It's just a shame the BIP101 crowd are so against this dialogue
who is against the dialouge? Mike & Gavin for one apparently. |
|
|
|
...Also, since people like Gavin have been ranting on how
we are running out time...
Exactly. Don't you find it suspect he, and Mike, have been the only ones trying to hammer in this point? Gavin and Mike are the only ones? From my vantage point, over half of the Bitcoin community has been hammering on this point all summer long. A reaction only sparked by the Gavin blog post propaganda. Again, the lead up to current situation has been well documented |
|
|
|
“Now I am going to accuse you of strawmanning, and it's bizarre: you are strawmanning your own statements as opposed to mine. What you present in the above post is not what you tried to assert originally.” All I tried to assert originally is this:
That this white paper does not prove anything in terms of the question of whether it is intrinsically wrong to fork away from the Core developer team.
And that if Core does take to long to implement a block size increase within a reasonable amount of time, that Bitfury would most likely change their tune on this issue eventually anyway.
Yes.
"To me, it's only a matter of whether we get a big rise soon-ish because Core implements bigger blocks, or a gigantic rise later-ish because Bitcoin dev becomes decentralized away from Core."Zangelbert Bingledack, Yesterday at 2:06 AM http://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-is-awesome.17/#post-177 Keep that bs over there. The concern trolling about Bitcoin development is nothing but XT fans looking for another fight to lose. The small blockers will be the losers: Gmax: "We can't increase the block size limit because they'll be too many orphans." The cognitive dissonance is strong amongst the Frap.Doc followers  To be quite honest, aside from Mike & Gavin who obviously have no more legitimacy or future at all in this community, we will all come out of this as winners. |
|
|
|
The only issue I have with it is there are only two. How about a couple in Europe and South America?
Same, can't make it to Montreal so soon, and Hong Kong is too far. I think the main issue is they do respect the fact that it could get messier the longer this stays unresolved... The workshop were announced a couple weeks ago btw.. |
|
|
|
Seriously this is super disappointing that the developers can't come to some sort of agreement on a simple code change/removal of a number in the code.
Imagine adding any more changes to the code that could or would help bitcoin become a better digital cash that Satoshi meant Bitcoin to be.
Mind boggling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance |
|
|
|
I am TRYING to keep an open mind.
The thing is, 5 core guys couldn't agree on how and when to raise
the block size, but now we're going to have a couple of workshops
where the global user base is invited, and somehow the best solutions are going
to emerge and we are all going to agree on the best course of action?
Again, trying to be optimistic and I like the transparency
but I don't understand how this is going to work.
Seriously, they must think bitcoin industry leaders are children. They stonewall any blocksize increase proposal, and held us hostage. Now they gave us 2 fcking workshops, like we would magically come to an agreement by meeting in person. Whats the point of communication online then. I guess they dont give a shit about those signatures from all the largest bitcoin service providers.....
No they don't because these were nothing more than Gavin handing out the "letter" and them signing it. These companies are fraud and should be referred as such. Please provide quotes and facts referring to the "stonewalling". |
|
|
|
I am TRYING to keep an open mind.
The thing is, 5 core guys couldn't agree on how and when to raise
the block size, but now we're going to have a couple of workshops
where the global user base is invited, and somehow the best solutions are going
to emerge and we are all going to agree on the best course of action?
Again, trying to be optimistic and I like the transparency
but I don't understand how this is going to work.
Also, since people like Gavin have been ranting on how
we are running out time, it is troubling we are told
to wait till December. This should have been done already
if they wanted to do it. I still say a moderate dose of healthy skepticism
is appropriate.
Exactly. Don't you find it suspect he, and Mike, have been the only ones trying to hammer in this point? |
|
|
|
“Now I am going to accuse you of strawmanning, and it's bizarre: you are strawmanning your own statements as opposed to mine. What you present in the above post is not what you tried to assert originally.” All I tried to assert originally is this:
That this white paper does not prove anything in terms of the question of whether it is intrinsically wrong to fork away from the Core developer team.
And that if Core does take to long to implement a block size increase within a reasonable amount of time, that Bitfury would most likely change their tune on this issue eventually anyway.
Yes.
"To me, it's only a matter of whether we get a big rise soon-ish because Core implements bigger blocks, or a gigantic rise later-ish because Bitcoin dev becomes decentralized away from Core."Zangelbert Bingledack, Yesterday at 2:06 AM http://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-is-awesome.17/#post-177 Keep that bs over there. The concern trolling about Bitcoin development is nothing but XT fans looking for another fight to lose. |
|
|
|
So are you saying that you don't see any fork proposal as an attack, just Gavin's? Are you happy with other proposals to increase the blocksize? Because that doesn't sound like the arguments you keep presenting. The argument I keep hearing is that any increase to blocksize is an attack. If that's not the impression you wanted me to get, you'll have to be more clear on your intent in future. The code will stand on its own, but so will the alternative proposals. If you chose an open source coin, you have to accept the possibility that one of those alternatives will be chosen. The pressure for larger blocks isn't going away, so sooner or later, an agreement will be reached that incorporates support for larger blocks. Is that a problem for you?
Of course I don't see any fork proposal as an attack. Am I happy with other proposals? I will reserve my judgment for now since most of them are incomplete. My intent as been clear from day one: to denounce the XT fraud (& its BIP101 bastard) Am I against a precipitated increase? Absolutely. The urgency was engineered from day one by these traitors. |
|
|
|
As Andreas Antonopoulos said, "consensus will win", but you can't sit back and relax because trojan horse based attacks can happen, just like XT, so you better vote for Core if you want a decentralized nodes Bitcoin.
I really wonder when this rhetoric of alternate client implementation being any kind of "attack" will end  I really wonder when this lie consensus fork being only an "alternate client implementation" will end. Bitcoin XT existed before the large block fiasco. It was an implementation of the reference code then. It is now attempting to diverge from this consensus by essentially hi-jacking Bitcoin's ledger and network to precipitate a schism fork. It is an attack on the Bitcoin network. It failed. Let's move on. I really wonder when this notion that you can invest in an open source coin and then expect no one to ever touch it will end. Seriously, how can you not see the absurdity of your demands? You chose an investment that's open source, but you genuinely believe no one is allowed to alter the code and propose a fork? Herpderp. If you want "consensus" that can never be "attacked" in such a fashion, go invest in a closed source coin where you can enforce whatever rules you want. That's what you should have done from the start. Choose your next investment more carefully. You strawman is only worth a copy/paste You suffer from the same sick tendency to build strawmen suggesting we are somehow against permissionless innovation instead of understanding and recognizing our arguments. To quote: What we ask is to let code stand on its own. Gavin has been publicly lobbying the industry to support its BIP101 and maintained a steady PR campagin in the last couple months using blog posts, MSM interview to try to converge support for its "solution" by steering the masses using populist ideas and appeal to authority.
That is what's "wrong" about the whole XT fiasco.
|
|
|
|
Merchants are irrelevant.
Without merchants and traders, miners are nothing because the coin would be worthless. There is a large distinction to be made between merchants, exchanges, traders. The last two carry some weight. Merchants are indeed irrelevant |
|
|
|
apparently miners and merchants are the government of bitcoin, you will follow them when they will choose the form, so bitcoin isn't really decentralized and GOV free
there is no real consensus
 Where did you get this idea from? i've applied logic, they have more power than a bunch of a guys running a full node, and since there are even less people running a full node than miners and merchants, you have the result... There are by all account a couple thousand people running full nodes.. so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Merchants are irrelevant. Miners are to be considered but surely it can't be said that they rule the show. how merchants are irrelevant they are the pne that are helòping more the growing of bitcoin, without them people would not use bitcoin as a currency at all and only as investmentsthey are far from irrelevant, the only irrelevant people here are we, who run a full node That's what people ought to do. If we're being honest Bitcoin really sucks as a retail currency at the moment. Moreover most merchants sell the BTC they receive for fiat right away which necessarily does not help growth of Bitcoin. The hoarders are the champions! |
|
|
|
I'm as dubious as the next person as to people's intentions with this stuff. I've already challenged billyjoelallen for what I think is rhetoric each time he signs off a post with "scale or die". I think there's an inordinate amount of black and white thinking going on with these changes to Bitcoin. And responses like yours are also unhelpful as they're overly dismissive and just add to the dissension. Did you listen to this podcast? There's genuine concern and care being expressed by Gavin. There may be some over-reach too. And maybe he's gone too far....or maybe not. And I reject your assertion that I'm impressionable and am going to "blindly follow some dude". You know nothing about me, my life experience, skills and knowledge so it's completely and utterly banal of you in the extreme, to make such an assessment. Either way to just write him off with "fork you Gavin!" summation is hardly fair, decent or helpful. Perhaps you could consider debating key parts of what you consider to be wrong with his ideas rather than just putting up a blanket "I just don't like it...." wall. Here is what's wrong and what should be obvious to anyone with an once of discernment: this is an all too obvious attempt to "teach the controversy" "It is not about the block size but this is an issue of Bitcoin governance" Teaching the controversy is a typical psyop/propaganda tool that amounts to creating an appearance of reasonable debate between informed persons on a given subject. This has for effect of giving credibility to a lie by confusing people into thinking there are two legitimate claims being debated. Here the debate being pushed on us is that Bitcoin governance is somehow subject to be changed. |
|
|
|
We defo need more of the power in bitcoin decentralized. We have 5 high priests? wow do we.. really like it if everyone was totally equal and computing power was the only winner.
Get away from my Bitcoin you socialist shill. No one in this world is equal. |
|
|
|
apparently miners and merchants are the government of bitcoin, you will follow them when they will choose the form, so bitcoin isn't really decentralized and GOV free
there is no real consensus
Where did you get this idea from? i've applied logic, they have more power than a bunch of a guys running a full node, and since there are even less people running a full node than miners and merchants, you have the result... There are by all account a couple thousand people running full nodes.. so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Merchants are irrelevant. Miners are to be considered but surely it can't be said that they rule the show. |
|
|
|
apparently miners and merchants are the government of bitcoin, you will follow them when they will choose the form, so bitcoin isn't really decentralized and GOV free
there is no real consensus
Where did you get this idea from? Miners will vote which client they prefer. The merchants can approve or disapprove the miners decision by accepting or not accepting the resulting coins. The miners will go with the client the nodes adopt. |
|
|
|
Now, assuming your suggestion to dissolve core makes any sense at all what do you propose happens of the dozen of developers currently maintaining it? They just go their merry way?
Not at all. They are talented coders who love doing what they are doing. I suggest they form groups of like-minded people and fork Core into their own competing implementations. Based on their reputations and good-will, they will no doubt attract strong user bases. These people are assets to the Bitcoin community. Brg444, are you going to the Scalability Conference in Montreal? I'd like to meet you. Then you should understand it is inevitable they all reconcile under the same implementation because it happens that although they sometimes have disagreements they are like-minded people and have shown an ability to work relatively well together. I haven't seen any sign of interest from any developer to jump-start their own implementation given the gigantic task this implies. Maybe what you want is for them to change the name (Bitcoin Core)? I am still pondering the idea of going to the conference. I am concerned about my ability to provide sufficient insight given the apparently very technical focus. (I'm not a developer) That and the 150$ ticket. That said, I've never really had the chance to meet-up Bitcoin folks in person as the community around me is practically inexistant so I am somewhat curious. Guess I have a day or so to decide...! |
|
|
|
apparently miners and merchants are the government of bitcoin, you will follow them when they will choose the form, so bitcoin isn't really decentralized and GOV free
there is no real consensus
Where did you get this idea from? |
|
|
|
But two of these "most technically-able developers" have now regrouped around XT. This regrouping seems like a useful method to resolve impasses (e.g., XT has now implemented several features that were blocked by Core). For absolutely valid reasons. Are you for trust-adding censorship lists Peter? You realize these did not make Core because there was a majority consensus against them and not because a "rogue" dev exercised his veto. I agree. But I thought you didn't. Didn't you say that what Gavin and Mike are doing is some how a coup and is unethical?
I absolutely did because it is. You "thought I didn't" because you suffer from the same sick tendency to build strawmen suggesting we are somehow against permissionless innovation instead of understanding and recognizing our arguments. To quote: What we ask is to let code stand on its own. Gavin has been publicly lobbying the industry to support its BIP101 and maintained a steady PR campagin in the last couple months using blog posts, MSM interview to try to converge support for its "solution" by steering the masses using populist ideas and appeal to authority.
That is what's "wrong" about the whole XT fiasco.
Lastly, he didn't address the main problem with the current centralized development model: "With this level of centralization, it may be possible in the future for a group of coders to prevent important changes from being made in a timely fashion (e.g., should their interests no longer align with those of the larger Bitcoin community)."
This would imply all of the independent devs working under core have been compromised. Highly unlikely. If a consensus is reached that an important change needs to be made action will be taken and those publicly working against consensus will be evicted from the decision process or the consensus of developers will move to a new implementation if the git repo has somehow been hi jacked. Now, assuming your suggestion to dissolve core makes any sense at all what do you propose happens of the dozen of developers currently maintaining it? They just go their merry way? I mean.. seriously Peter get a grip. Please don't go full retard. You know you're about to cross that line when you post such a stupid topic to the Bitcoin dev list : Let's kill Bitcoin Core and allow the green shoots of a garden of new implementations to grow from its fertile ashes Do you seriously expect people to take you seriously? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
