What the block size debate reflected is a serials of consideration about the design philosophy behind a decentralized monetary system
To serve others or let others serve you, that is the question
The Federal Reserve never care about average users transaction demand, their interbank settlement system is old and slow, but they just print tons of money and people still worship them and happily use dollar everywhere. People even invented paypal, visa, master card to do thousands of transactions per second to help them to spread their money. Why? It's effect of authority, their authority gains average people's trust, they don't need to sort out the rest of the technical details
Similarly, if bitcoin can establish such authority image in the eyes of average user, any technical problem will be solved by people voluntarily
Would more decentralization and censorship resistant raise its authority or more transaction capacity raise its authority? Kind of both, but I think decentralization holds higher priority
I like how you balantly ignore that bitcoin core is already centralized. I love how you conclude that blocksize increase means less decentralization when almost every new bitcoin users use spv client. Meanwhile you implied having addons like paypal somehow improves decentralization. Stupid much? Or you're just having brain fart as usual. On that subject, I am posting this here for observers to understand this is a misrepresentation of the dynamics at stake and a disingenuous lie: It is known that ~90% (at least of the nodes accepting incoming connections) are running Bitcoin Core software. This does not mean that Bitcoin is somehow less decentralized. Bitcoin Core is open source, it has many contributors from all over the world and there are many pull requests - most of them do get merged if you check the commit history. It is widely used because the quality of the code is 5 stars. There are other implementations as well, they are just not widely used. This does not mean one is not free to write his own implementation of the Bitcoin protocol (assuming he follows the consensus rules of the network). The biggest problem is convincing users to adopt that implementation, which is a normal thing which happens in general, not only related to software implementations.
The problem is there is no other implementation out there which comes near the quality of the code in Bitcoin Core. I am actually eager to try other implementations as well, but something serious, because Bitcoin itself is a payment protocol not something to play with.
This is the reason why a lot of developers contribute to Bitcoin Core rather than writing their own implementation. This only makes Bitcoin Core stronger, better, and obviously the result is that it has majority in the ecosystem for good reasons. If I'm experienced in a certain segment related to software developing, I am better of in contributing to Bitcoin Core just with the part I know instead of writing from scratch my own implementation. http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010796.html |
|
|
|
That was a great interview. A lot of good point have been made. Worth watching.
I was happy to hear Gavin say that he wants to "get to the point where there will be multiple robust implementations of the core protocol." Based on the opposition I've received here to similar ideas I've proposed, I thought that perhaps I was missing something. I'm more confident now that I'm not. We need to decentralize development. This gave me a new talking point: "Let's kill Bitcoin Core and allow the green shoots of a garden of new implementations to grow from its fertile ashes"More info on the idea: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-September/010802.html
Forking is by design feature of bitcoin. Bitcoin core is nothing but an implementation of the protocol. It is NOT the protocol itself.  How is it "dead"? Who's taken its place? Nothing is dead. What is slowly dying, however, is the idea that the implementation called "Core" is somehow core to Bitcoin. Core is locked-up; Wladimir won't integrate changes without Core Dev consensus. With all the arguing, I think there's now too much bad blood around Core. Why not let it go? Let's not reach consensus with Bitcoin Core. This will then provide impetus for new implementations to fork from Core (like XT did) and implement whatever scaling solution they deem best. The users will then select the winning solution simply based on the code they choose to run. The other implementations will then rush to make compatible changes in order to keep their dwindling user bases. This is the decentralized spirit of Bitcoin in action. Creative destruction. Consensus formed simply by the code we run. Thats the beauty of permissionless system. These damn fools somehow believe there must be a "permit" (which they call "consensus" without understanding wtf that means) to implement a new protocol change. Not to mention there is NO way to enforce what they're preaching but go on forums and attack everyone who agrees with the change. Heck even using character assassination against the coder as a way to judge his code/idea Lucky humanity only contains small amount of these fools. Stop trying to kill strawmans. No one ever said anyone should need a permit to implement protocol change. 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. |
|
|
|
That was a great interview. A lot of good point have been made. Worth watching.
I was happy to hear Gavin say that he wants to "get to the point where there will be multiple robust implementations of the core protocol." Based on the opposition I've received here to similar ideas I've proposed, I thought that perhaps I was missing something. I'm more confident now that I'm not. We need to decentralize development. This gave me a new talking point: "Let's kill Bitcoin Core and allow the green shoots of a garden of new implementations to grow from its fertile ashes"More info on the idea: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-September/010802.html
Forking is by design feature of bitcoin. Bitcoin core is nothing but an implementation of the protocol. It is NOT the protocol itself. How is it "dead"? Who's taken its place? Nothing is dead. What is slowly dying, however, is the idea that the implementation called "Core" is somehow core to Bitcoin. Core is locked-up; Wladimir won't integrate changes without Core Dev consensus. With all the arguing, I think there's now too much bad blood around Core. Why not let it go? Let's not reach consensus with Bitcoin Core. This will then provide impetus for new implementations to fork from Core (like XT did) and implement whatever scaling solution they deem best. The users will then select the winning solution simply based on the code they choose to run. The other implementations will then rush to make compatible changes in order to keep their dwindling user bases. This is the decentralized spirit of Bitcoin in action. Creative destruction. Consensus formed simply by the code we run. I think you're just trying to "teach the controversy" and turn the whole nature of this debate around. I think the bad blood you are describing is nothing but generally healthy debate and a necessary conservative attitude toward a very fragile consensus system. Let go of what? What do you propose replaces Bitcoin Core? The idea you describe is the natural result of the most technically-able developers having regrouped around was was originally the reference implementation. There are already multiple different implementations of Bitcoin. Gavin himself states in his interview we shouldn't need more than 3-4. Do you understand why some are more popular than others? No one is stopping anyone from creating different implementation so I'm not sure I understand the apparent need for a change in attitude here? I think s7r had an absolutely down to earth response to what I can only qualify as your "flavor-of-the-day" concern trolling on the Bitcoin dev list: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010796.html . If you are really being honest (which I'm increasingly beginning to think you are not) then I think it's worth considering your "concerns" are overblown. Stop buying everything Mike Hearn tries to sell you. |
|
|
|
That was a great interview. A lot of good point have been made. Worth watching.
I was happy to hear Gavin say that he wants to "get to the point where there will be multiple robust implementations of the core protocol." Based on the opposition I've received here to similar ideas I've proposed, I thought that perhaps I was missing something. I'm more confident now that I'm not. We need to decentralize development. This gave me a new talking point: "Let's kill Bitcoin Core and allow the green shoots of a garden of new implementations to grow from its fertile ashes"More info on the idea: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-September/010802.html
Forking is by design feature of bitcoin. Bitcoin core is nothing but an implementation of the protocol. It is NOT the protocol itself. How is it "dead"? Who's taken its place? |
|
|
|
That's the gist of your broken logic. That somehow the "mainstream" sheeps are going to drive Bitcoin success and its price.
Better get this idea out of your head because it's not happening. The average consumer will get in Bitcoin much later in the game.
No shit, Sherlock. But when the sheep get in, microtransactions will be a feature. People with vision will have to continue to build the infrastructure first, and part of that infrastructure will involve microtransactions. You're starting to piss me off. I've seen nothing from you to merit your arrogance. Keep it up and you go on the ignore list. Criticism is cheap. Show me some insight. Talk about flawed logic: Retail isn't interested in Bitcoin, so we shouldn't cater to retail, which isn't interested because we don't cater to retail. Fuck you. Concur with Billy on this one. Masses need an Xt(ish)coin that lets them transact at the current price per txn, so they can roll in Bitcoin into their daily lives. Let the fork happen, Bitcoin classic can be used as the store of value, settlement layer. Xt can be the cheap txn, coffee purchasing network. (Or do the block size increase to buy time and hope for lightning type tech to be built to allow both use cases) This ignores the whole value of having one uniquer ledger of ownership. We don't need another coin, additional layers can serve these needs equally well. |
|
|
|
That's the gist of your broken logic. That somehow the "mainstream" sheeps are going to drive Bitcoin success and its price.
Better get this idea out of your head because it's not happening. The average consumer will get in Bitcoin much later in the game.
No shit, Sherlock. But when the sheep get in, microtransactions will be a feature. People with vision will have to continue to build the infrastructure first, and part of that infrastructure will involve microtransactions. You're starting to piss me off. I've seen nothing from you to merit your arrogance. Keep it up and you go on the ignore list. Criticism is cheap. Show me some insight. Talk about flawed logic: Retail isn't interested in Bitcoin, so we shouldn't cater to retail, which isn't interested because we don't cater to retail. Fuck you. Microtransactions will be handled off chain, either through Lightning or sidechains. I don't see a problem here, Sherlock. Bitcoin, the foundation layer, should not, ever, cater to retail. |
|
|
|
Maybe but maybe not. Big mining pools are not that much profitable and most of them aren't even backed by VC's. These people will talk with to each others in some point in time, there is absolutely not doubts about that. It's all a mater of who will have the greatest influence over who and how. Unfortunately we will never know these kind of details but we will know the outcome.
Understand this, this is not a game played on a bitcointalk forum. Not anymore.
That doesn't mean you can sit there and pretend not to observe and acknowledge the events unfolding: an absolute failure for the Bitcoin XT release. You can't wave you hand at the total lack of momentum and support. If you are hoping people will just get tired of waiting and "make the switch" you are bound to be disappointed. It is probably a matter of a couple weeks until other proposals are formalized in the form of different BIPs and then any remaining attention toward BIP101/XT as the "only existing alternative" will disintegrate and make them history. This is not a game. This is consensus. I know you wish you could cheat it somehow with politics, money and votes but you can't. |
|
|
|
It didn't even started yet so calling it a failure is absurd. It takes time to roll out things like that. Also asking the industry's opinion is not lobbying. I'm not even sure you know what it means.
It is absolutely right to call it a failure. Even the very misguiding "nodes races" has gotten to a halt and the (fake) nodes turned on to show support for XT are already starting to go offline. Several miners have publicly opposed it. The consensus has clearly shown to be against the proposal. Patience my friend, patience. Big mining pools are a few phone calls away from supporting XT or at least BIP101 if there is no other implementation being proposed soon.  The biggest pool & the biggest private miner are openly against BIP101/XT for reasons that won't change with time. I'm sorry but you need to find another dream. This one is dead. I am not dreaming, I couldn't care less BUT: 1. Don't underestimate the big pockets and their phones. 2. Miners are greedy by nature. Nothing is played yet until at least 6 months. A lot of things can happen before that and by then we'll get a clearer picture but this is the situation we are in right now. What they're gonna call every node owner and ask them to switch You really expect chinese businessmen to be lead by the nose by "big pockets". You don't think these guys are filthy rich on their own? |
|
|
|
It didn't even started yet so calling it a failure is absurd. It takes time to roll out things like that. Also asking the industry's opinion is not lobbying. I'm not even sure you know what it means.
It is absolutely right to call it a failure. Even the very misguiding "nodes races" has gotten to a halt and the (fake) nodes turned on to show support for XT are already starting to go offline. Several miners have publicly opposed it. The consensus has clearly shown to be against the proposal. Patience my friend, patience. Big mining pools are a few phone calls away from supporting XT or at least BIP101 if there is no other implementation being proposed soon. The biggest pool & the biggest private miner are openly against BIP101/XT for reasons that won't change with time. I'm sorry but you need to find another dream. This one is dead. |
|
|
|
It didn't even started yet so calling it a failure is absurd. It takes time to roll out things like that. Also asking the industry's opinion is not lobbying. I'm not even sure you know what it means.
It is absolutely right to call it a failure. Even the very misguiding "nodes races" has gotten to a halt and the (fake) nodes turned on to show support for XT are already starting to go offline. Several miners have publicly opposed it. The consensus has clearly shown to be against the proposal. |
|
|
|
This gave me a new talking point: "Let's kill Bitcoin Core and allow the green shoots of a garden of new implementations to grow from its fertile ashes" We have those. They're called alt-coins, and they all suck. Not to mention, they're all based off Bitcoin Core code. Alt-clients =! alt-coins There is a distinction. Alt-client =! Bitcoin XT There is a distinction. Nope, my bitcoin XT is compatible with your bitcoin Core. We can send bitcoins to each others. Otherwise in which category you would put XT? XT is attempting to fork the network and change the consensus rules. It is no longer simply "just another implementation". Which won't before getting consensus. Meanwhile it's just an alt-client. Shall we pretend that anyone pushing for the adoption of Bitcoin XT is not diverging from consensus? That their support of this implementation could not lead to the creation of an alt coin and that therefore they already support an altcoin, and not Bitcoin, by association? |
|
|
|
This gave me a new talking point: "Let's kill Bitcoin Core and allow the green shoots of a garden of new implementations to grow from its fertile ashes" We have those. They're called alt-coins, and they all suck. Not to mention, they're all based off Bitcoin Core code. Alt-clients =! alt-coins There is a distinction. Alt-client =! Bitcoin XT There is a distinction. Nope, my bitcoin XT is compatible with your bitcoin Core. We can send bitcoins to each others. Otherwise in which category you would put XT? XT is attempting to fork the network and change the consensus rules. It is no longer simply "just another implementation". |
|
|
|
You really don't seem to get what kind of financial infrastructures is needed for bitcoin to be a functioning currency. These infrastructures are what will/are giving bitcoin most value because it makes it useful for individuals and businesses to use it. Just think of exchanges which are the very low level, basic ones. Without them bitcoin would go nowhere. I invite you to learn more about how finance works. There is no war here, only a system that needs to be built to accommodate all participants for bitcoin to achieve its full blown potential. It's not that hard to understand that these businesses now need a clear path of how bitcoin will scale in the future and Core is failing to delivers that. If Core continues to fail to deliver in a timely manner, someone else will. Will it be XT is yet to be seen.
Look I'm not gonna argue the importance of exchanges but if you think blockchain.info, bitnet, bitgo, bitpay are relevant in this discussion you are fooling yourself. They operate in a marginal sector of the Bitcoin economy and they can fancy themselves "leaders" all they want their status amongst the reddit crowd does not impress anyone. All of these are start-up companies riding VC money and most likely bleeding it as we speak. Some are addressing markets that have shown little demand so far from their service. Let's face it the retail venture of Bitcoin has been a spectacular failure so far. Remember when everyone was tripping because Microsoft started accepting Bitcoin? How far has that brought us? These businesses are actually building products. They are basically in beta and won't mass marketeer their products to attract new participants until they are finished and are absolutely sure the system they rely on will scale witch is not actually. Gavin released XT after making sure it will get supported by this industry by talking to each one of them (Unlike Core devs in their Ivory tower). https://youtu.be/B8l11q9hsJM?t=1h16sConvinced/ask the industry first and miners will follow. That's the only logical way to do it properly.
I think he probably should've thought about convincing miners too  You're not one of those people who think "marketing" is gonna sell people unto Bitcoin are ya ?  btw why do you using "ivory tower" in the same posts where you reference the "industry" laying down their decision on the debate by way of a two paragraph letter have they bothered consulting their users? do you realise your hypocrisy here or are you simply going to look the other way because it doesn't fit your argument? You should watch the whole Gavin interview, it will answer a lot of your questions. I did. It was terribly boring and absent of any insight to be quite honest. All I've learned pretty much confirmed what I thought: XT release was carefully orchestrated using propaganda tactics and industry lobbying absent of any balance and transparency. Fortunately it is very much a failure. |
|
|
|
I'm really neutral in which way I want the market to go. I'm still over 90% long, but I want the cripplecoiners to get the message that coins on a throttled network are not as valuable.
Retail is not buying in.
Why are you so excited about scaling transactions for retail demand that doesn't exist? If you wanna get people interested in coin collecting, you don't start them out with Krugerrands. You start them out with wheat pennies. Then, I want anti-spam email, faucets to drive traffic to websites, etc. That's the gist of your broken logic. That somehow the "mainstream" sheeps are going to drive Bitcoin success and its price. Better get this idea out of your head because it's not happening. The average consumer will get in Bitcoin much later in the game. |
|
|
|
This gave me a new talking point: "Let's kill Bitcoin Core and allow the green shoots of a garden of new implementations to grow from its fertile ashes" We have those. They're called alt-coins, and they all suck. Not to mention, they're all based off Bitcoin Core code. Alt-clients =! alt-coins There is a distinction. Alt-client =! Bitcoin XT There is a distinction. |
|
|
|
You really don't seem to get what kind of financial infrastructures is needed for bitcoin to be a functioning currency. These infrastructures are what will/are giving bitcoin most value because it makes it useful for individuals and businesses to use it. Just think of exchanges which are the very low level, basic ones. Without them bitcoin would go nowhere. I invite you to learn more about how finance works. There is no war here, only a system that needs to be built to accommodate all participants for bitcoin to achieve its full blown potential. It's not that hard to understand that these businesses now need a clear path of how bitcoin will scale in the future and Core is failing to delivers that. If Core continues to fail to deliver in a timely manner, someone else will. Will it be XT is yet to be seen.
Look I'm not gonna argue the importance of exchanges but if you think blockchain.info, bitnet, bitgo, bitpay are relevant in this discussion you are fooling yourself. They operate in a marginal sector of the Bitcoin economy and they can fancy themselves "leaders" all they want their status amongst the reddit crowd does not impress anyone. All of these are start-up companies riding VC money and most likely bleeding it as we speak. Some are addressing markets that have shown little demand so far from their service. Let's face it the retail venture of Bitcoin has been a spectacular failure so far. Remember when everyone was tripping because Microsoft started accepting Bitcoin? How far has that brought us? These businesses are actually building products. They are basically in beta and won't mass marketeer their products to attract new participants until they are finished and are absolutely sure the system they rely on will scale witch is not actually. Gavin released XT after making sure it will get supported by this industry by talking to each one of them (Unlike Core devs in their Ivory tower). https://youtu.be/B8l11q9hsJM?t=1h16sConvinced/ask the industry first and miners will follow. That's the only logical way to do it properly.
I think he probably should've thought about convincing miners too You're not one of those people who think "marketing" is gonna sell people unto Bitcoin are ya ? btw why do you using "ivory tower" in the same posts where you reference the "industry" laying down their decision on the debate by way of a two paragraph letter have they bothered consulting their users? do you realise your hypocrisy here or are you simply going to look the other way because it doesn't fit your argument? |
|
|
|
No thats not what i meant retard.
And holding an amount of any coin is more valuable than holding mining hardwares that can only mine such coin.
But idiots like you cant see further than your nose.
What can you tell us about the Bitcoin holdings of these companies? I don't see how any early stage start ups could afford "holding" Bitcoin as an investment other than to provide reserve for their business and their operations. Don't confuse their clients holdings for theirs. These companies are all currently bleeding VC money and it makes no sense for them to hold such a volatile and currently under performing asset. |
|
|
|
You really don't seem to get what kind of financial infrastructures is needed for bitcoin to be a functioning currency. These infrastructures are what will/are giving bitcoin most value because it makes it useful for individuals and businesses to use it. Just think of exchanges which are the very low level, basic ones. Without them bitcoin would go nowhere. I invite you to learn more about how finance works. There is no war here, only a system that needs to be built to accommodate all participants for bitcoin to achieve its full blown potential. It's not that hard to understand that these businesses now need a clear path of how bitcoin will scale in the future and Core is failing to delivers that. If Core continues to fail to deliver in a timely manner, someone else will. Will it be XT is yet to be seen.
Look I'm not gonna argue the importance of exchanges but if you think blockchain.info, bitnet, bitgo, bitpay are relevant in this discussion you are fooling yourself. They operate in a marginal sector of the Bitcoin economy and they can fancy themselves "leaders" all they want their status amongst the reddit crowd does not impress anyone. All of these are start-up companies riding VC money and most likely bleeding it as we speak. Some are addressing markets that have shown little demand so far from their service. Let's face it the retail venture of Bitcoin has been a spectacular failure so far. Remember when everyone was tripping because Microsoft started accepting Bitcoin? How far has that brought us? |
|
|
|
Seek help. I am feeling increasingly sorry for you people, doing this must be no fun at all. How you got roped in, I do not know, but you all have my sympathies.
Ditto....my eyes are bleeding from reading the drivel in this thread. What was that you said about engaging people who are happy to present willfully dishonest arguments? I think I've lost the energy to fight the good fight.... I know, you're right. I just couldn't stand by and watch the people of this forum inflicted with blanket condemnation from these characters as a part of their arguments. I've been very pleased to see you marky, as well as others, taking the shills on, you've done a better job than I could have wished for. I'm tired of this too, but I think we've won an important victory. XT and BIP100 have been discredited, no-one except the corporations are interested in either, and they have a combined hashrate of zero. Even despite the fact we could have been arguing with troll-bots the whole time (no wonder they're more relentless than the Seventh Day Adventists  ) And probably only a meager amount of BTC. Because that's what the lunatic in this thread doesn't seem to realize. Fiat interests have no control over the Bitcoin world. That's the whole point of the thing. It doesn't matter if these corporations have billions of dollars behind them unless they become investors in Bitcoin and have a BTC balance to back up their claims. Exact. When I'm talking about the industry I'm talking about the bitcoin industry, those who have put money building infrastructures on top of bitcoin. Those who have big stack in that matter. Not those who are in control of fiat that have indeed no influence of what can happen in the bitcoin world. You are one dense person The "bitcoin industry" and their "infrastructure" other than the miners have little influence over these decisions. Now the exchanges might have some pull but wallet services or payment processor opinions really have no "weight" unless they have Bitcoin themselves to support it. You don't get special status for being "in the industry". The "big pockets" you refer to are nothing but fiat interests with absolutely abysmal leverage over what will happen in the Bitcoin economy. It should be evident by now that these companies "reflections" on the issue have not moved the economic consensus balance by an inch. They got behind an half-baked solution that grows irrelevant by the day. Stop being obtuse and accept the situation for what it is: You and your handlers have lost and we, the Bitcoiners, were not fooled. Lol dumbass, do you know how to value a fcking business? Exchanges and wallet services dont hold btc? And you got a nerve to tell someone densed? Idiot. Your argument is similar to saying netflix, facebook amazon have little influence compared to ISP. Who the fck are you? Calling yourself "bitcoiner". Value a business You don't actually think wallet services and exchanges are valued by their Bitcoin holdings |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
