No, it is not true. There was a proposal on 8btc (which is not censored at all) by a random person. He announced some "Terminator Plan" which is horribly risky just to gain additional 3 TPS. This post was on r/bitcoin and labeled as FUD for a while but was eventually taken down. The 'people' at r/btc have been basically celebrating, using new idiotic phrases such as Corexit, even though there is zero evidence that any major pool would participate in this. Keep in mind that the comment section on that website can be easily manipulated (as long as you have 1 person to talk Chinese for you).

Well, we can't really state that Bitcoin is very well designed. I'm certain that the developers who are working on it currently, would do a lot of things differently if they could. The only 'good' thing about altcoins is that they can be used to test out some 'difficult' ideas. I don't think that we are going to see such radical re-design (what are the limitations of a HF?), so there's not much 'point' in discussing it in, at least not in this thread. I do wonder if they can get RC1 released before the halving (even though Segwit still has no activation parameters). However, rushing is usually not the right thing to do.

Compact blocks aim to improve bandwidth requirements, i.e. lower them. Additionally, have we already forgotten all the excellent upgrades that they've delivered (e.g. libsecp256k1)?

No that would not work at all. We'd have nodes that have differentiating chain heights which would most likely cause a lot more problems. You can already limit the amount of bandwitdh that you want to spend though (e.g. 'blocksonly' mode).

Additionally, after some time most blocks will be above the threshold that you set so it becomes ineffective. It just delays the inevitable.

They used to be good, but now we see them 'contribute' rarely or wrongly (e.g. 'header first mining').

Mind telling me what is the point of sharing this with everyone right now? While the 'effort' is appreciated, this is generally unsafe and pointless for people that don't test/developer. People should either compile themselves or download from a more trusted place. Here's a site where nightly builds can be found. Anyhow, those Segwit changes have been merged a few days back (nightly build 25-06).

Correct. There's a fallacy called personal incredulity which is often the case with people. I've seen a lot of nonsense online when it comes to comments about Bitcoin (e.g. "Bitcoin is corrupted by the government" - one of the recent ones). It is obvious for any fellow 'Bitcoiner' who has a decent understanding that they have no clue what they're talking about.

---

Most of the people are sheep and easily manipulated by the media (unfortunately this is true even for many 'Bitcoiners'). I'm actually very surprised how nobody managed to mention the website that keeps track of how many times Bitcoin "has died": Bitcoin has died 106 times.

Or a reminder of who's "all talk" as they say.

While you do say that, I don't think that the others feel the same way. I've been under the impression (by multiple members) that if one sides with Core that they're either a Blockstream employee or biased in some other way (i.e. there is no *normal reason* for them to have such a stance).

Well, there you are very much wrong. I've shifted my positions several times since the initial 20 MB proposal by Gavin. I've learned several things in the meantime, and do not see a decent reason for going toward the 2 MB block size limit. Until someone provides it (them), there's no reason to support that proposal (no, "segwit is complex" and similar nonsense are not reasons for 2 MB block size limit).

Sorry, it's not "immature" nor ad-hominem since it is true. Bogus escrow. Besides, I'm not the one who initiated person discussions (albeit they're off topic?).

Actually, no. What you're describing would be a horrible system that could be abused by others (especially used against individuals). Bitcoin is pseudo-anonymous, which is definitely a "good mix" (being too anonymous would make regulation very hard, and being 'too little' would make it just too transparent). Some improvements are expected in the future when it comes to privacy (not the other way around).

How about just not investing in suspicious stuff and using common sense? I've never had a problem with scams in the last 3 years.

What is a "encrypted location"? You might be talking about VPNs. Multisig wallets are a great way of preventing both scams and hacks if used properly. However, they still offer no guarantees that something bad won't happen.

This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Delete request.

Bullshit. The miners are apparently as dumb as bricks. 2 MB is able to break Bitcoin, that's why Gavin added more artificial limitations to his BIP (which is != solution, it's a silly workaround).

Nope. You just don't know who I am.

That works too I guess.

I don't think it's reasonable at all. Having to constantly upgrade (every 2 year) in order to no fall behind makes no sense to me. Why would someone bother with this unless they explicitly have incentives to do it?

"Resolve"? Don't make me laugh. What Gavin did was the worst approach possible to the validation problem. No, he did not solve anything, he added a ridiculous workaround that prevents certain types of transactions (limited by size). Segwit:

I highly doubt that more than 1% of users know what we may be talking about (e.g. a language).

Yeah definitely biased because I don't have the same opinion than some of you. Give me a break and go scam someone else.

---

---

Update::
It was just an example ("a language" which uses garbage collection) and as thus "is the only context" is false. Discussing this would be off-topic to this thread, would it not?

That's not really a fair comparison is it? Satoshi abandoned the project, the Core developers are here. He may not have been aware of the potential control within the current system in addition to the mass surveillance. I think that having a datacenter-only system would be very risky.

So you're telling me that if I don't upgrade my hardware every 2 years that I should have no right to run a full wallet? In other words you're telling me that I have to lose my 'sovereignty' as in be unable to validate the blocks and transactions? I think that anyone should be able to participate with decent hardware (not necessarily cheap, but not that expensive either).

What if I told you that 20 MB blocks, 8 MB blocks and 2 MB blocks can break Bitcoin due to O(n^2) validation time? Is that censorship?  

Don't blame me if you're too dumb to comprehend something properly.
 
I would not be the first person to state this. You'd know this if you weren't spending time trying to disrupt the system.

You're actually right.

Yes there is an agreement. Those said individuals are to deliver a HF proposal as long as the other party doesn't violate their end. There was no talk about merging code.

So your own opinion and the opinion of your 'buddies' is also worthless. Good to know.

Stating an opinion != taking action. False analogy.

I most certainly am not. This is not a "payroll" and is not relevant to personal views (e.g. HostFat).

Then you're wasting my time talking nonsense without any evidence. How classic.

There are people who wouldn't sell their soul for "millions" "now".

That post is off-topic to the OP as well. I declined to respond on the moderation policy within that thread as I have no say in that section. I am neither able to moderate that section nor am I able to ban a member of such a rank (I can only nuke newbies like other patrollers). If you feel like a user is breaking the rules and deserves to be punished accordingly then the best course of action is usually to PM a global moderator with your 'evidence'.

My personal views are irrelevant. Anyhow, there are equally, or worse 'big blockers' who have yet to be banned due to their rule violations (it's definitely not one-sided; most of the staff doesn't even have a (strong9 opinion on this I think).

He's right. The individuals have never represented Core and they aren't able to do so easily anyways. It was clear that they can't promise a merge as this proposal would require evaluation and consensus like any other proposal.

You can't make a claim that Classic developers are equally as good, or good enough due to your nonexistent coding skills either (according to this logic). How many 'good developers' does Classic have?

False analogy. This is an opinion nothing more.

I may or may not be. I have claimed neither.

So because I have a different opinion than you (e.g. I support Core and you support Classic) I'm biased? I most certainly am not on a "payroll" and I most certainly have not deleted such threads (I don't moderate these sections). Another failed attempt at undermining my persona.

I think they violated it a day later mining a Classic block. I'll update the post if I find the link.

It matters. People who attack Luke-jr for 'trying' to create a proposal are heavily biased if it was already broken.

So you can draw a conclusion of my 'coding abilities' based on not-seeing any of my code? Interesting story.

No it is not. What nonsense are you talking about? I have no connection to any developer regardless of whether Core or Classic/other.

Fine, Core has surgeons and Classic has garbage collectors. I get it.

Are you referring to the recent statement by Luke-Jr? Do you know that someone had already broken the agreement (was it F2Pool? I can't remember correctly).

False analogy. That's an opinion due to subjective bias which is not the case here. This is an objective observation based on what I've seen so far.

So because you haven't seen 'my code', my opinion is invalidated (or 'suspect')? That is horrible logic, as it would invalidate your own opinion and the opinions of "users" who share your 'view' as well.

Wrong. The people who attended the HK meeting have done nothing that violates their "agreement" yet. It was well known that the people were acting as individuals and could in no way guarantee that the presented HF (not yet) would be merged into Core.

Classic developers are like high school programmers in comparison to the people working on Core.

I'm certain that it is likely that most of them would abandon their 'public' work for Bitcoin. Would you not do the same if you got 'stabbed in the back' after this much time?

I'm trying to collect them, but people either haven't received them yet or aren't willing to go publicly with it. If all goes well, I should have two of them soon. I'm also looking for #9's. If I do end up fully collecting both sets I'll definitely auction the one with higher numbers.

Actually, I received mine in the first pack that was opened (IIRC). I'd say that that was one of the luckiest moments for me in recent times.

The thread title is most certainly wrong. The proposal was made by a random person and has no weight (at the moment). It is too early to jump to any kind of conclusions until major pools voice their opinions here.

No. What prevents me from creating accounts on that website and posting my "support" for this plan? Support 'via comments' can be easily faked on that website (correct me if I'm wrong).

That was never part of 'HK consensus'. The individuals there said that they would deliver a proposal, not that it would be merged into Core (they can't do that on their own anyways).

That's understandable considering that something like this would practically be a stab in the back. This is way too risky for a change that only ups the throughput from ~3 TPS to 6 TPS.

While your accuracy does seem very good, considering the quantity of posts (199) it is not something special. I sometimes notice your reports, but they're far less frequent than some of the top reporters (having a few thousand reports and reporting accuracy of over 95% is excellent). Anyhow, threads like these are usually not a good idea as they get abused by signatuer spammers with their seemingly on-topic posts.

That has nothing to do with "being a rat".

It took me a few years to become such an expert, but it was worth it!

Yes, I've read that. The reason that I've stated that it is a failed FUD post "at r/btc" is simply because the "people" there are talking about this like it was either signed by the big pools or already in effect.

It is not a credible threat of any kind at the moment. It seems more in the lines of a manipulative attempt at trolling. Let's see how this one plays out, shall we?