|
Actually if we simplify the situation we can get a better picture of the problem. The main problems are the time of activation and the consensus threshold. As far as things stand and Classic is concerned the consensus threshold is 75% and the grace period is 4 weeks (IIRC). This means, that they expect that the whole industry to upgrade in a very short amount of time. This is ridiculous; we can't even get the miners to agree on a single soft fork in that matter of time. Even if we disregard the groups behind the current implementation a fork should have:
1) Minimum 95% consensus threshold
2) Scheduled 6 months or longer from now
A fork in the current scenario would have a negative effect on everything just for a little increase in TPS, which can be achieved with Segwit.
|
|
|
|
Moronic memes won't make your case any better. Blockstream is trying to own Bitcoin by calling everything else an 'Alt'.
You have no humor which tells me something. Anyhow, Blockstream never really called everything else an "alt". You're really confused, or you've been deluded by people spreading propaganda or it is because of something else. You're confusing Blockstream with theymos in this case. Large blocks are needed, necessary and prudent.
Large blocks are not needed right now. We need a increase in transaction capacity. This does not mean that we need to increase the block size necessarily. Segwit will do just fine for now. Blockstream is a private company trying to cripple blockchain so people will buy their solution. They've got to be stopped!
Sidechains are open source, LN is open source and free to use. What's your point here exactly? You're not buying anything here.
Please avoid ad hominem, propaganda and baseless accusations against anyone. One could argue that Gavin is corrupted by the CIA, but it is best to avoid these things when there's no proof. |
|
|
|
 HI KEEP YOU ARE VERY INTEGRITY AND MUCH WISDOM WHY THANK YOU MIKE IT'S SO NICE TO MEET YOU HERE, YOU ARE HIGHLY INTELLIGENCE You're not even trying anymore which makes me wonder if you've become desperate? You're just working against Core and in favor of Classic. Usually most of the stuff that you've written is false. |
|
|
|
-snip-
This is just a opinion full of assumptions. Once you have evidence of anything then we might discuss it. Apparently you think Coinbase is a good (and honest?) company; is Brian a saint too?  Just keep in mind that Maxwell's opinions have not changed since 2013 and Blockstream was funded in late 2014. bitcoin core devs are history, we will have new devs in a few months. bitcoin chaos is upon us and we will see the next 9 months that will be insane.... good luck all
No. You are willing to risk a 6 billion market cape and hope that we will "have new devs in a few months". This is irrational at best. |
|
|
|
If they keep spamming, how is removing the signature a solution though? If the problem is spam the solution is to stop the spam. The incentive might be the signature but its hard to tell in advance. Maybe it can be an additional option to remove the signature. E.g. short period ban (3 days), followed by a slightly longer (7 days) removal of the signature. That way you can see if they just wait the 7 days or actually want to contribute w/o getting paid for it.
I'm talking about signature spammers in particular. In 99% of the cases the incentive is the paid signature. Now what you're suggesting seems acceptable to me. However, you're a bit soft. I'd go with a 3d ban followed by 30d removal of signature. It should not only be a 'test' to see whether they are going to continue posting in the period, but rather a punishment as well. |
|
|
|
this will most likely not happen because other rule-breakers without sig ad will get harsher punishment. also I don't see how this is better than temp-ban in terms of teaching them a lesson.
Instead of giving them a temporary ban, you remove their signature permanently. The problem resolves itself, their account becomes effectively useless in regards to signature campaigns. This seems much better than the current way of handling things. ban is better for spammers, heavier punishment is needed and if they dont want their account to be permanently banned then they should improve their posting quality.
Usually a lot of them don't. They keep spamming and then switch onto their next account if the current one gets banned. |
|
|
|
Is it possible if the whole thread get locked first then and just reopen it once a modertor is selected?
Yes. If no mods can action to this yet then maybe it is better to just not allow these kind of actions yo be made by locking the whole section. Maybe most of our fellow members in there will come to their senses of their rubbish acts.This is not a suggetion to take away their freedom o speech in here, but more of a way to teach them o how to respect the forum specially the subsection that was recently given to us.
You're talking about the Philippines section, right? If so, I see a moderator appointed to it. You should start reporting posts or work with him directly (if he's willing to do so). Quite often it is uncertain if a post is going to be deleted because the poster is trolling/making useless posts/off-topic. Different moderators view the situation differently. |
|
|
|
1. Razmjene robe koja je ilegalna u zemlji prodavatelja ili kupca je zabranjeno. 2. Umetnite [zatvoreno] oznaku teme kada je vaša ponuda istekla. 3. Postoje posebna ograničenja pri prodaji računa i poziva za 'invite-only' stranice. 4. 'Bumps', odnosno obnove teme su ograničene na jednom dnevno (24 sata).
Također se zahtijeva korištenje prefiksa kako bi sekcija bila urednija i lakša za koristiti: - [K] - Kupujem
- [P] - Prodajem
- [M] - Mijenjam
- [Usluga] - Servis/Usluge
|
|
|
|
Greg and the gang rightfully earned their respect in the space, but that also doesn't mean they are immune
from becoming controlling, having their own agenda, or making bad decisions.
I have never claimed this though. Some feel this way and others do not who continue to support Core. Still others may be undecided or feel that both arguments have merit or that no one can be trusted anymore.
I disagree with some of those(those that solely oppose Core because of Blockstream). The block size debate started out as a technical discussion back when Gavin suggested 20 MB blocks (he was wrong). However, now it has turned mostly into a political game of speculation and accusations. I really don't know what will happen and I certainly
don't have all the answers.
Despite the chaos, what I love about all this is that its a free market. No one can force anyone to do anything. Everyone is free to make their own decisions, participate (or not) in whatever
they want, say whatever they want, and run whatever code they want.
This free market that you cherish enables manipulation of the average Joe and thus the possibility of self destruction becomes greater. I'm not saying that the free market is a bad thing, but it has its downsides (what doesn't?). I've seen so much false information in regards to Segwit, LN, sidechains, Blockstream and whatnot. |
|
|
|
Sidechains will make transactions fast. In the future only minority of transactions will be in the blockchain.
Sidechains will be implemented by soft fork.
What are you talking about? Not only is this not related to the thread, but it is also false. |
|
|
|
Perhaps a register of interests for those working on the production infrastructure or proposing changes to the production infrastructure might be worth thinking about.
Then go ahead. Who's preventing you from helping out in the current situation? Make a website about this and I'm sure you will attract attention and others will help. So then we agree on that point. But lets see if Core will do it.
Based on Greg's comments thus far, I'm sensing resistance.
It makes sense though. SegWit + 2 MB block size right now would be pushing it. Don't divide and conquer idiots, the price will halve.
This is why I would be willing to accept a fork that has a high consensus threshold. Whatever happens there we stand united (pretty much). I dislike the idea of splitting at 75% and forcing the other people to join because of high difficulty and whatnot. Do you really want that after all the struggle we've been trough?
If Bitcoin does end up being harmed because of it you can be assured that this was all part of someone's plan. |
|
|
|
Pretty much, yes. If not "more", then a huge chunk of the influence.
-snip-
So what would your proposal be (if we disregard the "alternative implementations"), remove commit access, ban them from working on the code due to Blockstream? How do you reduce this "influence" that you claim is present? There has to be a way of reverting it else you're the one who's being closed minded about this and not me, right? As a side note, I heard that Greg recently gave up his commit access. If that
is true and he did it to reduce conflict of interest, I applaud that but I think
it doesn't reduce his influence much.
I think that he did; not sure right now (I'll verify it as I'm curious). It makes sense when the community (parts of it) is essentially backstabbing you because of a single disagreement. GAVIN: MIT, COINBASE (Probably USG)
WLADIMIR: MIT (ibid.)
JEFF: BITPAY (I think)
PIETER: BLOCKSTREAM (Probably evil)
I think some live in a delusion where only people related to Blockstream could be evil and have an agenda (no, not talking about you). There is a possibility that every single one of them has a hidden agenda and whatnot (including everyone who works at Blockstream). We can't rule anyone out. |
|
|
|
It's not about "evidence of doing wrong", the point is Blockstream has huge influence
on Core due to the names I just mentioned.
So 3 people have more influence that then remaining contributors (~40 I believe)? How would this be possible? I thought Wladimir was running the show? He does not seem biased at all (right now). Saying that blockstream is 'just another company' is so obviously incorrect, its ridiculous.
To me it just shows how deep your bias is and that you'll argue even the dumbest points
to try to support your position.
Here we go again, direct attacks without proper arguments. Does it ever stop from your side ('your' as in the group that you support)? uow, that's pretty serious. Is that all FUD or should we be concerned bitcoin has been co-opted by corporate interests?
There's nothing wrong with a partnership between companies. The "FUD" claims are those that the other company is controlling Bitcoin right now even though there is zero evidence of this. Every time he opens his mouth, the price goes down, what the fuck? He is very negative to bitcoin's stability.
Quite the coincidence right? |
|
|
|
Very informative post here.
Do you guys have a guess on the behavior of bitcoin price after the hard fork?
In the case of 75% vs. 25% (i.e. split) -> negative effect (how much is debatable and speculation). In the case of a high consensus threshold (95% maybe) -> neutral/slightly negative or positive effect. if everyone is as close minded about this as you are i wish bitcoin a lot of luck for the future.
i like bitcoin, but it has flaws that needs fixed.. hence this thread..
and i cant see how fixing the transaction confirmation time is an "impossible feature" really.. if it took you an hour to get your money from the atm nobody would use them?
No. Segwit fixes flaws, a block size increase with Classic does nothing. The transaction "confirmation time" won't be "fixed" and is an impossible feature. If we start changing such fundamental rules we might as well move to another currency. Transacting money takes about a second. Confirmation time is something else and is usually 10 minutes per confirmation. |
|
|
|
Matt C, Greg M, Pieter W.
why make me state the obvious..they are not just another company.
They are to me. No idea why anyone should be obsessed by their payroll at Blockstream when there is no evidence of anything wrong happening (right now). The main problem is "Bitcoin core" is a centrally controlled development group with Blockstream/PWC running command and control.
FUD and possibly paid as CIYAM said. This has to be some sort of twisted joke. How could you even imply something like that a few days after their partnership announcement? You must have missed the memo. These companies direct core now, if you can't understand that, there's nothing I can do to help.
So partnering up implies controlling the other company? Go back to the troll cave please. This is exactly the kind of toxicity that Antonopoulos has talked about in the past. It is interesting how people are only playing one side of the game and making things obvious. Did anyone forget Gavin's visit to the CIA? This must imply that he is also controlled by them and that they're running the show, right? |
|
|
|
So then your argument is purely academic, since you believe there's only a minority supporting a fork anyway. Correct?
The answer here is both yes and no. Currently I believe that only a minority supports the fork. I'm not saying that this can't change though, nor am I saying how many people are actually in support of a block size increase (where supporting a block size increase doesn't imply that you support a different proposal (fork)). I wouldn't mind 2 MB blocks right now (if they properly fixed that attack vector without a workaround as Gavin proposed). However, in regards to Segwit or 2 MB blocks, I'd take Segwit. I'm not sure that increasing it to 2MB would cause re-centralisation of the bitcoin network.
I am also not sure that increasing it to 2MB would do very much! We could probably do wih increasing it to 10MB to make it more viable and a faster network (also offering greater difficulty and with greater difficulty can come a faster speed of hardware).
All wrong. 2 MB might cause some centralization due to less nodes being online (the number is dropping anyways though). We can't do 10 MB blocks because of propagation delay, validation time and orphans. An increase of the block size limit won't make the network 'more viable and faster'. The speed of the network will remain the same. |
|
|
|
Yes but I feel its really is Blockstream/Core that is creating the uncertainty through their 1. poor communication, 2. poor transparency, and 3. inflexibility.
1. Communication has been greatly improved (website, twitter) in a short amount of time. 2. Transparency isn't poor. If anything they're the most transparent ones among the developers. Meanwhile, the developers of other implementations just don't bother to tell you about their business partnerships at all. Makes me sick.
3. I could agree on this though. I would have approached this whole situation differently and there would be no forks (as in alternative implementations trying to take over) nor a block size debate. As far as Blockstream not profiting from LN. Ok, you can make that argument all you want but until its clear how Blockstream will profit, things are naturally suspicious.
They are just a single company. Do you care about how every other Bitcoin startup is going to profit from Bitcoin? That's not your concern unless you're directly related to them (this is where the bias is coming from). Btw, I apologize if my yesterday my remarks about your attitude seemed like an attack. I just think you are stuck thinking in one way about this, but we all have our biases.
I can sometimes seem aggressive and whatnot but I'm actually not. You have the wrong impression of me. I have changed my positions several time since the initial proposal from Gavin (20 MB). It's not that I think the Classic team is necessarily better than Core (although I do highly respect Gavin and Jeff Garzik), but we're frustrated.
That is the really nice thing about Bitcoin - being algorithmic it doesn't care that you are frustrated (and you should perhaps go out and find someone to help relieve that problem). Exactly. I don't see what an appeal to emotion has to do anything with Bitcoin? I've lost some faith in Gavin due to the 'urgent 20 MB blocks' proposal (we ended up debating if we should settle for 2 MB blocks now).
Some corrections. |
|
|
|
The Lightning Network which is privately owned by Blockstream. They want you to believe Bitcoin can't scale without you having to buy access to their system.
LN is not privately owned; you're trolling. Get your facts straight before spewing nonsense around here. |
|
|
|
..snip..
BTW denying majority do not want change is completly out of reallity, and they are not sockpupets, just check CMO of HaoBTC for example he is talking about real and really prominent Chinese Bitcoiners with overwhelming sentiment for real change, not just to 2 MB:
I didn't mean that. Quite a lot of people want to scale Bitcoin right now, they just can't agree on how to proceed. The minority however is fighting for a successful political fork. Here I am going to share with you what I saw and heard rather than my personal thoughts: I went to a Bitcoin event in Beijing last week. Some prominent Chinese Bitcoiners were also there. The sentiment was overwhelming that the ideal solution to the scaling question is implementing 2MB block size through a Core update as soon as possible. The Bitcoin Core team doesn't want to make a precedent because the team is controlled by Blockstream, who bet heavily on the success of Sidechains and Lightning Networks.
This is what I dislike. The post is based on uncertainty and not technicalities. Sidechains are going to be a success regardless of who is developing the main Bitcoin repository. Without LN on the other hand Bitcoin will never be able to scale enough for global adoption. Blockstream will most likely gain nothing from LN. Another thing that concerns me is this 'as soon as possible' which is an subjective and undefined time period. I would say that a scheduled hard fork needs to take place a minimum of 6 months from now (that's me willing to compromise, else I'd require more time). Others however want to rush it out as fast as it is possible to gain 75% threshold (some have said within a month; I disagree with the time and threshold). |
|
|
|
But if those very important names are taking money from private interests, where those private interests want them to impose artificial limitations that force bitcoin users to adopt fixes like those known as Lightning, then it is good to see those 'important names'.
This is called 'conflict of interest'. Bitcoin Core is controlled by those having a private interest aligned with limited the blocksize. Therefore, fuck them. Good riddance.
Wrong. There is basically zero evidence (which would be considered real and legit) in regards to these accusations. You've been deluded by the opposing party to think so (of course there's a chance, but that chance exists with everyone (see what happened with Hearn)). Segwit is essentially much better than a 2MB block size increase and it adds capacity as well (which grows upwards and is not an instant jump). Nobody is forcing Bitcoin users to do anything. Bitcoin can't scale efficiently without solutions such as the Lightning Network. Interestingly everyone seems to forget that the Core developers own a decent sum of Bitcoins and would probably profit more if the price went upwards.
The only underlying logic present here is: They don't agree with my view, therefore they are evil and want to artificially limit Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
