcoin would continue, but they do not need to disappear, and it seems to me that both are well respected in the bitcoin community but each of them still have to convince others if they want to propose some changes or to get them passed or adopted or tested or whatever various stages proposals get reviewed and are frequently a product of a whole number of people and entities rather than your narrow conspiratorial framing regarding supposed undue influences.


I doubt that it is necessary for me to respond to each of these individually, because they seem to be failing and refusing to accept that these various changes, to the extent that they exist or even matter materially or are negative, are not the product of a few individuals or blockstream et al.


Well, if you know so much, then I am glad that you are participating and educating the rest of us (or at least trying).  I am not convinced by your various points because I have seen variations of that seeming nonsense on a number of occasions, but hey, maybe you have exposure to some enlightening information, participation or interactions with some of the characters that you seem to hate so much that may have ended up locking some well-intended people/proposals out of bitcoin in terms of being considered or being tested, and I will grant you that you might have some information that I don't have.  And, I am not even saying that convincing me matters or I am anybody important except I participate in this forum in terms of my having had been investing in bitcoin for about 6.5 years and continuing to try to follow various aspects of bitcoin within my time and abilities within my own reason and discretion. 

Over the years, I have seen a lot of stupid-ass BIG blockers putting forth their nonsensical conspiratorial points similar to the ones you are making, and I have seen how a lot of those whiners went over to bcash forks, but hey some of those folks were just lying about their concerns about wanting BIG blocks and merely using those ploys as a means to want to cause it to be really easy to change bitcoin (in other words change governance), and like that is NOT going to do much if any good to have bitcoin really easy to just change in any willy-nilly way merely because a bunch of whiners are complaining but neither putting forth valid and sound proposals nor convincing others in the bitcoin community to adopt, code or test those proposals.

to me it seems like your opposition is the mob mentality that @Cøbra pointed out in the end, and not with reasonable research. the funny thing is that bcash used the same mob approach to exist.
not to mention that you are confusing different things. you put an altcoin that was maliciously created without respecting consensus and majority's vote/support with the proposals in same category. you can't oppose a proposal just because you don't like the person that supports that proposal or the altcoin result. same way bcashers can't oppose SegWit just because they don't like blockstream.

for instance the only way you can oppose a proposal like SegWit2x is if you have any technical reasons why a hard fork to increase the base block size to 2 MB (weight to 8 MB) is bad while weighing both pros and cons of it.

People opposed the big blocks because in time it would get a lot harder to sync a node from scratch than what it already is.

That means the node count around the world would be lower than what it is now if we had 2mb or bigger blocks. Low full node numbers mean low decentralization//high centralization.

Also a decision like this won't be reversible because by the time you start realizing the damage, it would be too late already. That's why people like LukeJr. wanted have even smaller blocks. So the network would stay decentralized for a longer time.  

To not make the blocksize a matter  of discussion ever again, the core side blocked hard forks or made it incredibly hard to pull via segwit.

That's what I understood from reading the core side.

I somehow agree with Cobra on LN but then, many people thought  something like bitcoin wouldn't work too*, yet satoshi didn't care and continued his work. LN might end up as a huge pile of unusable shit and the more complicated it gets, the closer it gets to that end. If this happens "We told you so!" people will be so fucking happy I can imagine.

Anyway, Back to the big blocks.

Let's say we have 4mb blocks, no segwit, huge world wide demand. How long would it take to raise the B.s. again? And what is the physical limit? What blocksize we need to counter the world demand?  Other big blocks are not good examples because they don't have any real on-chain demand. The answer is, we don't know. Core chose to work with what we know instead of sailing towards the unknown.

That's why I have chosen to support the core from a technical standpoint.(my other reasons are them -craig, roger etc- being scammers and liars but that's not the subject of this post)

*Looking at the bigger picture, maybe those people were right you know. Maybe this is a failed project which attracts only scammers.

Its not just about 'big blocks'

its about ALL TWEAKS and ALTERATIONS of Bitcoin and its geniusly defined protocol - cause this allows any evil to happen
and it finally opend the vector of having 5000 altcoins now btw ...


think of the peace we ll have if you cannot discuss, alter, gain power    of     CHANGES  at all !!



There is nothing to do in smtp, tcp/ip , VoIP, ...  NOTHING  >> same MUST apply to a global protocol of sending money



Get rid of they idea you might do better than Satoshi

  

That's why if you have a hard time getting the change you want or consensus, we just stick with the status quo.

Good thing that seqwit was passed with overwhelming consensus, so that should shut up the whiners, but it does not.

Anyhow, sure anyone can make proposals and if they cannot get traction, then we just stick with the status quo, which difficulties to change remains a bitcoin feature not a bug.

Regarding lightning network, it gives options, and there are quite a few people working on developing it, but surely if it is not performing up to the task and it is just a mess then people do not need to use it, which I suppose is part of the reason that there are people working on alternative second layer solutions too, and maybe something better than lightning network will come along - or otherwise there might be some break throughs in lightning network to cause it to become more user-friendly - which seems to be one of the complaints about that option.

lol, try to get a 'democratic' overwhelming 'consensus' whatever fo a change to tcp/ip ...

Nope

and btw: esp for SEGVID-17 there wasn't - only in 'agree' of the 2x - you remember ?


Bugs must be fixxed - sure, but you can see a real bug if that comes - there are strict definitions

I broadly agree with all of the above, changing the protocol should always be difficult. And I guess everything becomes political in the end. Smaller block are better, as I said, it's just before Roger and his moronic minions took one side of the debate, there was more consensus that at some point an increase would be needed. Looking back I guess it was not very clear we would win the argument against an unelected cabal instituting segwit2x without community agreement, so the entrenched positions were a necessity. It's just now the political situation is such that layer two kind of has to work, because there is no going back. So the side we all picked back then is the side we have to stick with, because any kind of conversation now seems to be a signal you are siding with the idiots, rather than a separate argument. Hopefully BCH will reach its logical price floor of 0 at some point, which might make things easier.

I'm not sure what you are arguing here? My reasons for opposing segwit2x was not technical, aside from the inherent risks in any hardfork, the proposed implementation was fine by me. My opposition was to the process. At the time Segwit2x was announced as an agreement without even releasing any technical information about it all, it was just, "a bunch of us got together in a room and decided what is going to happen". Which is the same reason I hate bcash, it's centralised control. It was made as though the community had no say, like we didn't matter. Miners and corporations had decided how things will go, which is bullshit. You speak like segwit2x was a proposal, when it wasn't, it was presented as a fait accompli

seg2x was a corporate takeover. Funnily they see same thing in blockstream.  8)

You can't really escape corps in the end.

on protocol level / layer - yes u can

  >  stick to the only legit one (open up pure capacity is not a protocol layer issue)

On app layer - best economics will win

I remember both segwit and 2x being proposed and various packages, but only the segwit portion passed with overwhelming consensus.

The 2x portion was neither able to gain considerable consensus and also resulted in a forkening into bcash... 

There was another hardfork that was proposed to try to force the 2x into bitcoin after segwit had already passed to get added, but that proposal was largely withdrawn several weeks before it was going to go into effect when the supporters of such nonsense saw that they could not get large support.


I'm sure if it was reasonable to increase the blocks or to hardfork, then it will happen.  I doubt that people in bitcoin are so opposed for the mere sake of being opposed, but of course, if there are some folks who are not really looking at the technicals and the practicality, and they are merely just trying to break bitcoin with disingenuine  assertions, then they are going to receive greater hostility from bitcoiners.. and bitcoiners will be in a defensive posture, as you seem to be suggesting is the case. 

Roger ver and his ilk were not really concerned about technicalities.  They were just using that as a ruse to whine about bitcoin governance.  Roger ver wanted more of a say in bitcoin.. and he was getting laughed at by developers and told that he was dumb and he took it personally.. but that did not make him smart about anything because he thought that he should get more say because he had a lot of bitcoins and he was bitcoin jesus who evangelized bitcoin blah blah blah, but in reality he acted just as a stubborn child that just wants to get his way and NOT to work with others or to even try to get consensus because he was smarter than everyone else (in his mind)... it was probably inevitable that he was going to find a reason to split or to fight no matter what.. that seems to be a personality flaw that he has.

No.  I don't remember that.  Because that's not what happened.  I remember BIP91 activating with consensus.  Here is the BIP in question (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0091.mediawiki).  Notice a total lack of reference to 2x.  SegWit was agreed by the network.  2x was only "agreed" by some businessmen who suddenly realised they didn't have the influence they thought they had.  Stop attempting to re-write history with made-up nonsense, unless you want to wipe out what little credibility you have left.

---

In an attempt to get the topic somewhat back to the bitcoin.org domain itself, there has been a fair amount of discussion about concerns over Lightning and how it isn't ready for the average user yet.  On that note, I quite like the "helper" on the Choose your wallet (https://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet?step=1) page.  If you tick the box that says you're a new user, rather than an experienced one, it doesn't recommend Lightning enabled wallets:

http://www.wearedecentralised.co.uk/bitcoindotorg.png

I think this is a responsible approach and would hope that, whoever does gain ownership of the domain, that feature remains in place until such a time as Lightning had matured to a suitable level.

Let's try not to allow the trolls to further derail the topic with their revisionist fairytales.

without the NYA and the 2X - Bespoke Agreement

Segwit would ve never happened

Cobra knows that


it is history now - but it won't matter much in the future, cause btc cannot curate that one

Bitcoin can - its genes are too anti fragile

this is exactly what i have been trying to discourage people from doing!
i can't clarify it any more than this, sorry. and now we are going off-topic.

The legacy of the block size debate is it exposed the politics behind how Bitcoin actually works. I remember when I got into Bitcoin, just like everybody else, the first thing I admired was how this system was designed without anybody in control. Nobody could freeze your transactions, nobody could charge you back, there was no central authority. Bitcoin doesn't care whether you're a murderer, saint, North Korean dictator, or a 12 year old. Bitcoin just is, it works for everybody without passing judgement. When you start out, it's really easy to see Bitcoin as being something that exists in objective reality, just like every other piece of software, and even physical gold. The problem though is that this isn't true; Bitcoin is subjective money. Satoshi didn't fully understand the implications of his invention, and that's not a dig at him either because most inventors don't.

Let's take physical gold as an example. Gold exists in objective reality, whether you ascribe value to gold or not is up to you, but were somebody to give you physical gold and you had the tools to verify the purity of it, you can't deny the reality that it is gold. Gold is the most objective form of money, but even fiat money is quite objective. With fiat money, the value and trust comes from government, this leaves less room for interpretation and subjectivity than you might think. Even though Donald Trump might be president, if you were to take the angriest liberal alive, somebody who doesn't even believe in the legitimacy of his presidency and government, even he won't refuse dollars because "those dollars were printed by Trump, his government is illegitimate, therefore those aren't real dollars, sorry". Even if this liberal has lost trust in the legitimacy of the head of the executive branch of his government (the branch that prints money), the power of fiat money is so strong that it blocks him from following his beliefs down to their logical conclusion, he still holds on to the collective delusion of the dollar, to do otherwise wouldn't even enter his mind.

For whatever reason, Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general behave more subjectively. Perhaps it's because these systems are individualistic; you verify the blockchain yourself, you don't trust anybody else to do it for you, why would you? Bitcoin exists as an idea in your head, each Bitcoin user is different with respect to changes they would accept or reject. Almost all Bitcoiners would reject the 21 million limit being increased; but there exist gray areas like block size, where the tolerance and threshold for change is really subjective and varies wildly from user to user. I'd probably be OK with the block size being doubled. You might not be. You might want it reduced. Let's hypothesize there was a change that split the community cleanly in half: for whatever reason, one half of the community accepted the change, the other half rejected. This then led to a blockchain fork, with equal amounts of hash power, would anybody be able to objectively say which fork was the real Bitcoin?

Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV are years ahead of us with some of these issues, rather than ignore the politics present in these systems, as Bitcoin is doing, they seem to be fully embracing it. Economically this will damage them short term, but by figuring this stuff out, they are learning some important lessons. With the BSV fork, we saw that it's possible for a divergent chain to be valued more than it's competing origin chain, even if it's only temporary. Bitcoiners feel a natural disgust when they look at what's going on in these communities, especially when they hear about Bitcoin Cash developers taxing miners and stuff like that, but the disgust they feel is coming from a place of insecurity, because these divergent Bitcoin spin-offs are exposing what was always hidden under the surface of Bitcoin too. It's not something that can be articulated well, but after the block size debate it was something that could be felt; a feeling that Bitcoin was a lot more subjective and therefore more vulnerable than we'd hoped.

Bitcoin is not apolitical money, it's hyperpoliticized money. Throughout history, when people in communities disagreed with each other, they simply killed each other until a winner emerged. This proved to be a less than ideal way to resolve disputes, so over time more democratic ways of deciding things emerged. Whether through violence or through voting, politics is played in a very narrowly defined battlefield and everybody intuitively understands that it doesn't go beyond its scope. These cryptocurrency systems bring politics into money itself, in ways that aren't predictable and for which there aren't any parallels in thousands of years of human history. Imagine a world in which a democrat and republican can't exchange value with one another, without an intermediate neutral form of money, because they disagree on money itself, one is using democrat dollars and the other is using GOP bucks -- both with totally different ideals and visions.

If I were to put you in a time machine and drop you off into the year 2120, and assuming Bitcoin still existed (or something claiming to be it). You would have to spend days researching every split and fork, every upgrade, the history of tradeoffs behind every dispute, etc, to finally settle on which variant of Bitcoin running at that time was the real Bitcoin. People still hate Roger Ver, years after Bitcoin Cash forked off because he's exploiting Bitcoin's biggest flaw, the fact that it can be subjectively redefined; Roger Ver is just the first, if Bitcoin really catches on, over the next few decades Bitcoin will be redefined again and again by some of the most powerful people and entities in the world, and just like those obscure BCH/BSV guys, one day we too might find ourselves on some dark lonely corner of the internet screaming into nothingness about "the real Bitcoin", to a world that doesn't care.

^That's why I said: "Maybe it is a failed project."

These thoughts didn't come to me instantly. It started few months ago while I was translating nullius' famous post (Bitcoin: The Social Phenomenon (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5215927)) to Turkish. It is a brilliant post but something, something bugged the fuck out of me. Let's see this part for example:




... replace bitcoin with bcash now...


It hit me like lightning... This exact same thing could be said for the eth (or bch) holders too. If you fight to protect your wealth, they'll fight back to protect theirs. In the end, biggest troll army with the most funding will win.

Gold has no problems like that. Why teh fuck should I fight an army of trolls to protect my wealth everyday?

Nobody can call gold silver. With proper inspection methods, you can prove it that it is gold. Nobody can deny it. It is the ultimate truth.

Like carrying my life savings in that new risky tech wasn't stressful enough, now I have to be a fucking rambo. Fuck this.

Why would anyone attack ("try to devalue") other coins in the first place? Isn't it possible for all coins to co-exist peacefully?

Your loss is their gain.

Just like FIAT's loss is BTC's gain, BTC's loss is Altcoins' gain.

The difference is, you cannot rename USD or gold into something else.

I'm not sure how that fits with the fact that one could very well support multiple coins for their different features, for example Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash and Monero and gold and ...

same as it ever was (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCY0aeUx-Ns)

The moment you regret there's no facepalm emoji on bitcointalk....  ;D

What a bunch of numpties.


My sentiment is and has always remained, if your other thing is so much better why do you need to use the name and website of an existing project? riding on its coat tails and feigning ownership?

If your alternative project is so good? call it cheese coin or Mega coin or whatever tf you want.

But no you all want something from bitcoin, a free lunch.


I am full in Monero, it is not a clone of bitcoin it stands on its own technology and has its own name. That is an honourable project.


You people lying and deceiving new arrivers to the scene with your "this the true bitcoin", just see bitcoin.org it says so are likely to be the ones to unravel and destroy it all. The biggest lie of all? its what satoshi would have wanted. You cant know that unless you are satoshi and lets face it he was far more classy than that.



If it all goes to zero? then you all deserve it. REAP WHAT YOU SOW!


In that case Ill have a double cheeseburger thanks.

 

Agreed, gold is ideal if you want to escape the problem of subjective human beings, and assuming you can store it yourself securely for many years.

People react one of two ways to this problem in Bitcoin, they either fall into an extreme "no hard fork" position where they believe no hard fork change in Bitcoin is ever justified, or they fall into what can be best described as advocating for some vague "social defense" of Bitcoin should anyone attempt to redefine it. The problem is these attacks don't come from an external source, they come from other Bitcoiners disagreeing with each other. Some of the people that enjoyed reading nullius' post and agreed with it might have a future disagreement with each other, at which point they won't see themselves as allies but as enemies and each person will believe he's defending Bitcoin. Furthermore a soft fork can change Bitcoin just as much as a hard fork can, and many Bitcoiners might reject a chain if it introduced certain soft fork changes (e.g. a tax on miners to fund development can be implemented as a soft fork).

The only way we can reasonably deal with this is by never changing. No soft forks. No hard forks. No consensus change ever again. And let the protocol sit and calcify so nobody could ever change it. That all but guarantees Bitcoin will become a failure though, and it's impossible. Technology needs to keep up with the times and continue to be maintained and improved on so bugs and security issues get resolved. But each time Bitcoin undergoes a change, we risk it turning into a political quagmire and exposing the cracks hidden in the system. We all remember the dirty drama with Segwit and UASF.

and who made you the judge of it all? what's right or wrong?

Truth even? is a nominalisation.

Satoshi allowed for an evolution. Why would anyone want it to be set in concrete?

Almost all good software is built with iterations and continual improvement.


Are people arguing for mud huts? its what the original humans wanted. Screw your central heating and internet connection!

Funny, core devs / Blockstream are the most central thing ( core! ) in Bitcoin, so easy to execute hidden agendas via and it happened

Satoshi is the only powers that be, and he predicted datacenters and specialization, but that is maximum open and stays decenalized just enough by open competition - for that you need most stable rules, like in game theory described, nobody should have powers to ever change the (economic) rules - btc did that...

Everything that comes not by Satoshi and changes core protocol ( tx consensus) / economics is evil per definition

Blah blah blah you are not Satoshi. Stop talking on his behalf.

Hey Cøbra, mucho gusto conocerte.  I know that we have had interactions previously, but I am getting to know that you have a lot of nonsense in your thinking.

I will admit that frequently when I kind of get to know a poster, I will not even read his/her response before I start creating my response.  That way I do not get mixed up with all of the muddle, and I can just start to respond to each point.  Here, I had to read just past your third paragraph before I recognized that something is wrong with your thinking in a variety of ways... not that you are totally bonkers, but surely something is wrong, and I do not expect to change your thinking, so in that regard, I am not really responding to you personally, but just the variety of your ideas, which I mentioned that I recognized are surely devolving into various levels of nonsense.

In other words, for the good of the members and maybe even the public who might read this thread, your nonsense ideas should not be allowed to stand, even though you have had a lot of authority and power in the bitcoin community.

I did bold your above statement: "Satoshi didn't fully understand the implications of his invention, and that's not a dig at him either because most inventors don't."  Maybe that statement was a reason that I had to read a few paragraphs to try to figure out if you were saying something that might be important in regards to some kind of Satoshi misunderstanding, and you did not.

Think about it.  Your statement is a bit crazy.  I accept the idea that no inventor is necessarily going to be able to see several steps ahead in order to know how his/her invention is going to play out or how it is going to be used, but surely Satoshi knew enough about what he was inventing to be able to understand what it was attempting to achieve, so your criticisms of Satoshi's purported lackings are presumptuous at best, and really show your own seemingly lack of understanding of the topic in which you are trying to spout out knowledge.

No way am i saying that you are any kind of dummy, Cøbra, but surely from your statements in regards to Satoshi's supposed lackings in understanding, you are really overstating the case in a way that just seems to be motivated to make your own nonsense points and to try to show that you know something material that Satoshi had not accounted for, and your post really fails in that direction.



Can't really disagree with what you are saying here, yet you seem to be describing a kind of objective value rather than subjective value.  Currencies achieve values that are systematic and does not really matter what the individual assigns to it or the various actors within those systems.


Makes little sense.  Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are not really behaving differently, except that you are trying to make a distinction that does not have a difference.

Of course, we can attempt to get to considerations regarding which of the crypto currencies are the most sound of moneys, and that leaves us with bitcoin, and then the category of cryptocurrencies are either a bunch of lame imitations (snake oils) or they are trying to provide another kind of value that may or may not be as recognized as bitcoin with the passage of time.

So there remains a need to differentiate bitcoin from other cryptocurrencies in making this kind of assessment in order to recognize both how it compares to gold and fiat and how it differs from gold and fiat in that bitcoin is more sound than both gold and fiat.. Of course, there is a bit of a spectrum with gold being more sound than fiat and less sound than bitcoin, but some of these matters are sometimes questioned too and speculated on, and maybe that is where you are trying to play out the subjective matters to some extent, which surely cause individuals to act in different ways in trying to recognize the differing values of different asset classes - including assessing how present value might diverge from future value and how others might be getting their calculations right or wrong in regards to future value.



Let's just stick with bitcoin.. fuck trying to equate other cryptos... so in regards to bitcoin, you are presuming everyone is running node?  Many people are not running a node, but they are trusting that there are enough nodes to verify... so I am not verifying, but sure, if I want to increase my no need to trust, then I can run a node to do that.

I doubt that whether any of us is running a node or not is very relevant in terms of our ability to attempt to assess the soundness of the money, bitcoin compared with fiat and gold and other assets such as equities.... bitcoin is more sound, and sure some of that soundness comes from the fact that a lot of individuals can run nodes and make sure... so bitcoin becomes assessed as being sound than gold or fiat.. so we would rather spend our fiat or gold first before spending our bitcoin.. (that is if we have a choice and options and apportionment of different assets in our various wallets).




In the end, who gives any shits about your various subjective values.  You either choose to use bitcoin or you do not, and you can also choose your level of allocation, it is not an all or nothing decision.   I might have 25% of my value in bitcoin, and the other 75% in a variety of other assets.. maybe a couple percent in shitcoins and gold and maybe I have several assets that are tied to fiat values in various ways which might include having a few percentage points in actual cash for a kind of floating balance which is going to vary from person to person depending on a variety of individual reasons including how far they need to project out their expenses (whether a few months for someone who lives with mom and dad or maybe 18 to 24 months for someone who has a variety of complicated business arrangements or needs to support various families), and I might have some property (real estate), so if I have less confidence in bitcoin or where I perceive it to be going then I will reduce my allocations in it or decide NOT allocate into it or to use it versus some other assets or currencies.



Again.  A big so fucking what?  If half of the people use one bitcoin and the other half uses the other bitcoin, then who cares?  People can choose to use what they want, and if there is no real perceivable difference in their soundness of money including network effects, then maybe some kind of balance will be reached there in which people allocate 50/50 in each.  Most likely with the passage of time, however, one might show itself to have a more sound money aspect which would likely cause more people to allocate towards the asset with the more sound money aspect.. but in the end, who fucking cares if they gravitate or not or if they recognize one for being more sound or not, and even if they pick the one with the less sound money aspect for utility reasons or something, I don't see why it matters.  Individuals can decide to allocate however they like, even if they are wrong from an objective viewpoint.



First of all, those both should be referred to as bcash variants, and second of all they are NOT ahead of bitcoin in any regard because they are just inadequate imitations (snake oils) that are trying to pose as if they have the same or similar qualities as bitcoin when they do not.  They have very few network effects, which also seems to be reflected in why they have way lower prices than bitcoin to the extent that either one might also be artificially pumped up by bullshit smoke and mirror nonsense.




I doubt that whatever jockying of position in the various bcash camps teach much to bitcoin, except maybe what not to do, but sure, can give you some benefit of the doubt in that sometimes there might be some things that can be learned about preferred ways to attempt to approach some issues that might be divisive... and sometimes some variation of a scenario might come up in one of the bcashes but it could also come up in some other shitcoin, too.... sure the bcashes have some greater similarities to bitcoin, which could cause greater similarities in some regards, so i doubt that their various ongoing dramas need to be completely ignored.

At the same time, sometimes it might be a better practice to just ignore some of the drama of the bcashes, too... because sometimes like a misbehaving child, their behaviors might improved if they are ignored because they might be seeking attention without any real constructive or meaningful purpose... so whether to ignore completely or to attempt to learn from the child might not be a blanket rule.



Might not be disgust.. just a need to point out the drama and to denigrate it for what it is... sure if something can be learned from some of it, then no problema...



Sure, of course bitcoin is not immuned from potential drama, and even some of the similar drama that happens in the bcash camps could end up happening in bitcoin, perhaps in some situations.



Too strong of a statement, Cøbra.  You want to point out and exaggerate political attributes in bitcoin, when there seems to be a striving to remove a lot of the political, and sure probably the political cannot be removed completely, but that does not make bitcoin hyperpoliticized merely because you are striving to ascribe such a label to it.



You are not really describing bitcoin here.  Sure people are still going to be political, but bitcoin is not really seeming to address the political aspects, but instead just creating a common money that has incentives that people can act upon.  It is not really clear how a lot of the politics are going to play out and if bitcoin can cause incentives for differing people to take a lot of the politics out of money.  Just have to see how some of it plays out in terms of ongoing incentives and if bitcoin can maybe allow for some bridging that could take many decades to see play out.



Why?  And who cares?  Some of this will work itself out, and probably many of the more than 2,000 shitcoins of today will not exist or there will be some other shitcoins.

Maybe bitcoin will be the most soundest of money in 2120 or maybe there might still be competing variants?  How does 2120 affect what any of us might do today?  Are we buying bitcoin or not, today?  If so, how are we allocating ourselves in bitcoin, today?  How about how we spend our time?  Same thing.  Are we spending or time on bitcoin or some shitcoin?  We can make these choices today, and of course, there is a theoretical trajectory regarding how bitcoin might progress towards 2120, but seems a bit dumbass to be making our decisions of today based on what might play out in 2120 or even what might play out in 2070.  Does not mean that we are blind or that we do not consider the future, but instead that we should attempt to be more grounded in our choices because if we cannot even make it to 2021 because we make stupid ass bad choices, then we might end up dead by 2022, so there remains some need for balancing in our aspirations and making sure that we are in a meaningful allocation in the present based on our own particulars which includes our cash flow, our other investments, our view of bitcoin as compared with other assets, our risk tolerance, our timeline, our time, skills and abilities to learn, trade and tweak our allocations from time to time.



I doubt people are giving as much weight to some supposed hate of Roger Ver as you would like to believe, and throughout this post, you, Cøbra, seem to be attempting to ascribe and fantasize way more about political nonsense than what really exists.  Might be a good thing that you are retiring your Cøbra persona, but I doubt that you are retiring your inclinations to overly politicize matters.  I hope you are able to make a good decision regarding bitcoin.org, whether you stay onto the project or figure out a way to fairly pass it on, and surely I don't seem to understand some of the personal politics of the matter including some of the politics of the contributors.  I do understand that legally it is probably cleaner to pass onto one or two individuals rather than a group, and sometimes there can be greater confidence in the character of a person because even if you were to pass the domain onto an entity (or institution), frequently entities can become dominated by changes in the personal... and gosh none of us are going to live forever, either, so understandably, even passing onto an individual has problems, too.

I doubt that bitcoiners are engaging in as much of a battle as is being ascribed to it.

Sure bitcoiners might be resentful about some of the shitcoins, but ultimately, many are allowed to do whatever they want with a kind of theory that they are likely to die anyhow.. Ultimately, king daddy does not need to prove itself because value will gravitate and flow into it, even if it might take 50 years or longer to play out.


You didn't go there.

Can't help ur lil selfie, can you Globb0.

 :D :D :D :D :D :D


Good point, Cøbra.  The default that bitcoin is not broken, so if it does not change, then it is not a bad place to be.  If your proposal is not good enough to get overwhelming consensus, then I suppose bitcoin just will stay the same.. and that is not a bad place to be.



Wrong presumption.

Bitcoin is already a success, and likely if it does not change for 100 years, it will still be a success.  That's a big presumption because people and institutions are going to continue to build on bitcoin. Maybe they have to build second layer, but bitcoin is not broken, even if it stays the same forever and ever from here on out.

 

Sure... if there is a bug, then it needs to get fixed.  We should be able to reach overwhelming consensus for that.  do you have any examples in which some critical bug was not fixed, resolved or nipped in the bud as soon as it is found.  Let's say the bug is discovered several blocks later, then that will be a BIG deal.. so yeah, those kinds of bugs are likely to be resolved.  At least, that is my tentative ongoing presumption.
 

That all seemed to work out pretty well, even though there was a lot of drama at the time.  I was there and I followed a lot of it.  So, maybe my experience was different than yours, but it seemed to have worked out pretty well in the end in terms of getting segwit and not getting that 2x bullshit.  And, also not having to resort to something less than overwhelming consensus to get segwit passed.

Surely, various people are going to get different lessons from that experience, and hopefully, it can help with future situations like that, if they were to happen and maybe how to deal with those kinds of situations similarly or differently depending on how any such future similar situation might present itself. 


Good point about the never changing, Cøbra, even though you seemed to have meant it as a negative, when in fact the never changing would be a positive... a feature and not a bug, in bitcoin. 

Accordingly, the default in bitcoin is that it is not broken, and in that regard, satoshi made a powerful thing.   Don't be fucking with it.  Sure there have been some changes along the way, but those changes in bitcoin have come through overwhelming consensus... which mean that the changes are bitcoin.

In other words, if bitcoin does not change and it calcifies right here in its current state, then it is not a bad place to be. 

If your proposal (or the proposal of anyone else) is not good enough to get overwhelming consensus, then bitcoin is just not going to change.  It will stay the same.. and that is not a bad place to be.  Right?


Wrong presumption.  Bitcoin is not a failure. Why u so negative?

Bitcoin is already a success, and likely if it does not change for 100 years, it will still be a success.  That's a big presumption because people and institutions are going to continue to build on bitcoin as it is and as they expect it to be. Maybe they have to build various second layer solutions, but bitcoin is not broken, currently, and we cannot just presume away that bitcoin is going to become broken.. or that some change has to go through immediately or else bitcoin is going to become broken.. blah blah blah..  even if bitcoin stays the same forever and ever from here on out like you postulate, you and I reach a different conclusion about whether bitcoin is successful or a failure.

 

Sure... if there is a bug, then it needs to get fixed.  We should be able to reach overwhelming consensus for that.  No?  do you have any examples in which some critical bug or needed change was not fixed, resolved or nipped in the bud as soon as it was found.  Let's say the bug is discovered several blocks later, then that will be a BIG deal because more difficult to get a roll back and the blockchain does not tend to stop, right?.. so yeah, those kinds of BIG bugs are likely to be resolved... and if they are found in a kind of late state, then they are going to have more complications.. for sure.. but at least my tentative ongoing presumption would be that there would be efforts to try to resolve bugs or nip bugs in the bud to the extent that they are identified.. maybe another reason to be really conservative with the introduction of any new code, too.
 

That all seemed to work out pretty well, even though there was a lot of drama at the time.  I was there and I followed a lot of it.  So, maybe my experience was different than yours, but it seemed to have worked out pretty well in the end in terms of getting segwit and not getting that 2x bullshit.  And, also not having to resort to something less than overwhelming consensus to get segwit passed.

Surely, various people are going to get different lessons from that experience, and hopefully, it can help with future situations like that, if they were to happen and maybe how to deal with those kinds of situations similarly or differently depending on how any such future similar situation might present itself. 

Wow, is Cobra alright? :o

J, with all due respect, I think you should dig in more, it was too superficial.

Sure, cause if someone is not fully aligned with your core
He must be blocked, streamed, Back to the line

Gotya


And there it followed, the blah blah, just as ordered, but much more than expected...

 :D

I just love paying $5 to send a transaction within a few hours, awesome isn't it. I really hope we reach $100 fees again to get into the next block.  This is peer 2 peer electronic cash!.  

Bitcoin core has become a cult and everything else is a scam in their eyes.

By the way there is more btc on ethereum than lightning  :-X

Yeah, sometimes memories can start to fade, and after further mauling over the situation, I recall that there were some things that I left out.

For example, many folks who were somewhat paying attention to the introduction of segwit as a possible BIG blocker solution and even compromise would have recalled that in around November/December 2015 Peter Wuille had proposed segwit as a possible compromise, and he got many praises across the sides of the isle, and even Luke Jr. had proposed that segwit could be accomplished via softfork rather than hardfork, which also seemed brilliant and received a lot of praise.

So coding took a few months and then testing started in around second quarter 2016, and sure there were some complaints brewing up regarding how long it was taking to get segwit, yet it still took some time for the anti-seqwit passions to really build and largely showed that a lot of the anti-segwit passion was fabricated bullshit.

Anyhow, I don't feel that I necessarily need to go into more details because I believe that I painted the matter in broad enough strokes, and it is NOT like getting into the weeds is really going to help very much, even though sometimes if we would be attempting to deal with a specific situation that is in front of us, sometimes we will need to get more into the weeds to really discuss it and sometimes the back and forth can also help to hone some arguments or at least to refresh some memories, too.

So, even if there have been a lot of seeming generalizations batted around by categorizing purported political camps in bitcoin, sometimes some specifics might be necessary to call some of the generalizations into question.... so surely, in any case, if we consider segwit as good or bad, we might tailor our views accordingly, and perhaps part of my criticism of Cøbra has evolved into an impression that he is one of the whiners in terms of his having difficulties accepting segwit as a valid transition that had already happened nearly three years ago in bitcoin.. with of course, subsequent and ongoing building upon that nearly 3 year ago transition that has value and establishes our messy bitcoin in its current state of "as is" rather than wishing it to be something that it is not.

OK.


What's so crazy about an inventor of a piece of technology not fully understand its future implications? There's nothing to suggest Satoshi anticipated these hard fork dramas, and if he did, there was no warning from him, which would have been nice.


I wasn't talking about value, I was talking about attributing the name "Bitcoin" to something. Value is derived from the free market and is systemic as you say, but attribution requires subjective interpretation. Let's assume two chains derived from Bitcoin compete in the free market, with one valued more than the other, you don't determine the "real" Bitcoin from value alone because the market might put a premium on a chain that disagrees with your ideals (e.g. the chain increases the 21M limit).


How can you claim gold is less sound than Bitcoin? Bitcoin has existed for a little over a decade as money. Gold has been used as money for thousands of years. In all that time, gold has never really changed. We need to let more time pass before we can even begin consider claiming Bitcoin is more sound than gold.


I would argue a lot more than "some" of that soundness comes from users running nodes and verifying that everybody is following the rules. But again, we can't say Bitcoin is more sound than fiat, gold or equities because Bitcoin simply hasn't been around long, and we need to let more time pass before we can make such claims.


I didn't say it was an all or nothing decision, you can allocate whatever value you want into Bitcoin. My point has been that there are possible scenarios in the future where you might have to do your own evaluation of whether something actually is Bitcoin or not compared to your specific subjective ideals.


You don't get it. It's not sound money if it can split up in that way, definitely not more sound than gold. You can put all your value in gold and at least be assured that it won't split apart into two competing forms of money. You won't ever need to allocate between two different forms of gold and watch them compete with each other in the free market. Your casual dismissal of Bitcoin breaking into two with a "so fucking what?" shows that you don't really understand why Bitcoin has value in the first place.


They are ahead in acknowledging the politics more openly.


Bitcoin extends political disagreements in the community into the money. How hard is that to understand? I'm not exaggerating anything. Go look at UASF, where a small minority of users got together in a movement and pressured Bitcoin miners to activate Segwit with the threat that they would reject their blocks otherwise. Here, the reasonable technical solution to preserve value was to just wait it out. But these users were willing to fork themselves off the Bitcoin network if they didn't get their Segwit activated right now. You won't find this level of naked populism and politics in any other form of money. Can you imagine if a minority of Americans threatened to use their own spinoff version of the U.S. dollar unless the treasury made certain economic concessions to them?


It's not fantasy, I'm just telling you the realities of Bitcoin that most people have figured out already but you haven't.


I didn't say Bitcoin wasn't a success, but it's a success because of continued change and improvement.


Segwit2x burned out a lot of people, it was stressful and caused massive amounts of harm and distrust among members of the community. We can't go through that each and every time a faction of the community wants to change Bitcoin in some way.

I also want you to pay attention to your language, because the language we use reveals a lot, you say "And, also not having to resort to something less than overwhelming consensus to get segwit passed", does that not almost sound like a legislative battle, something that would be said about a political process? Replace the word "segwit" with "obamacare" and it sounds like a sentence you would hear to describe something that happened in congress.

You can't just bury your head in the sand and completely ignore how political this stuff is. You do yourself a disservice, presumably you have a lot of money tied up in Bitcoin, just like most of us. So you should really know what you're getting involved with here.


I'm fine mate.


I've never had a problem with Segwit, and it's funny how you immediately jumped to that conclusion. You likely assumed that because we disagree on some stuff today, we must also also disagree on Segwit (another thing that got heavily politicized).

I think that my characterization of your statement is fair, and I doubt that Satoshi needed to portend all situations in order to be adequately anticipating battles.  It should have already been clear that he was expecting attack vectors from a lot of directions and he even mentioned imitations and shams as attack vectors.  I doubt that it would have been necessary for him to elaborate any further.  What are we expecting from Satoshi?  God-like portension status?



Well that would make your argument even worse, wouldn't it?  Who cares about the actual name bitcoin?  Sure people get upset about it, but in the end, bitcoin is the network effects, and if the network effects move to other projects, then those projects will gain more power.. surely both bcash and bcashsv had been hoping that their use of the bitcoin name would allow network effects to move over to them if the right circumstances would play out.



Fair enough. I think that it is superficial to get caught up in the name anyhow, but of course, people including your truly are going to get upset when scam projects like bcash and bcash sv are trying to create brand confusion when they do not have anything close to actual network effects or community confidence.. even though there supporters keep trying to suggest that they are more than what they are in order to create the impression of network effects that they don't really have.




Fair enough that I am speculating to some extent, but we can look at various aspects to compare including scarcity, portability, verifiability, divisibility and ease of use without having as many third party expenses or risks.



You may be correct that we cannot really determine with any confidence in the midst of the transition, and of course, bitcoin is in the midst of a period of scurve exponential adoption, so there is a bit of a growth biasness that favors bitcoin.

So, sure there might be a decent amount of short terms expectations coming on my behalf, and surely if some kind of Armageddon were to come, then gold would likely experience better holding of value than bitcoin, but we should not be planning our lives around Armageddon scenarios and instead planning more likely scenarios in which bitcoin largely takes away golds various storage of value propositions.  Of course, anyone can do what they want in the event that they want to put much if any value into gold, when it is quite likely to continue to underperform bitcoin absent some weird ass Armageddon like scenario...

Remember also, as a kind of aside, that gold has been manipulated the fuck out of for 30 years or more including paper gold and just the various difficulties in claiming actual physical gold and even if bitcoin suffers some similar manipulation attempts it is going to be a lot more difficult to play some of the same games with bitcoin in terms of refusing people from taking possession of their bitcoin.. even though various powers that be are going to try as fuck to play those games with bitcoin and sure we have to see how it is going to play out and sure put your chips where you will and choose your level of allocation wisely.

Of course, I have hardly any clue about the future, but when I got into bitcoin in late 2013, I was largely allocating in bitcoin because I was looking for a hedge against the dollar and I had already had a lot of discomfort with gold for the previous 10 years or so that I had been considered diversifying some of my investment portfolio into gold.. but bitcoin did end up serving that purpose for me, and likely there are some other people who are coming around to understanding bitcoin as that kind of a hedge against the dollar in a way that is similar to gold  (and likely better.. but of course, your milage may vary).



I can make whatever claims that I like, and sure, you are free to criticize my claims or say that I have not adequately backed up my claims or that certain factors are not sufficiently present.  I have a right to criticize you for the same lack of appreciating my claims, and probably in the end, we can go our separate ways and make our claims in circles willing to listen to us or be convinced.  Of course, if we are putting some variation of our money where our mouth is, then some of the validity of our claims might play out to our advantage or it might not.  

By the way, I am not investing on either the past or some 1,000 year plan; I am investing and allocating based on what I know now, which also consists on choosing my level of allocation into bitcoin based on a variety of personal financial factors (that I have already said, but bear repeating) my cash flow, other investments, view of bitcoin compared to other assets, my risk tolerance, timeline, and time, abilities and skills to learn trade or tweak my holdings and strategies from time to time.

I recommend to anyone who is interested at all in investing to consider to invest 1% to 10% of their quasi-liquid assets into bitcoin, and of course, they are responsible for their own choice in that regard, and of course if someone has a pretty short timeline, such as less than 5 years, then they have to be a lot more careful with how they invest... and then some people are just in a liquidation phase of their life rather than increasing their investment allocation or maintaining it, so they might not be in a position to invest much if anything into bitcoin, either.


Well, maybe we do not disagree on this portion, because people need to be making their own assessments regarding if or how to allocate into bitcoin as I discussed in my above response.


We can agree to disagree on this point, and of course, any view that I hold can be changed by facts and logic, so merely because I might take a certain kind of aggressive stance, I am still to change my portfolio allocations and my approach in the event that facts and logic change my thinking on a topic.



I have no reason to believe that gold is going to perform any better than it's piss poor performance over the past 20 years or so,.. even if you look at gold's meteoric price increases since around 2008, it has barely even kept value in respect to the dollar.. so sure maybe gold is going to double in price or even quadruple in price in the coming 5 years, and bitcoin seems to have a much better chance for outperforming gold... Of course, past performance does not guarantee future performance either, so each of us can choose how to allocate.  




First of all, you can invest in gold if you want.. thats your choice.  I am not going to waste my time with it, and sure people are going to differ in their choices in regard whether to invest in gold and how much to allocate.  do what you want.

Second, maybe I misspoke in regards to what I thought about a split in bitcoin.  You presented the split as a given, and sure I was going along with your hypothetical as already a given, and once it happens, then you just deal with it and allocate based on that.  You did not give too many specifics of your hypothetical, so it seems to me that now, after I already responded, you are trying to add new facts to suggest that I would have gotten screwed from the split, which seems to me to be a pretty BIG ASS assumption.

Now, on the other hand, if you want me to currently consider that a split might be coming to bitcoin, then sure I might have to weigh that possibility, but the fact that I have not entertained such a changed set of circumstances does not mean that I am totally disregarding that such a split could happen at some time in the future, but based on little to no facts, I am not going to assume that I am either negatively affected or that I had not been able to lessen my allocation in bitcoin if I believe that such a threat has become more probable.

If you are suggesting that such a detrimental split is currently imminent, then seems to me that you are adding facts and maybe we are getting a bit far afield anyhow... .. good for you that you feel a certain level of comfort to allocate some of your bitcoin value into gold.



I am not sure if I would call that being "ahead," but sure maybe there are ways to consider some aspects of what is going on in bcash or bcash sv as positives, perhaps?



Fair enough that we can have differing views about how that uncertain time in mid-2017 played out and why it played out the way that it did.  There was a lot of gaming going on from a lot of angles and there are a lot of ways to characterize that time.  I seem to be more happy about how it played out than you, but still it was not like a stress free time in my life, either.. but in the end, there are a lot of injustices in various parts of the world when you have humans engaging in various kinds of game theory and reacting and over reacting and there are likely going to be differing views about what happened, and there may even be changed views about what happened if relooking at some of the facts or the logic.  I doubt that it is very fruitful to bat that information around here, any more than what we already have, but I understand that you seem to be getting some different lessons out of that time period, than me... and I am not even saying that my views are either concrete or they might not be changed, but I am generally happy about how segwit got adopted and 2x got rejected.



Might be better if we just agree to disagree here.  It's possible that I accused you of overgeneralizing, but I thought that I was overall fair, and you are suggesting that either I don't have enough information or that I am reaching the wrong conclusions based on available information, and you really have not shown that you are in a better position to know than me.. even though I am NOT going to take that for granted.



Another spot where we can agree to disagree, and I think that I already backed up my assertion sufficiently enough.



Maybe it burned out the people on the wrong side of the fork more than it burned out bitcoiners?  I am not saying that I did not feel stress, but there was a certain relief to just letting the BIG blockers go and play around with their own experiment.  Bitcoiners did not choose that result.  It was Jihun and whoever who unilaterally decided to play hardball with the August 1 hardfork of bcash, and it really did not seem to help their cause.. dumb fucks miscalculated to play hardball.. same thing with the segwit2x diptwats.. they played hardball with that threat too, and they ended up backing down.  So, yeah, some people got burned but mostly the people trying to play hardball rather than the ones who were working through bitcoin consensus mechanisms including using the BPIP system.


I like the language that I used.  I tried to select my words carefully, and your pointing out an issue with my language does not cause me to feel worse about it.

I agree with you that language is important.

Yeah, there is something a bit arbitrary about 95%, but that is overwhelming consensus, rather than some of the BIG blockers were trying to get those standards lowered.. that was deceptive as fuck to try to change governance and make bitcoin easier to change... so yeah, this is not democratic.. it is overwhelming consensus that got segwit passed.. almost unanimous support.. and I think that it is good that almost unanimous support caused segwit to pass... In the future, I am not sure if 95% will be needed for things like schnorr and tap root and some other proposed changes that I believe are in testing out stages.





I doubt that I am burying my head in the sand... maybe we are just emphasizing different things as important and relevant?



I have tried to be balanced, even in terms of my investment.  I try not to make it so that I am overextended, and I think that anyone who is feeling overallocated might need to change his/her allocation.

My quick story is that I largely decided my allocation level by the end of 2014, so I spent most of 2014 investing into bitcoin, but since we know what happened in 2015 and 2016, BTC prices continued to be pretty stagnant and I continued to dollar cost average into bitcoin during that time... but anyhow, the punchline, is that I have had a decent amount of time to allocate and reallocate and I really did not get caught up in shitcoins such as bcash or bsv, so I sold my bcash between September and October-ish 2017 and then I did get a few more reissued from coinbase in their surprise distribution in December 2017, so I pretty much sold those as quickly as possible when I saw their phony ass pumpening of that shit.. so anyhow, I did not continue to hold too many Bcash bags, so maybe that is causing me to denigrate them a lot more than others who might have thought that it was prudent to hold some of that shit.  So perhaps that does explain some of our differing perspective regarding the extent to which their might be some redeeming values in either bcash and/or bcash sv.


O.k.  Maybe I misread you in regards to your position regarding segwit, and like I said, I never really intended for any of my response to be personally towards you, but I am trying to just attack some of your presentation of ideas, and surely it does seem that we disagree on some matters, but we each had our say, too...

Sorry that I can be kind of long winded sometimes, and surely I am not going to try to presume that I understand some of your experiences including some of the behind the scenes stuff that you may have experienced in terms of your involvement in the administration of this website and bitcoin.org.. so surely, I cannot be trying to presume too much about you or your behind the scenes experiences... although I have read some of your previous posts, but sometimes I might not remember various things, too.

i agree about the politics that are affecting bitcoin but it doesn't set it apart from any other form of money. and your comparison is unfair since you are comparing a toddler (bitcoin) with a mature established currency in a unified community. if you compare bitcoin with a currency during unstable times and when the society wasn't mature then you'll see the same things. like after a revolution, or a civil war. i'm not familiar with US history but didn't south print their own money ("Greyback") during the US civil war? the bills even look similar and use the same sign.
wasn't 2017 scaling debate short of a civil war in bitcoin? and a bitcoin that is not yet mature.
i see both UASF (specifically BIP148) and BCH with the same eye. they were both attacks on bitcoin by a minority who have been trying to force the majority to bend to their demands. and they both could have the same risks and inflict the same damage. but also they are both product of immaturity of bitcoin and the community and that does not set bitcoin apart.
today people aren't blaming UASFers like they blame BCHers because we were lucky enough to see their "attack" fall in the same direction where the majority went into.

It does not need a majority whatsoever

Satoshi did not hand over to a democracy or communism to further decide and play his role

He once stated: Set in stone - and miners ENFORCE RULES - not change


Not more blabla needed and try grapping the powers

I would probably sell it to Binance for like $10 million.

They bought Coinmarketcap.  CZ said they plan to keep it independent and neutral.  The only major change they have made is moving Binance to the top of the "Exchanges" tab.

They are rich enough that they would never be tempted to sell the domain to a Bcasher.

Well bitcoin does not seem to be democratic and it also does not seem to be run by miners.. so there is that kind of unique but even seemingly misunderstood dynamic that some folks either complain about bitcoin and having expectations of bitcoin that are prescriptively wishing bitcoin to be something that it is not.

In other words, the governance of bitcoin seems to require an overwhelming majority to change it, otherwise it is not changing.. and part of what was trying to be imposed in 2017 was either a simple majority or a super majority.. but those attempts seemed to have failed, and the overwhelming consensus did allow for segwit to get adopted but lower standards did not allow for 2x to get adopted or some of the other attempted attacks to try to make it easier to change bitcoin that seemed to had been coming from the 2x camp.

So, yeah, it can sometimes be confusing and even unsettling to some people, and when they whine about lack of democracy blah blah blah, that whining has resonance on other people because they want bitcoin to be more democratic to make it be something that it is not.. which some of us realized the lack of democracy is actually a feature and not a bug.. but still does not stop others from whining a lot about it and gaining traction with people who don't really understand that angle of bitcoin.. so are seemingly rightfully disgruntled of confused right from the start of their entrance into trying to understand bitcoin.

You wish to hand control to a man that wanted to roll back the entire Bitcoin blockchain for the sake of a few millions dollars of coins stolen from them? That's the type of thing you'd expect a zitty little shit who'd had their faucet earnings nicked to say, not a crypto behemoth.

By virtue of your post I also believe that control of the domain should not be handed to you. You're canned, honey.

None of us are immortal, none of us is perfect neither.

Sooner or later; the .com domain, .org domain, this forum, bitcoin's github, @bitcoin&@btc, r/bitcoin and r/btc will change hands.

Just like @bitcoin used to belong to a bcasher, now it belongs to somebody who is pro btc.

Just like cobra decided to handover the forum domain to theymos and the other one (.org) to somebody else.

Just because we live in our happy bubble for now, doesn't mean it will continue like this forever.

I read stuff about the twitter handle for example. r/btc people were in shock. If I remember this right, Roger offered the original owner money but for some reasons somehow it (@bitcoin) ended up in the hands of a btc supporter.

Who knows what'll happen tomorrow?

May Cz own the .org domain? It is not impossible. And what'll happen to bitcoin when that day comes? Are you ready to call btc something else other than bitcoin?

We're all going to die of course.

Perhaps you're better off taking a breather from this scene for a bit? You don't seem to be in a jolly state of mind.

My own personal preference as of this morning would be for a total asshole to take control and turn it into a shithole filled with flashing ads to fully trash it. The sooner it discards any centralised point of influence the better as far as I'm concerned. No one goes to an Android website. They just use it.

Fundamentals > Charts

Any rich guy that is about to invest in bitcoin but wants to know what he is investing in would ask these questions.

If the most hardcore btc holders can't answer these basic questions in a convincing way, how can you expect new people to come? The only newcomers will be gamblers who care about nothing but technical analysis.

holy fuck. where did this idiot come from. and who bought him? or sprung him from the funny farm. or whatever.

If it's worth millions of dollars someone will probably take that offer eventually.

Unless you keep passing it to early adopters who have net worth of $100m+.  They would have less incentive to sell it, but their children or grandchildren might.

Binance would probably never sell it as long as they're in business.  As long as people are still trading crypto.  It's better than leaving open the possibility for Roger to buy it and drive traffic to Bcash.

Hey Cøbra

I've been reading this with interest and I came here just to say this. I've been occasionally following you on Twitter and other platforms. Sometimes I think you show startling insight that goes right to the heart of the matter, probably more often I find I disagree with you strongly. Nevertheless I think you've shown an original perspective a lot of the time, not simply going with the herd, and I think you've been a good steward to Bitcoin.org. I hope we can say the same of whoever you hand it to next.

I've appreciated your thoughts here and I think it would be a shame if you vanished without giving more voice to them. You're one of the few who's been around since the start, interacted with Satoshi, and is actually still around (assuming it's still the same Cobra. Hard to say). You must have seen and learned a lot along the way. Would you consider doing an interview on one of the Bitcoin podcasts out there? Maybe if you don't want to take the risk of doxxing yourself, consider writing something up on your way out. Your experiences, what you think succeeded about Bitcoin, what you think failed, what changed, what you're glad stayed the same, things you wish you or Satoshi did better etc. However it ends up it'll be food for thought

Anyway, good luck with the handover and the retirement

If I had a vote I'd say sell it to the guy who just signed Craigs a fraud. :D

With all due respect, it looks like you don't understand why Bitcoin has value in the first place. Bitcoin is the only "crypto" that has unforgeable costliness. Technically, that could change, but game theory says that it won't.

Anyone can create as many chains as they want. I could spray paint clay bricks to look like gold bars. Perhaps I could con some people into buying them. In fact, I could spray paint foam bricks to look like gold bars. Then I could say my new form of gold is more valuable because it's less dense and easier to transport. How would this impugn actual gold?


I don't see a problem here. That's the nature of open source software. Have you seen some of the heated arguments from the linux mailing list?

Frankly I see this as one of Bitcoin's greatest strengths. The world's hardest money is democratized. Wasn't that one of the reasons Bitcoin was created? So we could finally have a form of money that wasn't controlled from the top-down by central banks and kings?

...

Satoshi did anticipate forks and the likely outcome ...


Satoshi warned us alright.

The current market also dictates that Bitcoin is BTC. Always has been, always will BTC

...

BSV and BCH are effectively financial derivatives of BTC ...

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_(finance) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_(finance))

These forks have quite literally 'stolen' value from the original historical timechain.

The paradox of Bitcoin Cash ...
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4663094.msg42091653#msg42091653

https://i.imgur.com/c0ObqzK.gif

JJG - Cobra, 3-1

Gavin ..  ?

Couldn't you leave the domain to him, for temporary safe-keeping until a worthy candidate is chosen? Or let theymos help you choose one?

Plus do you have a list of names of possible good candidates? Curious.

People always tell Bitcoin is not centralised.....
There are so many points where you see centralisation.
Thats one of it....

Cobra is absolutely correct.. Do you see any centralisation about bitcoin.org and cobra acts ??

In the last post on GitHub, the nickname Cobra Bitcoin announced his plans for the future related to leaving bitcoin.org. From the beginning of its existence, this service was aimed at educating new users about the leading cryptocurrency. Cobra Bitcoin announced that he is still looking for the right people who will be able to convince him that the site will be put into "trusted hands".

What will we see from this ...

He will sell it to Roger for $1billion.  ;D

And from that point Roger will have the power to forge the history and the future of bitcoin in whatever way he pleases.

Related to this topic, Cointelegraph released an article.
They even quoted a link to bitcointalk forum post made by Greg Maxwell.
Roger Ver back on front page again, with that cringe smile :/
https://cointelegraph.com/news/roger-ver-wants-to-buy-bitcoinorg

You may need to zoom out a bit, if you believe that bitcoin price keeps dropping.


I had not noticed anyone losing their minds in these various threads that had been responding to Cøbra's bringing up of his intention to retire his profile and accordingly is considering take over or ownership transfer possibilities, but you seem to be getting a bit excited about the topic.



I glanced at that article, and weird way to end it with Greg's quote...   They apparently did not reach out to Greg, but they thought that reaching out to Roger was a great idea for article content and supposed due diligence.   :D :D :D

Nah ...

...

Not *Satire*

" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The guy who said Craig's signature checks out, says now #bitcoin was hijacked by the lizards of @Blockstream ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ "

- https://twitter.com/BitcoinMemeHub/status/1265532789019029505

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZASpKYXgAY7m08?format=jpg&name=large

 :D

Sounds familiar as i have heard this quote somewhere  ;D. But yet to find the banking cartels. BCH is also funded as well as BSV if those are cartels then you might be spot on :P.

3.49% increase in bitcoin price and going up, looks like the cartels have seen your message and fucking with you pumping the price  :P :D.

You are really good at making up shit (well maybe "good" is not the right word).  Anyhow, have you heard of straw man fallacy?  You just make up some kind of weak argument and attribute that to your opponent then say that you were right because your opponent has a weak position... blah blah blah..


Anyhow, zooming out for 4 years, for example?  What do you see?

How about if you look a that whole cycle, and then you attempt to postulate whether the December 2018 bottom of $3,124 was the bottom.  Where do you get when you look at broader price moves?

Yes.. I understand that you are hoping that there has been a BTC down cycle since the June 2019 top of $13,880, and maybe you want that as a starting point of your analysis.

Whatever happens to be your analysis seems to be considerably weak and based more upon wishful thinking rather than really trying to grapple with actual BTC price dynamics and the likely BTC price direction in the coming years.




Yes.  That happened in 2013 too.. remember?  Remember it took 3 years to get back to the November 2013 high of $1,163.  I remember that there were a lot of bitcoin bearshills in 2014, 2015 2016 who were saying that BTC would never get back to its previous ATH levels that were the $1,163 levels.


If you have been dollar cost averaging for the past three years (https://dcabtc.com?sd=2017-05-27&sda=3_years&f=weekly&d=3_years&ac=3800&c=true), then your costs per BTC are going to be around $6k per BTC...

Don't have to get back up to $20k to be profittable, and in fact you are decently profittable, even if BTC prices were only $7-ish.

Of course, there are other variants upon BTC accumulation methods, and since the BTC price has been lower than $10k for a considerable amount of time in the past 3 years, it is quite likely that there are a variety of ways, even if you messed up several times, to be somewhere close to profits, even at these current BTC prices.



How's your no coiner status doing?  Do you have other investments that are doing better?


Great.  You have been investing in litecoin?  How's that been going?  I cannot imagine too many scenarios to been doing well with any kind of a long term litecoin investment plan, even though it has had some price spike periods, but personally I do not recommend people fuck around with short term matters or various shitcoins, and in that regard, bitcoin is the only game in town when really looking at fundamentals.  Anyhow, if you look at litecoin over the past 5 years, you would be about even in terms of the price now as compared with 5 years ago.  In bitcoin you would be up about 40x.. so seems like there is much more upward potential with bitcoin as compared to litecoin just by following a dollar cost averaging accumulation system.   But hey, do what you want with your various levels of seeming distraction.

I did not attack him or his behaviour. Its simply that there are people leading the project and not "the community".
Of course theoritical it can be choosen by the community, but practical these people and major DEV lead Bitcoin. When you want to bring in something new, they say "create an altcoin or fork"

Party pooper FX! :P

I was having trouble replying to that, but first I had to make sure who Gavin might be.
And when I did - amidst congratulating hv_ for his sharpness - I decided not to. ::)

---

Quoted for posterity when BTC hits $20k again - this year.

Other than that, yeah-ey, your shitcoinz to the moooooon. :P

Of course, but you would want it to handed over to some like, Roger Ver? Right? Go to https://www.bitcoin.com, click "Buy Bitcoin". 8)

Is that what you want?

theymos is also giving, and patient enough to let your trolling ass stay.

Bitcoin is highly decentralized   BSV, BCH, BTC, BTG, LTC, ...  freedom of choice - how you map ONE to the bitcoin.org ?  

oh - check the only legit White-Paper and lookup & compare the implementations

;)

- Still Gavin to fit best  here  imo

Easy, only one of them is BTC.
The rest are total centralized bullshit, and shouldn't even bother.

Okay.

BCH|	BSV|	BTC
☒ |	☒ |	☑

BCH and BSV = Emergency Difficulty Adjustment, or life-support to avoid having been stillborn with an insufficient hashrate to even survive, let alone propagate.

Didn't even make it past the 'Abstract' on the first page.  Perhaps your preferred chain is not as well represented by the whitepaper as you like to imagine.

Lol

Any idiot can build a longer chain, but not with honest mining and enforcing the Satoshi rule set

Sure, one bit needs to be unfucked from ABC shitlord, that s true and EDA must go asap.
Afaik it is on the road map. But its not a consensus relevant issue, working transactions is the most critical thing

What is your purpose here? you aren't listening to anyone who responds to you

You are convinced BTC is not BTC but something else is, you offer feeble arguments that avoid the main points.

Dancing around the main facts and coming up with at best the argument something else is more like the initial white paper. Despite the fact bitcoin had moved on significantly from that before Satoshi was taken from us.

Assuming there is no point in arguing with you? or you with the people here? what is the point?

What is you main intention? Magically change all our opinions? Or troll.

Removing it now won't matter.  It's too late for that.  

If you use an old client that was made when satoshi was still around and tried to get it to synchronise, any blocks mined under EDA are invalid and will be rejected.  This means that neither the BSV nor BCH chain can ever sync from the genesis block using satoshi's own code.  Go ahead and try it for yourself.  The damage can't be undone and your chain is forever tainted with it.  It will always be a forkcoin with different consensus rules.  Never the original.

The only way to sync to the BSV chain is to alter satoshi's code to change the consensus rules.  Otherwise satoshi's code will sync to the BTC chain.  




//EDIT:  Looks like hv_ doesn't have a witty answer for this one and instead chose to reply to some other posts with points they feel they can dodge more easily.  Oh well.


//DOUBLE EDIT:  And could people please trim their nested quotes down a bit?  Topic is swiftly becoming an arduous scroll-fest.  You don't need to include a running history of the last 5 or more posts to reply to the latest one.

That domain should come into the hands of the community if that is handed over to BCH for any sum of money then we really are in trouble.

Do we have any ideas on who might be suitable to take this over?

I hate how inmature people like him make the space look, the guy is trying to make an offert, no need to name call people like that. I know the space is young and all but it just makes us look bad when people act like this, imo.

 ::)

*Facepalm*

"We know, Gavin, we know. If only you could reflect back on that one moment in 2016... you know, with Craig Wright, and the impossible Satoshi block signing? After which Craig was empowered to ramp up his Bitcoin hijack fraud?

https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/1265426554961657858 "

- https://twitter.com/MyLegacyKit/status/1266054135570366471

...

Quote Gavin:

"I have been bamboozled many times."

- https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/1265426554961657858

...

"Bitcoin has survived countless attacks on its decentralization. As an example here’s an early, once-credible developer calling a few years ago for the decimation of full nodes, a core network feature that, among other things, prevents corporate or state hijacking of the protocol.

https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/865256875658498049 "

- https://twitter.com/gladstein/status/1265323202277806082

...

Quote Gavin:

"I'm proud to be part of the 99+% not running a full node. Zero reason for me to waste bandwidth monitoring other people's transactions."
- https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/865256875658498049

 ::)

...

"What a total and absolute bell-end." - SWIM

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Andresen

...

*Satire*
Happy Mondays - Wrote For Luck (Call The Cops)
- https://youtu.be/oYPS0Y-_zhE

Witch-hunt-trolling memers,  why those guys think (cough) , they doing sth good for Bitcoin ?

Newbies, this is the kind of disinformation these trolls spread around the internet. Be careful, or you end up being thankful for being scammed to buy a forked shitcoin.


He also introduced the fraud Craig Wright as Satoshi. Why?

Information  - not mis - information,  u just missed that, now you re biased and ad hominem idiot anyway - again, what 'good' are you doing here?  Tellin ppl ad hominem is the thing in Bitcoin ?

Ad hominem for what actually? Pointing out facts?

BSV is a forked-shitcoin, Gavin introduced Craig Wright to be "Satoshi", Craig Wright turned out to be a liar, and a fraud based on evidences against him.

Now, we're being off-topic, who's your candidate to control bitcoin.org? I'm curious.

Gavin 'visited' the CIA to 'talk' about Bitcoin ...

Topic: Gavin will visit the CIA
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=6652.0

1. He is either complicit in participating in a failed 'takeover' / 'hijack' of the Bitcoin (BTC) project.

or

2. He was genuinely 'bamboozled' by CSW - which would happen to be extreemly 'convenient' given the now hard evidence presented to the court ...

Re: SCAM: Bitcoin SV (BSV) - fake team member and plagiarized white paper
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5149062.msg54513860#msg54513860

... i.e. perhaps Gavin is/was 'complicate' in supporting the CSW / BSV 'fraud' !?

Either way it is still a total clown show! ...

Dan Kaminsky's Blog - Validating Satoshi (Or Not)
- https://dankaminsky.com/2016/05/02/validating-satoshi-or-not/

"SUMMARY:

    Yes, this is a scam.  Not maybe.  Not possibly."

...

Proof-of-beats - Signal - To - Noise Ratio -- Vitalik Mic Drop
- https://soundcloud.com/proofofbeats/signal-to-noise-ratio-vitalik-mic-drop

 ::)

...

The funniest part (for me) is I'm now actually 99.9% certain I know who the real Satoshi Nakamoto is. They genuinely went onto work on 'other things' and from what I've been able to research thus far, I'm both impressed and reassured.

If Gavin and some other folks don't actually know who the real Satoshi likely is then I'm afraid to say that a lot of people in the Bitcoin / crypto space that I once thought were very smart are in fact quite the opposite, and/or were simply following others 'agendas' or, like I said above ... fully complicate.

Craig Wright is NOT satoshi and BSV is NOT Bitcoin.

The BSV 'metanet' is an insecure joke, 'built' on quick sand ...
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5149062.msg54518146#msg54518146

Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is also NOT Bitcoin. It is a minority fork ... the real satoshi told us what happens to minority (chain) forks here ...


Bitcoin = BTC which is the official and original version of the software ...

- https://web.archive.org/web/20090303195936/http://bitcoin.org/

...

You also mentioned Jon Matonis earlier in this thread @hv_ ...

Who was on nChain's payroll at one time ... and seemingly likes to try and 'backdoor' cryptography 'products' for the 'highest bidder' ...

Hushmail To Warn Users of Law Enforcement Backdoor
- https://www.wired.com/2007/11/hushmail-to-war/

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hushmail

- https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Jon_Matonis

Jon Matonis Joins Blockchain Pioneer nChain as Vice President of Corporate Strategy
- https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/jon-matonis-joins-blockchain-pioneer-nchain-as-vice-president-of-corporate-strategy-300449153.html

 ::)

Anymore for anymore ?

Just interesting. What is your idea who is satoshi? Me personal think its a team

Unfortunately, that's not how this works. It's seemingly Nakamoto's (current) choice. I can respect that decision.

If I'm right, they may surface again, eventually.

"I can neither confirm nor deny the identity of Satoshi."

Having looked for who was not Satoshi for years, I'm actually surprised how easy it was to find this highly likely candidate. I stumbled upon it actually, everything fits together perfectly.

It became a team, if you will, however the originator was seemingly just one individual.

Hal was likely more involved than he let on, he may or may not of known the real identity of Nakamoto.

Again, "I can neither confirm nor deny the identity of Satoshi."

...

If your read this, Nakamoto ... and you are in fact 'Satoshi' ... then you know I know ...

Re: Who is Satoshi Nakamoto ? Suspects, frauds and conspiracies on bitcointalk
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4359615.msg54513677#msg54513677

  :)

Selling bitcoin.org to Roger Ver or any other people claiming to be Satoshi would be a tragedy, and a complete disaster for Bitcoin.

BCH and BSV have damaged Bitcoin and its image, slowed down its adoption and massively increased the confusion about it.

Giving bitcoin.org to these guys could simply kill Bitcoin.

If you don't want to update bitcoin.org anymore, just leave it dormant: a single page explaining what Bitcoin is, with a link to the original Satoshi PDF paper.

But don't sell this domain. Please, just don't.

Giving bitcoin.org to Roger Ver would create a social attack on Bitcoin.

If bitcoin can be killed like this (by social attacks), it didn't deserve to live in the first place.

I thought there was no official web page for bitcoin but here we are discussing how damaging would it be to sell it to someone else.

In an ideal world, releasing the bitcoincore code on bitcoin.org or sdfsdfsdfsd.io shouldn't make a difference for bitcoin... but it does.

It can't be killed, but the community shouldn't take it by doing nothing. Would you like Roger Ver to own bitcoin.org as a political attack-tool, and as a tool to scam newbies?


It WILL be damaging if sold to the wrong person. Go to bitcoin.com, click "Buy Bitcoin". What is it selling?


It does because bitcoin.org has been a Bitcoin website for many years. Changing it into a fraudulent forked shitcoin website to scam people is not ideal in a non-ideal world.

I wouldn't be surprised if Craig Wright doesn't manage to get his hands on the domain after it gets handed over.

After all, he could secretly reach out to all the major candidates and offer them a large sum to part ways with the domain if they're selected. So long as this agreement is made under an NDA, Wright really doesn't have much to lose.

I'm sure he would keep it 100% under the radar anyway even if he did get it, but maybe this could be part of his myriad tactics to delegitimize or attack Bitcoin.

Then again, Wright has proven himself to be all mouth and no action. He's threatened to reveal critical flaws in Bitcoin and dump the market numerous times now, so I doubt he actually intends to do harm to the network.

Of course, bitcoin is going to survive either way, and seems that Cøbra is considering various possibilities, and of course, if Roger has already shown himself to be a scammer and an attack vector on bitcoin, then selling or transferring to him would likely end up having the site used for scamming and attacking bitcoin... which does not seem to be the direction that Cøbra would like to go - even if Roger were to be the highest bidder. 

Has anyone heard any updates from Cøbra, recently, on this subject matter?  Has a short-list developed?  Maybe there has been some behind the scenes vetting?

We haven't seen it tested so there's no way of knowing. I'd say a fully Ver-ified .org would be misleading and unhelpful but wouldn't have much effect in the great scheme of things. The main thing it would do is enrage newbies and turn them against what he's attempting to push. A compromised bitcoin.org doesn't mean anything when every exchange, broker, website and bit of press deals with the real thing.

If your welcome to Roger's world is him sliding his scaly penis up you you're not going to develop warm feelings.

Bitcoin.com is a significant property too. BCH is still in the toilet price and penetration wise compared to the past. You can have an initial effect with things like that but it won't sustain if it's empty.

There are a few things that shouldn't happen in the real world, one being to not let R ver have that domain.

@Cøbra (others?)

Wakey wakey!

Notification - Kindly fix up your Lets Encrypt SSL Certificate ... it is currently capped to a grade B ...

- https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=bitcoin.org&hideResults=on

SSL Labs Grade Change for TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1 Protocols ...
- https://blog.qualys.com/ssllabs/2018/11/19/grade-change-for-tls-1-0-and-tls-1-1-protocols

Has insecure cypher suites ...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cipher_suite

Is therefore vulnerable to the BEAST attack ...
- https://blog.qualys.com/ssllabs/2013/09/10/is-beast-still-a-threat

Your also using an RSA 2048 bits publickey certificate despite Lets Encrypt supporting RSA 4096 bits publickey certificates, out-of-the box ...

...

How to Guide ...

See: https://ssl-config.mozilla.org/

Example;


You need to update the # intermediate configuration ssl_protocols and ssl_ciphers .

Then use certbot to upgrade your certificate publickey to RSA 4096 bit


Cheers!  ::)

EDIT: also bitcointalk.org ...
- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5196603.msg54643075#msg54643075