Many of the postings here and elsewhere are viewed by folks trying to take the pulse of Bitcoin. They turn around and write blogs or articles for various news outlets. They can't always tell (or don't care to) which postings represent the real action. Controversy makes for exciting news. If they see calm thoughtful debate then they will get the sense that Bitcoin is moving in a good direction. Compromise, collaboration; these are the tools we can use to forge a positive attitude toward Bitcoin.
i like Controversy. i put forth wild ideas ( MEGA BLOCKS ) so we can have a crazy discussion . should i stop and try and be more sensible / agreeable ? Keep those ideas flowing. There could be a winner in it. Be prepared to be dismissed/ignored but if you see potential value then for goodness sakes get it out. Take each protest to your ideas seriously; argue *for* that protest as if it were yours; own it. If you are seen as the strongest debater against your idea and still it comes out on top then you will be respected. It is much less about being agreeable and more about being collaborative. once they realize your argument is strong, they start to ridicule you by twisting your words, semantics.... i like what your saying you'd probaly find that https://bitco.in/forum is a much more hosiptiable place. |
|
|
|
the segwit pull request is bigger than all other pull request posted for the past 2 years combined
thats the word on the street anyway.
Oh no! Someone call Gavin! Lines of code too scary for the Bitco.in crowd! Must stick to "solutions" that don't even attempt to scale the network!  .... i find it silly to say that 2MB block aka doubling capacity has no scaling effect. Look up the word "scalability" and explain how adding throughout with no scaling mechanism scales anything. "Scalability is the capability of a system, network, or process to handle a growing amount of work" ok so right now we can handle ~3TPS ( about the same as TX demand today) with 2MB blocks we can handle ~6TPS ( about twice the TX demand today ) I sorta get what you mean i guess thin blocks would be an example of adding "scalability" in your very strict terms |
|
|
|
Many of the postings here and elsewhere are viewed by folks trying to take the pulse of Bitcoin. They turn around and write blogs or articles for various news outlets. They can't always tell (or don't care to) which postings represent the real action. Controversy makes for exciting news. If they see calm thoughtful debate then they will get the sense that Bitcoin is moving in a good direction. Compromise, collaboration; these are the tools we can use to forge a positive attitude toward Bitcoin.
i like Controversy. i put forth wild ideas ( MEGA BLOCKS ) so we can have a crazy discussion . should i stop and try and be more sensible / agreeable ? |
|
|
|
its probably best to not look at what anyone is saying about any of this and try to come up with your own idea of which you like better
do you want the scaling to effect node cost or TX cost.
simple as that.
No, that is only if you approach this as 1mb vs 2mb. It's 1mb-->Segwit-->weak blocks/IBLT/LN-->1.5+mb vs 2mb with core we are sure to pay higher and higher fees to TX on the mainchain with classic we are sure to pay higher and higher internet usages bills and have to upgrade our computers running the nodes. is this wrong? |
|
|
|
Perception is reality. Bitcoin would do better to present a united and polished marketing message. I see value in Segwit (for goodness sakes get it freakin' right; oh and hurry up). I see value in a larger block size limit *before* it becomes a crisis. It really isn't Core vs. Classic, etc., that matters. Rather, what matters is creating a perception that Bitcoin is healthy and moving in a desirable direction.
I run a full node. So far I have alternated between Core and Classic and am interested in running Unlimited at least for awhile. Is there *any* sense in running more than one at the same time?
is it up to us users ( how feel strongly about 2MB or segwit or core or classic or offchain or onchain, without really knowing the code ) to deliver this united and polished marketing message? If not us then who? ya i get that... but we are hardly in a posisiton to come up with a united and polished marketing message. we all have such different views. and poeple are rage quitting left and right. i mean look at this.  |
|
|
|
I support the Classic Bitcoin - Bitcoin Core. (Who came up with these names??)
i think the idea of naming bitcoin classic "classic" is because its more inline with what the creator envisioned as the scaling method ( bigger blocks leading to higher node costs ) so we could say this bigger block idea is the "classical method" core's second layer is the modern method |
|
|
|
Perception is reality. Bitcoin would do better to present a united and polished marketing message. I see value in Segwit (for goodness sakes get it freakin' right; oh and hurry up). I see value in a larger block size limit *before* it becomes a crisis. It really isn't Core vs. Classic, etc., that matters. Rather, what matters is creating a perception that Bitcoin is healthy and moving in a desirable direction.
I run a full node. So far I have alternated between Core and Classic and am interested in running Unlimited at least for awhile. Is there *any* sense in running more than one at the same time?
is it up to us users ( who feel strongly about 2MB or segwit or core or classic or offchain or onchain, without really knowing the code ) to deliver this united and polished marketing message? |
|
|
|
the segwit pull request is bigger than all other pull request posted for the past 2 years combined
thats the word on the street anyway.
Oh no! Someone call Gavin! Lines of code too scary for the Bitco.in crowd! Must stick to "solutions" that don't even attempt to scale the network! .... i find it silly to say that 2MB block aka doubling capacity has no scaling effect. what you mean is it doesn't open the door for the Lighting network. ( another 5billion line scary monster of a system  ) you can send to TX to the payment chancel and its good for ever or untill the time is up, once the time is up the chancel gets close and if you have R you can broadcast it to blueberry pie network which will relay that cmd to the 100000 PHs bitcoin miners, because the miners operate on 0 knowledge proofs they process the TX for a small fee. hahaha sorry, ignore that last part. |
|
|
|
Classic and Core, both of them are good. If you are using Core, you should stick to it. Thats what i recommend.
In the long Run, both will be equally better and important.
in the long run both will adhere to the same protocol (what ever that happens to be 2MB blocks or segwit-ed blocks). there will be no forking off. |
|
|
|
|
the segwit pull request is bigger than all other pull request posted for the past 2 years combined
thats the word on the street anyway.
|
|
|
|
“I'm glad that Gavin has raised this issue and offered a concrete proposal. However, as discussed on the developers’ mailing list, everyone else seems to want gradual growth and not a single large-size step-increase. Coinkite does support a block size increase, although I'm not sure how urgent an issue it is. I feel personally, that 20 megabytes is too big in the short term.”  |
|
|
|
“We support Gavin's proposal as we think it is important for Bitcoin's growth and development to get ahead of this hard cap before it is a problem. Many of us are already circumventing this by processing as many transactions as possible off the blockchain which makes Bitcoin more centralized, not less.”  |
|
|
|
Bitcoin -- like any engineering project -- requires very careful planning and execution.
You know that open source software is experimental, it does not guarantee anything, and it does not responsible for any financial loss caused by using it, so it does not necessary need careful planning and execution, just the community decide where it goes, called consensus, can lead to ruin any time, run it at your own risk LOL. "Open source" means throw all caution to the wind, eh? Fair enough--that's Gavin's position. "It's just an experiment, who cares if we break it?" Which works for Gavin because he said all along he thinks Bitcoin is a payment channel, not a store of value, so he doesn't hold much if any. It's always obvious who has invested real money into Bitcoin, and who hasn't, in these conversations. Well don't expect the rest of us to agree with your reckless proposals on the basis that you don't care whether it survives. " Gavin is as recklessness johnyj " come on stop this BS.... |
|
|
|
Bitcoin -- like any engineering project -- requires very careful planning and execution.
You know that open source software is experimental, it does not guarantee anything, and it does not responsible for any financial loss caused by using it, so it does not necessary need careful planning and execution, just the community decide where it goes, called consensus, can lead to ruin any time, run it at your own risk i think we can all agree we should atleast TRY to processed carefully.... posted nearly 2months ago. what have they been doing all this time? Coding and testing Segwit. Libsec, Core 0.12 optimizations. I'm not sure on the progress re IBLTs and weak blocks. Segwit was targeted for code ready in April.... so more then 2 weeks to Deploy when programmers say "its relatively simple" i hear "very few human beings on earth understand this shit" when programmers say "it shouldn't take more than 2 weeks" i hear "We'll get beta running in 3 months and probably be working on this forever. " |
|
|
|
posted nearly 2months ago. what have they been doing all this time? |
|
|
|
I too support segwit, but i would rather play it safe with 2MB, and have little interest in moving TX off chain prematurely
Okay, well then your position is opposed to all the devs that think otherwise. Such is life. so its just me and Gavin then... everyone else rage-quit already?  |
|
|
|
|
its probably best to not look at what anyone is saying about any of this and try to come up with your own idea of which you like better
do you want the scaling to effect node cost or TX cost.
simple as that.
|
|
|
|
glad to see your onboard for segwit.
How about you roll a blunt or open a bottle of wine and chill a bit, you're not helping yourself getting all excited and drinking the bitco.in kool aid. Really, stay away from that place it's full of scammers and liars. What do you mean? frapdoc is totally legit! *cough* Hashfast *cough* Friend, just in case you're young & naive: Nnothing and no one here "is totally legit." Welcome to Bitcoin. What are you suggesting? That we should ignore the fact that people like frapdoc and jl777 pulled massive scams on the bitcoin community? If you're suggesting that everyone in the community has done so.... well, I disagree. No, not suggesting that everyone has. Many have, more have tried & failed (because not smart enough to steal even from their fellow intrepid entrepreneurs -- the other bitcoin enthusiasts). And pretty much the rest are just grist for the mill -- victims, degenerate gamblers, those who prey on degenerate gamblers. And those who eke out a living by promoting illegal dice sites [that prey on degenerate gamblers] in their signatures, and those who post that for the Nth time they're "all in" because moon and CCMF, etc., etc... Have I missed anyone? I'm sure I have. bargainbin views are always so brutally honest with a side of trollishness its quite entertaining! but at times extremely annoying... meh wtv. moving on. |
|
|
|
What are you suggesting? That we should ignore the fact that people like frapdoc and jl777 pulled massive scams on the bitcoin community? If you're suggesting that everyone in the community has done so.... well, I disagree.
this is interesting what scam did cypherdoc pull off? ... he denies it was a scam. Basically quite a few guys pre-paid for ASIC mining equipment that was never delivered, cypherdoc was front and center pumping the pre-sale here on bitcoin talk ... bottom line, those guys didn't get any mining equipment and cypherdoc (and some others) got their BTC, cypherdoc pocketed 3000BTC ... when challenged directly on the ethics of this he just says "stuff-mumble-stuff lawyers" https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1105722.0dang thats really kinda nutty... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=8389wow he even ripped off gmaxwell kinda sounds like he got sucked into promoting Hashfast and Hashfast never delivered? |
|
|
|
It is better not do this kind of project because all the space project are very centralized, where programmers have no decision making right Bitcoin -- like any engineering project -- requires very careful planning and execution. god forbid we K.I.S.S ( keep it simple stupid) That doesn't address the issue. Less lines of code is not by definition a better solution, particularly when it does nothing to scale the protocol. Basically, this. Developers overwhelmingly support the Core roadmap. Wallet developers and library maintainers are overwhelmingly supportive of Segwit, despite this misinformation on this forum that "omg, too many lines of code, such complex!" Bitfury/Alex Petrov, who produce compelling whitepapers on the system from mathematical/statistical perspective and understand the limitations of p2p infrastructure, are highly supportive of Core.
its would be nice if this could be clear, i mean devs outside of blockstream coming out and saying they like segwit over 2MB. I'm not sure there's as much support as you paint, but i really dont have much clue. lets ask the guys that are building "iguana" https://bitco.in/forum/forums/iguana.23/or maybe the programer of the bitfinex wallet. or idk everyone else outside of core, ofcourse core devs think core devs are right.... what does the Ether kid think? You mean jl777? He has some reputation as an altcoin scammer; not surprising he is pushing Classic. See here, here, here and here. Not to mention he made a fool of himself misunderstanding all the basics about Segwit in this thread, while trying to discredit it. Phil Potter (CSO, BFX) signed the "A Call for Consensus" document, confirming their support for the Core roadmap. And what do respected wallet developers/library maintainers have to say? Let's see: Blocktrail CTO and BitcoinJS Co-Maintainer Ruben De Vries: Segregated Witness Not Very ComplicatedLawrence Nahum: Bitcoin Wallet GreenAddress Already Integrating Segregated WitnessBreadwallet CEO Aaron Voisine: SegWit Soft Fork First, Block Size Hard Fork LaterMycelium's Leo Wandersleb: Segregated Witness a Technical NecessityElectrum Developer Thomas Voegtlin: Soft Fork Preferable for Political Reasons; Segregated Witness Highly SupportableCore Developer, libbtc Library Maintainer and digitalbitbox Developer Jonas Schnelli: Segregated Witness is Less Than a Week of Work to Test and DeployErmagherd!!!! Segwit is just too complex!!!! why did it fork the test net? was it TOO simple? re-read the links you post, some devs are quoted to be classic supports in there but they are willing to go along with segwit +2MB later, because it appears to be the faster option. what does the ether kid think about this? i feel your not being objective about this. I too support segwit, but i would rather play it safe with 2MB, and have little interest in moving TX off chain prematurely |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
