brg444 so they should resign just because they don't get support? Does that also mean that BIP102 creator Jeff Garzik should resign because he is not getting support? Are you that retard? Really?
5 pages for a retard subject...good job!
No they should resign because of sheer incompetence and for misleading Bitcoin users to get behind a potentially dangerous fork for political reasons. |
|
|
|
Since Lightning is open source Blockstream has no proprietary advantage over its development, its deployment or monetization.
Have you ever heard about the network effect?  Are you proposing only Blockstream will host Lightning nodes and that there will not be competition for them? That would be rather shortsighted. brg444/tvcof: give it up. you have lost. Its going to be big blocks, the only details they are deciding is how big. You have failed your blockstream paymasters. I hope their retribution upon you is slow and merciless.... They are clever people and they do not suffer fools like you gladly.  There is a distinction here. It's going to be big ger blocks, nothing outrageous like 20mb or 8mb like the XT team was pushing for. I'm not sure you can find a post from me here arguing we should keep block size at 1mb forever but feel free to looks into my post history if you care. No distinction. The 1mb block limit is dead, kaput, gone. They are just agreeing on what the new size will be. Thats how consensus works. Sometimes it can get messy, but as long as the destination is not in question, nobody gives a shit about how we get there. For your argument to make any sense you'd have to present actual proofs that the developers were ever against increasing the block size and keeping 1mb. If you really want to turn this into a partisan thing I'd argue this is a win for team Blockstream |
|
|
|
Since Lightning is open source Blockstream has no proprietary advantage over its development, its deployment or monetization.
Have you ever heard about the network effect? Are you proposing only Blockstream will host Lightning nodes and that there will not be competition for them? That would be rather shortsighted. brg444/tvcof: give it up. you have lost. Its going to be big blocks, the only details they are deciding is how big. You have failed your blockstream paymasters. I hope their retribution upon you is slow and merciless.... They are clever people and they do not suffer fools like you gladly. There is a distinction here. It's going to be big ger blocks, nothing outrageous like 20mb or 8mb the XT team was pushing for. I'm not sure you can find a post from me here arguing we should keep block size at 1mb forever but feel free to looks into my post history if you care. |
|
|
|
With crypto and some of the 'elements' that the Blockstream guys are working on, there are viable and preferable alternatives for a variety of functions currently performed by the state and they go far beyond just money.
Personally I have no problem with Blockstream or their supposed innovation. I would welcome them with open arms. However bitcoin has a problem right now in terms of transaction delays and Blockstream is nowhere to be seen! When is this great innovation coming? How much longer should bitcoiners wait for a solution to end these spam attacks and unnecessary transaction delays? Don't tell me shit about paying higher miners' fees as I started off in the faucet world like 50% of all newbies involved in Bitcoin today. How is Blockstream going to facilitate an ever expanding list of faucets, PTCs, GPTs, HYIPS and Bit-Casinos? These services are here to stay and they need a solution right now as transaction delays are greatly inconveniencing members of such services. This is why we need to implement a bigger block-size limit in Core right now until Blockstream comes aboard to "save us" with their great innovation. If this isn't going to happen, then we need to go to XT who are actually providing that solution right now. All I have to say is "Go Big or Get The Fuck Out!" The developers at Blockstream have been busy actually scaling Bitcoin by process of making its code more efficient in various ways that doesn't include the lazy bloating solutions of bigger blocks. By the sound of it they have lately turned their focus toward block increase solutions but given that unlike Gavin or Mike they intend to test theirs rigorously it might take longer. I think Adam wrote on Twitter or Reddit that we should expect significant progress to be presented at the upcoming Scaling Bitcoin workshop in Montreal. I'm talking about revised BIP1xx proposals, potentially a formal proposition of Greg Maxwell's flex cap idea and possibly new alternatives. This stuff takes times and crying for urgency doesn't help in the process. |
|
|
|
(While I don't have particular admiration for Gavin and Mike, I do think that Blockstream are the bad guys in this war. They have been using every dirty trick to preserve their control of the protocol -- from FUD, DDoS of XT sites, and censorship of /r/bitcoin, to posting anti-XT messages on /r/buttcoin while pretending to be legitimate buttcoiners.)
(Moreover, Gavin and Mike seem to be competent software engineers, whereas the Blockstream guys may be really unable to understand why congestion is bad, why the fee market will not work, and why LN will not be economically viable. As Napoleon would say...)
FUD FUD FUD I haven't seen any proof of core devs sponsoring or condoning the censorship moderation. You do understand there is a difference between "the Blockstream guys" and users against an irrational block increase? Of course you do, you're just being your usual disingenuous self. I'd also argue "the Blockstream guys" are more competent engineers than Gavin & Mike. They're the one who have been pushing the limits of innovation for the last few years while Gavin was twiddling thumbs in politics at the Bitcoin Foundation posing as "Chief Scientist". Your "congestion" bs is just more fud which I won't bother to address as I'm quite obviously wasting my time. |
|
|
|
|
Fork or not, you shouldn't hold a penny on blockchain.info. They have shown to be incompetent several times in the past and should not be trusted with your bitcoins.
|
|
|
|
Since Lightning is open source Blockstream has no proprietary advantage over its development, its deployment or monetization.
Have you ever heard about the network effect? Are you proposing only Blockstream will host Lightning nodes and that there will not be competition for them? That would be rather shortsighted. |
|
|
|
You could have at least checked what was the discussion about? We were talking about Blockstream and Jonald used "they" and commected it to "lightning payment network" which is his mistake and not mine. But still, I should have corrected him, which is my mistake.
Is Blockstream not working on the Lightning network? Is this article wrong? One developer at Blockstream has been assigned to lightning. Out of a team of nearly a dozen. Since Lightning is open source Blockstream has no proprietary advantage over its development, its deployment or monetization. They can fork it. So, they would need someone with deeper understanding of the technology to make a profit out of that. I am not saying, that they are really doing that, but that would not be something unusual. There are people outside of Blockstream with deep understanding of the technology (those who actually created it) who are also working on it. If Blockstream can share their expertise to help develop it then who are we to complain? Have a look at the dev mailing list: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2015-August/thread.html |
|
|
|
You could have at least checked what was the discussion about? We were talking about Blockstream and Jonald used "they" and commected it to "lightning payment network" which is his mistake and not mine. But still, I should have corrected him, which is my mistake.
Is Blockstream not working on the Lightning network? Is this article wrong? One developer at Blockstream has been assigned to lightning. Out of a team of nearly a dozen. Since Lightning is open source Blockstream has no proprietary advantage over its development, its deployment or monetization. |
|
|
|
Gavin has shown himself not trustworthy of this key. His influence over Bitcoin anyway has long started to fade anyway. What has he done for us lately?
" Gavin's influence is fading, but we have to stop him from having influence by taking away his key". Way to contradict yourself yet again. I can see you're going to be a source of much entertainment. It is primarily a matter of trust, not influence. These keys should not be in the hands of any random derp who has resorted to trolling fellow developers on Twitter |
|
|
|
Time to zap Gavin's alert key in the next release (I assume but to not know that it is still there.) A discussion on replacement(s) should be undertaken.
I would like just to confirm that the alert key is there. I as well have thought about this (as I have defended him in the past). The decision of keeping it should be re-evaluated. Judging from the miners vote right now, BIP100 is gaining traction while XT is going to 0% (even Slush abandoned it). He has not abused the key. Just because his opinion doesn't agree with yours you'd like to take the key? That is crazy. We need guys on both sides of an argument to have keys - otherwise Blockstream can just take over the blockchain today. The next time someone wants to make changes to bitcoin - they will release 'RT' - or whatever. The people will vote. The winner will win. That is how it is supposed to work. You don't want the get rid of Mike and Gavin - they are doing what they are supposed to. Introduce possible things which can improve. Then we vote. Taking away the keys and kicking him out of the community is the dumbest thing I've read on this forum - and this forum has a lot of very dumb shit. This is absolutely not an argument of Blockstream vs. others or centralization of developer power. Gavin has shown himself not trustworthy of this key. His influence over Bitcoin anyway has long started to fade anyway. What has he done for us lately? |
|
|
|
I think XT will be succesful in some way, even if the fork does not even happen: In pushing a blocksize increase.
I feel that many people are nowadays supporting a bigger block size due, in part to the XT move.
And I am not pro XT by any means. But that is my perception.
While I can understand this point of view it is plain wrong. It was, is and will forever be nothing more than an attack on the network. A divisive attempt to break consensus and create a schism fork. Productive collaboration between well intentioned actors in the ecosystem is considerably more effective in the resolution of a problem. This drama was a huge drain on those people. While Gavin & Mike gets to play politics and twiddle thumbs (or bake censorship code into Bitcoin), other developers can only sit there, withstand the barrage of reddit derps entitlement bullshit and persistent character assassination. YET! Because these are very productive and brilliant people who have against all lazy hearsay been working insanely hard at actually scaling behind the scenes, we are apparently closing in on a very interesting chance for the actual leaders in the space to congregate and discuss what should actually happen with Bitcoin as we march away from the XT cesspool. It was a defensive attack to prevent the network to be captured by the blockstream's guys. Have you read what Hearn has written there: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/bitcoin-xt/PBjK0BuB7s4/8LREpcaNBQAJ ? Now, to your wider question. XT is about more than just the block size limit. If you look at Core, they have also decided they don't like unconfirmed transactions and P2P smartphone wallets. They blocked improvements for a long time already and are now preparing to delete support for P2P lightweight wallets entirely.
Obviously neither feature is required for some kind of rarely used settlement network, which is their vision. But they are rather important for the actual Bitcoin network we have today.
Their wildly different (incorrect) vision and the general way they treat volunteer developers, means lots of people who would have contributed to the Bitcoin project haven't done so, or did and then stopped. I'm one, Gavin is one, Thomas Zander is also one.
As you can see from the pull requests queue and chatter on this list, suddenly people are coming out of the woodwork with patches that aren't anything to do with bigger blocks, they're just stuff that was rejected for questionable or outright spurious reasons by the Bitcoin Core project. So now there's a chance for a re-review under a different development philosophy.They are very productive and brilliant for taking care of their own interest, no question about that. All I see is typical playing of the inclusion bullshit card and Mike Hearn wanting to break Bitcoin by letting in unqualified developers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguishWhat about the delete of P2P lightweight client and P2P smartphone wallet? Who want the good of Bitcoin, Blockstream? And who decide who is unqualified? You? Adam Back? Blockstream shareholders? their code. in general understand that 99% of the people who want to fix or improve Bitcoin are unable to and probably will break it. see Matt Corralo's recent game theory speech to understand that Bitcoin is an absolutely fragile system and that it is reasonable to be extremely conservative in our motivation to change it. it is not always about "do we want it?" but more often "can we afford it?"? |
|
|
|
...
The problem with BIP 100 is that it allows an attacker with 21% of the hash rate to arbitrarily dictate the block size cap and set it to the minimum.
Yes. This is a very valid point. Please read the BIP at least once. I have. Perhaps you can explain something about the following: "Votes are evaluated by dropping bottom 20% and top 20%, and then the most common floor (minimum) is chosen." What does "the most common floor (minimum)" mean in this context? Some have interpreted it to mean that the lowest vote of the remaining 60% becomes the next size cap. That would result in the possibility detailed above (a 21% takeover). Assuming that's not correct, why the use of "floor (minimum)" at all? Why not use the median vote? Median vote would make more sense. Defining what is being proposed here in terms of pseudo-code would clarify this. Still even after giving BIP 100 the benefit of the doubt the 32MB hard fork limit remains a serious issue. 32 MB limit gives us more than enough time to find a better solution. It is not at all a serious issue. We might never need more than 32 MB. |
|
|
|
Let it be known that every single word is patently false and a blatant misrepresentation of reality.
The Blockstream guys AND a group of other developers are apparently working hard behind the scene testing, formalizing, validating new & refined proposals that I imagine is the plan for them to present at the ScalingBitcoin workshop.
You mean Lightning Network? I am anxiously waiting for such "refined" proposals. Hopefully with numbers on them -- which so far seem to be curiously absent from Blockstream plans. There will be compromise and it is very doubtful 8 MB blocks will be in the discussion or contention.
Well, His majesty King Adam just conceded "2 MB now, then 4 MB in 2 years, and 8 MB in 4 years" -- and only then Gavin will be permitted to raise his hand again.  Gavin should kiss the ring yes. Dude has made a clown of himself and has started trolling the community and escaping discussion, challenge & attention. No, not Lightning Network you lying shill. I'm talking about Greg Maxwell's flexcap and I would assume quite possibly a revision of Peter's BIP. No one can tell of course so we will see then but people have been working all while trying to avoid this unproductive mess. |
|
|
|
I think XT will be succesful in some way, even if the fork does not even happen: In pushing a blocksize increase.
I feel that many people are nowadays supporting a bigger block size due, in part to the XT move.
And I am not pro XT by any means. But that is my perception.
While I can understand this point of view it is plain wrong. It was, is and will forever be nothing more than an attack on the network. A divisive attempt to break consensus and create a schism fork. Productive collaboration between well intentioned actors in the ecosystem is considerably more effective in the resolution of a problem. This drama was a huge drain on those people. While Gavin & Mike gets to play politics and twiddle thumbs (or bake censorship code into Bitcoin), other developers can only sit there, withstand the barrage of reddit derps entitlement bullshit and persistent character assassination. YET! Because these are very productive and brilliant people who have against all lazy hearsay been working insanely hard at actually scaling behind the scenes, we are apparently closing in on a very interesting chance for the actual leaders in the space to congregate and discuss what should actually happen with Bitcoin as we march away from the XT cesspool. It was a defensive attack to prevent the network to be captured by the blockstream's guys. Have you read what Hearn has written there: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/bitcoin-xt/PBjK0BuB7s4/8LREpcaNBQAJ ? Now, to your wider question. XT is about more than just the block size limit. If you look at Core, they have also decided they don't like unconfirmed transactions and P2P smartphone wallets. They blocked improvements for a long time already and are now preparing to delete support for P2P lightweight wallets entirely.
Obviously neither feature is required for some kind of rarely used settlement network, which is their vision. But they are rather important for the actual Bitcoin network we have today.
Their wildly different (incorrect) vision and the general way they treat volunteer developers, means lots of people who would have contributed to the Bitcoin project haven't done so, or did and then stopped. I'm one, Gavin is one, Thomas Zander is also one.
As you can see from the pull requests queue and chatter on this list, suddenly people are coming out of the woodwork with patches that aren't anything to do with bigger blocks, they're just stuff that was rejected for questionable or outright spurious reasons by the Bitcoin Core project. So now there's a chance for a re-review under a different development philosophy.They are very productive and brilliant for taking care of their own interest, no question about that. All I see is typical playing of the inclusion bullshit card and Mike Hearn wanting to break Bitcoin by letting in unqualified developers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish |
|
|
|
OP, all I see from your graphic is Bitfury supports Bip 100.
But whatever, as long as we get bigger blocks and Blockstream
is cockblocked from keeping the 1mb in place, I'll be happy.
Don't really give a rat's ass one way or the other about XT.
Blockstream, or its developers, never argued for permanent 1mb. I thought I taught you to shut your mouth when you were ignorant of facts? Did you not read my post on your thread clearly highlighting the benefits of larger blocks for sidechains? They stonewalled the increase for years (and continue to do) , same thing. They want the 1mb to be in place for their lightening payment network. For years?  Oh, not you Jonald!  You do know sidechains are better with bigger block size limit, right? I don't know what else to say to you! Frankly, really disappointed! * Edited. You know, that the lightening payment network is not a sidechain, right? People should really stop mixing things up ... his point is that transactions from bitcoin to sidechains are bigger than normal btc transactions. i dont see how sidechains get better with bigger blocks though... LN needs bigger blocks (otherwise its not really safe and easier to attack); sidechains dont. Yes, they scale more easily, they're transactions competing for block space. Now, instead of Blockstream being lazy and deferring the scaling of their system to block size they are actively researching more efficient crypto that will decrease the size of these transactions. |
|
|
|
I thought this debate made it clear that no one w/ half a brain really cares about spending Bitcoin at online stores. If Bitpay decides for some reason to support Bitcoin XT then by all means go ahead. They'll be left with no users in no time. The economic majority (people who actually hold coins) couldn't care less what Bitpay decides to do, they're not trying to spend their coins anyway.
You obviously don't seem to understand the peculiarities of a fork here. For anyone holding Bitcoins before the fork, there'd be a huge incentive to spend their coins on the chain they don't feel like supporting. After all, they would still hold all coins in their respective preferred chain, while at the same time, they could go shopping "for free" with their assumed worthless Altcoins. Basically, the more convinced you are that you're on the "right" side of the chain, the stronger your motivation to push the "wrong" side. You obviously don't seem to understand the reality of what we have to deal with here. The millions of coins held on cold storage and paper wallets will NEVER risk the security of their holdings by starting to shop their coins around in the event of a fork. That's just outrageous to say. |
|
|
|
The biggest mystery to me is how we arrived at this situation, where Gavin and Mike (felt they) had to resort to the fork solution mess...
Sure, a certain number of maxblockheads resisting any and all changes to the protocol I can see as being unavoidable. But why Gavin didn't manage to convince a majority of the core devs to support some adjustment is still not entirely clear to me.
Either Gavin tried to push exclusively his idea of an adjustment (which, admittedly, can seem a bit drastic) - in that case, it's a failure on his side to compromise. Alternatively, there was a consensus by the rest of the team that the current limit better not be touched at all right now (in which case, Gavin did the right thing, even if the right thing is a huge mess as well).
Seeing that Blockstream rejected even Jeff's 2 MB attempted compromise proposal, it is undeniable that they don't want ANY incerase in the block size limit at all. Their concerns about the effect of big blocks on nodes are just excuses. In fact, they have clearly stated their plan for bitcoin: get the network into congestion so that users are forced to compete for space in the blocks by raising the fees. Until most peer-to-peer traffic is driven out to off-chain solutions, leaving only high-value traffic on the blockchain -- such as settlements between hubs of some "overlay network". Some Blocstream devs mumbled about fees in the range 10--100 USD per transaction... Blockstream's plan makes no sense to me, and neither to Gavin and Mike. I thought that Blocksream may have some secret agenda that justified wreching bitcoin, but maybe they are just unable to do such quantitative analyses and genuinely believe that their plan will work. Gavin says that he has tried to convince the Blockstream devs to increase the limit for a long time, byt they refused. The 20 MB of Gavin's first proposal, and the automatic increases of BIP101, were clearly motivated by the FUD that Blocksrteam planted about hard forks (which in fact are not technically different from the soft forks that Blockstream likes). A single increase to 8 MB, that the Chinese pools considered acceptable, would have been good enough; but critics would say that it would require another hard fork, a few years later. Let it be known that every single word is patently false and a blatant misrepresentation of reality. The Blockstream guys AND a group of other developers are apparently working hard behind the scene testing, formalizing, validating new & refined proposals that I imagine is the plan for them to present at the ScalingBitcoin workshop. There will be compromise and it is very doubtful 8 MB blocks will be in the discussion or contention. This proposal has generally been met with little interest from the network other than the minions of Gavin & Mike's lobbying. I would wager to say it will hover around Jeff's proposition as far as immediate increased is concerned but the whole proposal might see some reworking. I plan to be there. |
|
|
|
OP, all I see from your graphic is Bitfury supports Bip 100.
But whatever, as long as we get bigger blocks and Blockstream
is cockblocked from keeping the 1mb in place, I'll be happy.
Don't really give a rat's ass one way or the other about XT.
Blockstream, or its developers, never argued for permanent 1mb. I thought I taught you to shut your mouth when you were ignorant of facts? Did you not read my post on your thread clearly highlighting the benefits of larger blocks for sidechains? They stonewalled the increase for years (and continue to do) , same thing. They want the 1mb to be in place for their lightening payment network. For years? Oh, not you Jonald! You do know sidechains are better with bigger block size limit, right? I don't know what else to say to you! Frankly, really disappointed! * Edited. You know, that the lightening payment network is not a sidechain, right? People should really stop mixing things up ... You know lightning network is not a Blockstream creation and open source? |
|
|
|
I think XT will be succesful in some way, even if the fork does not even happen: In pushing a blocksize increase.
I feel that many people are nowadays supporting a bigger block size due, in part to the XT move.
And I am not pro XT by any means. But that is my perception.
While I can understand this point of view it is plain wrong. It was, is and will forever be nothing more than an attack on the network. A divisive attempt to break consensus and create a schism fork. Productive collaboration between well intentioned actors in the ecosystem is considerably more effective in the resolution of a problem. This drama was a huge drain on those people. While Gavin & Mike gets to play politics and twiddle thumbs (or bake censorship code into Bitcoin), other developers can only sit there, withstand the barrage of reddit derps entitlement bullshit and persistent character assassination. YET! Because these are very productive and brilliant people who have against all lazy hearsay been working insanely hard at actually scaling behind the scenes, we are apparently closing in on a very interesting chance for the actual leaders in the space to congregate and discuss what should actually happen with Bitcoin as we march away from the XT cesspool. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
