IIRC it was from some pool. However, one would have to validate this himself as people tend to use such charts for manipulation. You can see this clearly as there is zero indication of what this chart actually represents.

Yeah, you have no valid arguments then you try to reduce things to nonsense. Quite obvious.

Nodes are occasionally under DDoS.

I don't think there are one. There are too many possible variables that need to be accounted for and even then the estimation would be bad.

Well, if a DDoS attack takes down everything then you're left without nodes and without them you have no network.

Strange question. What is Bitcoin to you? As soon as you kick out individuals by doing various actions (e.g. expontentially increase costs) you are essentially 'censoring' their usage of Bitcoin.

If they didn't matter, there would be no Classic. This was always about power because if you ask each developer individually you are going to be left with Gavin and Garzik in favor of a 2 MB block size limit and everyone else being against it.

People who want to fork are trying to change Bitcoin.

If the people who are working on Classic had decent skills they'd help out with Segwit, but they don't. Segwit is nearing completion, however it should not be rushed.

Why would anyone waste time trying to do this?

This topic has been moved to Service Discussion.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1412629.0

Well, yes. Bitcoin would not only start losing its decentralization, it would also lose its censorship resistance. I doubt that anyone would want to use it at that point.

Honestly, with corporations such as Coinbase standing behind them it would not surprise me. However, they won't make the same mistake as XT and would probably implement it down the road.

Indeed.

Even though it is, people like Armstrong promote this service. Quite strange isn't it?

This ain't some 'ill conceived notion'. If you want Bitcoin to succeed then it has to be as decentralized as possible, and in order for it to remain as decentralized as possible you have to keep the cost of running a node as low as possible. Bitcoin is about individual sovereignty.

Transacting on any layer should be accessible at a relatively low cost. Whether you transact on the main chain, side chain or LN it doesn't matter.

A very strange case.

This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Referral link.

This statement is stupid as it implies that this group of developers are somehow act and work as a group (which would imply centralization among other things), but they don't. Core is 'decentralized' as it consists out of a good number of developers employed by various companies. These developers have differentiating views when it comes to a lot of things (this is a good thing).

No. You fail to realize that this would result in a very low number of nodes which makes the network more susceptible to a DDoS attack (anything can be crashed with one).

If you kick out individuals and add government/institutions/corporations into the equation you will most likely end up with a central authority.

Run by various government/institutions/corporations != decentralized coin. That's a "Capital Coin". If you want such a coin, just fork off with the existing support that you have already. Don't try turning Bitcoin into something that it isn't.

It is possible. You get to control the main implementation (currently Core); i.e. you try to make your own implementation the main one. There are only a handful of people who have Bitcoin Core commit keys right now.

As soon as you start writing nonsense such as "Blockstream core" you easily reveal just how biased and deluded your viewpoint is.

This makes zero sense.

Not necessarily, but yes.

They aren't adding any "fixes" solely for Blockstream. If you think that the Lightning Network is Blockstream's product, then you're wrong.

It is being rushed (28 days grace period).

This seems similar to the nonsense that Veritas was spreading. I have no proper words to describe how stupid this is as this goes against everything that Bitcoin stood for over the years (and what was trying to be achieved). Bitcoin was always about individual sovereignty; sovereignty which will be lost if you have a system where a node costs $10k or more per year. Bitcoin will only remain decentralized as long as running a node costs as little as possible.

Great. I just assumed that this is the case as it tends to be more frequently than it should. A lot of people are indeed unhappy about reddit. Try posting something pro Bitcoin Core on /r/btc and you are going to end up either censored or down-voted heavily.

As long as you know the difference between moderation and censorship all will be fine.

People who actually know the truth? The average reader won't read everything, they usually read one source and take that as the truth. If you take a look now /r/bitcoin seems to have improved and is now back to discussing relatively positive news.

If you're particularly interested in those, then yes. Otherwise the answer is no.

I was talking about this forum, not the reddit page but okay.

Well, you're being fed a lot of bad information if you're reading everything.

This is not the case.

Nonsense. That forum is not any better; you're allowed to talk about whatever you want here as long as you don't break rules.

It is still much better than the alternatives.

They think that if their post gets removed that they're being censored. This is obviously a ridiculous view.

No. Stop defending due to bias when it is obvious that you are not right.

---

---

OP, there was a post in their own subreddit about it: Meta...Anyone else sick of this sub being anti-r/Bitcoin instead of pro-Bitcoin? . You will find people justifying these actions which makes one wonder whether:
1) They're sadists.
2) They're shills.
3) There's something else wrong with them.

---

---

This negativity does not help anyone. It is time to stop.

This must be a joke gone bad.

OP you could have looked this up quickly with a single Google search. It was discussed in the past. Since nobody posted it, it might be worth adding:
Divide this by the population of the world and you end up with:

---

---

[1] - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=24268.0
[2] - https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses#Generating_tons_of_addresses

Obviously for. If a HF is going to happen, then the developers should use that opportunity to 'clean up' and possibly implement some things from the hard fork wish list.

There's a difference between what users want, what is achievable and what kind of side-effects it is going to cause.

They aren't.

Nice story about "tests".

It is worth adding that both Gavin and Garzik have not had any significant contributions to Bitcoin lately. Aside from them, Classic does not have anyone that one could even label as 'decent'. His BIP goes against everything that was learned over the years. Even Garzik strongly disagrees with the proposed grace period.

Maybe Bitcoin Original or Bitcoin Reloaded.  

Not really, no.

If they didn't seek to split the chain, their activation threshold would be north of 90%. You can make such claims all day long. If their intentions were truly pure and for the sake of Bitcoin, they would never risk the negative effects of a network split (e.g. 3/4 and 1/4).

Introducing competition in a consensus based algorithm; interesting proposal.  

Anyone who wants to rush temporary 'fixes' that would enable more people to join the system is most likely led by greed.

Yes there is. Bitcoin would be most likely worthless if it weren't decentralized. If you want a coin that is run by corporations/government/rich people, then you've come to the wrong place.

We're just having a date with Sybil.