I see this posed by mods a lot of the time and not to bash but think this is a way of saying "My way or the Highway" and I enjoy the forum.
This is a privately owned forum; theymos makes the rules not the moderators. We enforce them and there is a huge difference there. Least you say it in a gentler way,seen another mod thats a little more crusty around the edges saying it in a more hostile manner.
Well, I don't mean it in any bad way. The forum is what it is, not a lot has changed over the years. I can't tell you how many times reputable members here have told me in private they don't agree with the actions of staff or other highly ranked people here, but they refuse to get involved because it puts them at risk from being attacked and having their own reputation destroyed for doing so.
Bullshit. Whoever thinks this is very wrong. I can't say much about reputable members as I'm not in DT and don't watch the situation (closely), but the staff will certainly "attack you" if you disagree with them. The moderators tend to have different views among themselves in addition to disagreeing with theymos on certain rules and such. There's nothing wrong with that. |
|
|
|
So you do realise that if we had followed Satoshi's idea then Bitcoin would have actually failed because the number of txs could not be processed in 10 minutes (or don't you care about such facts)? Veritas is a blind fool. He sees Satoshi as some kind of god and once you call him out on that he says that he "just agrees with his vision". Satoshi was not a good programmer (let's not talk about engineering) nor did he had the data that we have today. Actually, we should just leave him in peace. His words (from the past) about this debate don't really matter. If you are a new user, you won't be able to mine any block in any meaningful time, so your only choice is to connect to any of the mining pools, and this is already the case today, mining has been separated from the full nodes client since years ago.
Nonsense. Just because you don't have the money to do that, that does not mean that somebody else doesn't. Even if you are a new mining farm with enough R&D resources, you won't be able to construct 100MB block since there is usually only 1MB transaction every 10 minutes, maybe 5MB during peak. Unless you are an attacker intentionally construct huge blocks with lots of spamming transactions, you won't be able to construct a large block. But in that case the rest of the miners are rejecting such attacking blocks
In other words, having such a block size limit is stupid at best. |
|
|
|
Agreed, out of necessity it was just one guy that created it, over time however this power must become more distributed, that time is now, Bitcoin is growing and evolving.
Nonsense. Nothing has to change and Bitcoin will keep working the same way that it does now. The word "must" is completed wrong here. There isn't a good reason for this unless you want other people to have github keys of the main implementation. Development is not centralized. |
|
|
|
|
So if the situation is really as bad as you claim, why don't you leave? I mean, if one dislikes this forum I have no idea why they would force themself to stick around.
|
|
|
|
If the object of the game is to agree on which transactions/blocks are valid, then why would you introduce a competition? Competition and agreement are opposing concepts; it's not possible to agree with a proposition whilst also simultaneously contesting it. Bitcoin runs on consensus, and competing nodes is anti-consensus, by definition.
I concur. Even though there are times that a "challenge" to the existing team might be necessary, wanting to introduce competition as a 'standard' is foolish. I've decided to go along with whatever Randyfolds, Kluge, dree12 and LoupGaroux agree is right. But they all need to respond in this thread.
Why those individuals? I will stay and I really do not think it matters which side wins. This will work itself out organically as it is a great design and well thought out.
And everyone will live happily ever after?  I will stay as there is and will always be a lot profit to be made with Bitcoin.
So you're only here because of profit? How lovely. |
|
|
|
You mean multiverse theoretcally possible? Don't be retarded, Lauda. Not even for a minute.  He had interaction with them, the possibility is present. Payment channel itself is coming from traditional finance practice, so it will also make bitcoin works more like a traditional financial system. I don't think this is what bitcoin should become. It is a challenge to scale bitcoin on-chain, but that technical difficulty should not change your course to transform bitcoin into something else
No matter how many times you repeat this lie, it won't make it true. Prove that a corporation is directing (i.e. not simply funded by) people like Greg Maxwell or Peter Todd. You can't, no such evidence exists.
All they have is circumstantial because e.g. Maxwell has a different view of scaling. The problem here is that people with limited or no experience in scaling systems are trying to tell people who have experience with scaling large scale systems before. |
|
|
|
What prevents most of the miners reject such a block? Nothing. You took have an hour to verify this block, only to find out that the main chain already extended by 3 blocks and this block is orphaned, what is the point?
So as a new user joining the system, I'm not allowed to mine the blocks that I want (within the block size limit)? Don't you see how idiotic this is? The global average does not make any sense. You need only 7000 enterprise level 1Gbps full nodes and mining nodes to keep the system decentralized, and rest of the slow internet user can just use SPV nodes. And you can already do it today. In 5 years, those full nodes can be upgraded to 10Gbps
You are the one who isn't making sense. I have no idea why ICEBREAKER even lets you spread nonsense here. People who run nodes don't really have an incentive (aside from businesses and miners?) to spend even more money on them. Even if we disregard the cost in advanced countries, exactly how do you plan that node operators in third world countries to upgrade to 1 Gbps (not to mention 10 Gbps)? Oh right, they don't matter for you (IIRC you mentioned the network being okay with 100 nodes; I could be mistaken).
Are you going to provide the funds for this network-wide upgrade? |
|
|
|
I general adding features is always good - if there is value. Right now, it might be the only chance for Classic to get along with some more as just the 2mb.
Or - that's what I prefer - it might finally lead to a code-compromise when the good features would come together (in core) and we can all sit back & calm down...
The problem isn't features, it is manipulation. Even if we disregard whether the added features are good or not, you have to remember that they sold the story of "just Core with a 2 MB block size limit". Now they have moved away from it and started adding un-reviewed features (unless you could reviews by Toomin  ). At least in the time of XT they weren't trying to sell you such a story. |
|
|
|
The block size limit is not the same as real block size. Even if you remove the limit, it does not mean miners will mine 100MB blocks, there will not be so many transactions with fee in 10 minutes. Attackers can send 100MB blocks but that will be rejected by miners immediately.
What prevents somebody from becoming a miner and mining such a block? Nothing. I don't think we have ever reached the network bandwidth bottleneck. With an average 70% increase in transaction volume per year, the network will be fine at least for another 5 years, and by that time, 4K/8K TV rolling out will make the average home bandwidth jump to 1Gbps to be able to get 8K live broadcast
Global average in 2015: 5.1 Mbps; and you're trying to sell us the story that the global average will be 1 Gbps in 5 years (i.e. 200 times more)? Just stop. |
|
|
|
So Classic is just 2MB to start, then some other shit? Well that was more than a bit deceiving.  That's usually how it goes. They tell you "it's just Core with a 2 MB block size limit" to pull you towards them and then they start adding random "features". Conspiracy theorize all you like, even if it were all true it wouldn't excuse making incorrect statements about Classic's plans...
You can't reason with them; just ignore such people. We saw through the "only 2MB and that's all" right away. It was a coup from the start, starting with 20MB blocks increasing exponentially to 2MB and increasing exponentially with no concerns of the externalized costs of spam on the network... or a radically different bitcoin than what most developers and users support.
Just remember that 20 MB block size limit was "urgent" almost a year ago. If we had listening to him, who knows that would have happened. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Duplicate.
|
|
|
|
Correct, that's why it doesn't really matter which side wins, because whoever does is because they have a good, working team.
Classic has a good team? This must be a terrible joke. >failure of bitcoins [sic] reason for existence
What does that even mean?
You'd know if you had joined for the right reasons. It depends on when you entered bitcoin world, if you have waited long then you should stay as staying can be profitable in future.
So you're only here because of (potential) profit? |
|
|
|
imam 50eu na raspolaganju gdje da ulozim cldmine hashocean ili eobot Bolje ti je da ih posaljes meni za ulozeni trud na forumu nego da ulazes u takve stvari. |
|
|
|
Funny, you said in December that it would be ready by February, at latest.
I guessed and I was wrong (as by ready, I mean a open beta). There's not much that I can do about it. I don't know much, being a Computer Science student in Guatemala, but I would think over a million dollars and about (over?) a year's worth of software development would suffice for a forum.
Brooks' law is a claim about software project management according to which "adding manpower to a late software project makes it later"
You should have heard about this in a CS major (this is just a singular example). Call me ignorant, but looks like there's been little to no product produced by those million dollars.
Actually you can see the beta already. However, it seems to be down at the moment due to a 502 error. |
|
|
|
Veritas, how do you know he was talking to you? Isn't the answer to that question obvious? |
|
|
|
This seems to be a ridiculous statement, Core does have an intention and vision for Bitcoin as they should, it is a vision I fundamentally disagree with though, you denying that they even have a plan and vision for Bitcoin is not helping your case.
No. There are people who disagree with the visions of others. Core is made up out of a lot of individuals that are employees by various companies. There are different views. Complexity should be avoided, one of the things Bitcoin has going for it over the alt coins is simplicity, Bitcoin needs to be able to be understood by everyday people, adding complexity does not help this case. It is revealing that you do see the value in keeping Bitcoin as simple as possible to understand.
Bullshit. Simple example (change with cash, internet, computers, whatever): You don't even have a single clue on how your smartphone's camera works and yet you're using it. Stop with these idiotic statements. Says nothing about increasing the total supply. Some random comments on reddit speculating that it might be possible means nothing. You're actually quoting Toomin? Input from someone with real knowledge and skills is desired. Obviously he is very biased in this case, thus quoting making no logical sense.
You guys are rude, I am not a shill and your arguments would be more convincing if you did not resort to personal attacks in almost every one of your posts. I will be retreating back to Bitco.in which is my new home.
You expect us to respect you when you are cheer leading your nonsense everywhere with foolish statements/attempts at arguing. Yes, please go back to that shit-hole. |
|
|
|
|
This topic has been moved to Trashcan.
Reason: Account generator.
|
|
|
|
Segwit makes further blocksize increases problematic after it is implemented, you should stop pretending that you want Bitcoin to scale directly, or at the very least acknowledge that this is not Core's intention over the long run, they have made this very clear now.
It doesn't. There is no such thing as "Core's" intention. Core is not a company, nor a centralized group with leadership. Segwit is far to complex and its implementation is being rushed, this is dangerous. Increasing the blocksize is a much simpler change while it also increases transactional capacity more then Segwit does.
Logic presented:"I'm lacking knowledge and since I can barely grasp this concept it must be far to complex.". I though fallacies were your thing (hint: personal incredulity). There isn't still a valid reason to opt in for the blocksize limit increase over Segwit, all I see is rambling about complexity. -snip-
The rest is an indirect copy from somewhere. Which forum is it? It is good to also keep in mind that using the soft fork method for deploying Segwit any changes can be made, including increasing the blocksize or the supply of Bitcoin itself, turning full nodes into non validating nodes whenever such changes are made.
Source? This is an ugly hack, hard forks are far more elegant and represent the cornerstone of the very governance mechanism of Bitcoin.
No matter how many times you repeat such idiotic statements, it won't make them true ("elegant"). |
|
|
|
The facts are supporting what I am saying, Bitcoin can easily handle two megabyte blocks and smaller blocks are not better unless you think that transactions becoming more expensive and less reliable is a good thing. There is not enough space for everyone to transact regardless of the fee that is payed with such a restricted blocksize. I understand that technological growth is unlikely to continue growing exponentially, however while our technological limits can still handle it we should allow Bitcoin to continue to grow exponantially since this is what is good for Bitcoin in regards to the virtues cycle of adoption, value, security and utility.
There is nothing that would justify going for a 2 MB block size limit instead of Segwit, especially when it is so close to completion. We've talked about this a few times already. You will get the desired expansion in transaction capacity. Additionally, there should be a block size increase proposal afterwards. Nobody really knows why 'you guys' keep on rambling. |
|
|
|
I voted for it does not matter what side wins. Why? For me this is a religious question. I want to see Bitcoin to be successfull. If all people would have this in mind we would not have such a tricky situation.
I'm uncertain as to which position is more stupid: 1) Not knowing (ignorance); 2) Not caring (disinterested). I'm leaning more towards your position. What do you think is going to happen if you let Bitcoin be taken over by a small group of inexperienced developers being backed by a corporation (Coinbase)? Take a wild guess. Because it doesn't matter what side wins as long as Bitcoin develops further... Can't really do that without real developers and engineers. the only negative point i see is when bitcoin classic indeed wins the battle (which i don't think will happen), then a certain group can stand up and create bitcoin ultimate for example, to take over classic.
That's definitely not the only point because:  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
