It's really simple.


If Bitcoin Core can be changed by anyone, then anyone could make changes. They can't.


Bitcoin Core is the team with the keys to the source code. Now. There needs to be some way of deciding what code is in the software, otherwise, it would literally be a free for all, as you and DooMAD seem to be vaguely hinting at all the time.


It works like this:

• 1 blockchain has 1 set of rules
• Any number of separately made versions of Bitcoin software can run on the network, so long as they use that 1 set of rules

If someone wants to change the 1 set of rules, they can do this:

• Introduce modified Bitcoin software with a modified set of rules
• Encourage/hope that more than 50% of miners adopt it. And that much more than 50% of regular users adopt it

You guys seem to want to paint this confusing picture where more than 1 set of rules works at once. That's not possible. Because, well, rules. Duh.

Who's making the rules at the moment? Who puts out the software with those rules written into it? It's Core, isn't it?

That's a bit of a left-right way of looking at it, FoxNews is just as "fake" as CNN or RT. They all carry propaganda pieces, they all cover news stories created by intelligence agencies, they all have intelligence agents working at all levels of their respective organisations, no different to the corporate newspapers. And it's all very professionally (i.e. subtly) done.



Bitcoin is probably not popular with the traditional banking cartel (to wit, Circle, who supported Bitcoin XT and Bitcoin Classic hard forks, both of which were designed to take control of development away from the Core dev team, using big blocks arguments as an excuse for it)

Anyone rich is not going to remain rich for long if they spend the kind of sums needed to buy people-trafficked models on a stock jpeg of a blonde model on a Tor market place. There's no incentive for the seller to deliver, and I can't think of a way of offering proof that the deal will be done, or that the victim is available to buy.


Yeah, people trafficking is real, but even the most morally heinous commerce requires trust between those doing deals, and the higher the risk/price, the higher the levels of trust required. And you very likely can't trust these darkweb sellers any more than you can trust the Tor market you're selling on, I mean, how many stories do you hear where the whole website just disappears overnight, along with all the users (and probably also the dealers) BTC?

Story sounds pretty fake, and that's not the same thing as saying "people trafficking isn't real" (what did you spin that BS from? powdered unicorn tusk that you bought on the darknet? )

So yeah, at this point in time, Core controls the source code, we've established that.

And the control can be shifted to a different team, if Bitcoin users want it. Everyone's happy with that.



Why are you answering a different point to the actual point I'm making?


I say: "2x, bad idea IMO"

You say: "So, you're say it's impossible! You're saying people aren't allowed to choose 2x, let them choose, you big bully!"

I say: "uh, i just, uh, said it was a bad idea, and gave reasons"

You say: "There you go again! Saying everyone has to do it your way!!!"


I say: "Riiiiiiiiiiight"

Story is 101% crazy


Who in their right mind would buy a people trafficked slave from anonymous sellers on the dark web? Did the sellers have 100% feedback, lol


Sorry, but this is nuts, it just sounds like a really stupid (and possible not even true) story. Even people traffickers know how to do business in a way that doesn't harm themselves (despite how much harm they are willing to inflict on their victims), and this has got to be the riskiest way possible to trade in this particular reprehensible business. Not buying this story.

Better question: why fork Bitcoin at all? Unless you can make a really solid case that the direction of the Core developers is dangerous to Bitcoin's value, then hard forks that change the development team will always just look like thinly disguised coup attempts, no matter how much well meaning hand-waving accompanies them.




*Sigh*

So you're just playing with semantics about what the word "team" means to score some playground points?


Nothing changes as a result of what you've said.

At this point in time, Core controls the source code. Unless people like you can start the job of turning everyone against Core (which would be a smart move if Core were being incompetent with their control, but there is no case for that now or previously). No-one's arguing that's not possible, simply that it's a bad idea right now (but you're such a terrible troll that your reply to that is "wrong! it is possible! you are wrong!", so not much point in me saying "noooo, I'm actually just saying it's a bad idea....")


Instead of arguing all these complicated hypotheticals so that you can stick your tongue out and say na-na-na-na-naaa-naaa, why not stay on-topic (like my post you responded to), and tell us all about how much more wonderful Bitcoin is going to be when Jeff Garzik controls it instead? You don't seem to have an opinion at all, considering how many words you have to use to say precisely nothing

Uh, Core merged BIP91, so it's Core code. Like you're so fond of saying, anyone can write something and submit it for Core to review (you're not so fond of pointing out the difference between Core accepting BIP91 and Core rejecting Segwit 2x, funny that)

Notice how I don't need thousands of words to describe actual reality, yet it's supposedly me that's twisting the argument....

Still just playing with words and their definition to make your "point", huh


There is one Bitcoin blockchain, and one set of rules operating on the Bitcoin blockchain, and there can be only one of each: always 1 set of rules for 1 Bitcoin blockchain, and, 1 team that works on maintaining and developing it all at any one point in time. You seem to be desperate to prove otherwise, for some reason!

People are allowed to choose to change to different teams and their code, via a hard fork. And I'm a person, expressing my opinion about the choice. And your problem is..... ?

If no-one is in control of the source code, how come only 3 people have access to the source code keys, hmmm? Your arguments are just wordplay, some person is always in charge of the code at any one time. You make it sound like anyone can just change the code at will, but that's not the way software development is structured. You don't like this fact too much, huh



And it's simple, if Garzik gets his hands on the blockchain, we're all screwed, and you're all too happy to promote arguments that say that's cool. It's not cool.


Listen: I am a Bitcoin user no different to any of us. And I'm allowed to express my preference for Bitcoin's direction any way i like, which you regularly seem to wish to deny me!

It's you that's trying to police the users, not me. And I always seem to be your chosen victim to bully! What's that about!!!?

"Scaling" is a facade and always has been, the conflict is about control. Who controls the code, who controls the direction Bitcoin takes. And the users decide, not some corporate cartel.

The issue with 2x is not really technical, it's political.

The programmer leading the 2x team (Jeff Garzik) has been part of 2 or 3 attempts to take control of Bitcoin's source code and development for nearly 3 years now. Garzik has long been associated with or directly espoused views that Bitcoin needs to be changed so that it's not like internet cash (which is what everyone has always thought Bitcoin was supposed to be)

Segwit 2x is gonna end up as Bitcoin Fiat basically, Garzik is a fan of blacklisting and "won't someone think of the children" US-liberal types, and always has been.

Bitcoin is about liberty, and as long as Bitcoin users choose the option that gives them maximum power and choice, then there's nothing Garzik and his precious protection racket (otherwise known by their criminal aliases "international institutions" and "governments") can do about it.

Stop trying to steal Bitcoin Jeff, how many times to do you have to be told, coward?

Who's this Roger Ver guy

The floppening, that's what happened


The point is that real economic activity is difficult to measure or prove, and a metric for real economic activity is what really determines the top currency, period, cryptocurrency or fiat.

It's too easy to fabricate activity in any system, the financial press have been bleating about the Chinese economic miracle for more than 10 years, but there are equal numbers of stories about how fake all the growth figures are, or how severely leveraged all the growth is, or how the growth is all supply driven with no corresponding demand (ghost cities etc).


Cryptocurrencys proven to be little different, we've had 2 years of super high transaction volume in Bitcoin itself, and it's apparently all been driven by unknown actors pushing the "scaling" conflict (the tx rate numbers are far more pedestrian ever since the apparent cessation in hostilities in the Bitcoin development conflict).

So i don't what the best metric to measure cryptocurrency competition is, despite how veracious Satoshi's design is otherwise. Merchant acceptance? Easy to fake. Maybe transaction fees as a proportion of the monetary base? Not so easy (well, not so cheap) to fake, but the tx spammers have proven that some people have deep enough pockets to skew that metric. Maybe propensity to accept Bitcoin? Not so easy to measure.

When it comes down to it, false information is not a phenomenon that cryptographic proof systems can abolish, the goalposts simply move.

Dunno, what's the actual evidence for any of this? Sound like a classic "someone said something" story to me




It's equally possible that the US and/or Russian authorities just needed to get rid of an awkward opponent who set up their business in a way that was too difficult to use the law to shut down, so US/Russia simply concocted a plot to kill 2 birds with 1 stone (i.e. get rid of another awkward situation, the Mt Gox robbery)

Also equally possible (maybe more likely, actually) is that Vinnik was simply a front man for a bigger (unknown) fish, and that was the real reason BTC-e.com operated unmolested by the authorities for, what, 6-7 years?

I mean, come on people, you think this kind of business can be run for so long without the help of some corruption? Was Vinnik running this site from his own private country? Yeah, that's right, he was running it from Russia


I'll be much more convinced about this story (which is exactly what this news is: a story, with no provably independent evidence) if the Mt Gox BTC is returned in full to its rightful owners. Don't hold your breath, though.

It's far simpler than the deployment/testing schedule, or the software design issues: Jeff Garzik is unfit to be making decisions about Bitcoin's future direction, period


Jeff Garzik left the main Bitcoin development team when his ideas for the future direction of Bitcoin were repeatedly rejected (he vaunted or supported several centralising blocksize proposals, all of which were too radical, too vague or too blatantly centralising, respectively BIP101, BIP102 and BIP100)

Jeff left, Mike Hearn style, and went on to try to subtly chip away at the stability of Bitcoin network's consensus rules as a programmer for Bitcoin Classic (and embarrassed himself yet again).

It's clear that Jeff Garzik desperately wants to be in control of Bitcoin to impose his vision of it's developmental direction no matter the cost. If his ideas are so incredible though, and demonstrably so different from the consensus on direction of the dozens of other leading Bitcoin developers, then why can't Jeff Garzik just make his own cryptocurrency? His wish will come true, he will be king of JeffCoin, and his cryptocoin will be so much better than Bitcoin that his viewpoint will be vindicated, right? Strange how he persists for literally years trying to wrest control of Bitcoin in multiple (failed) attempts.

Jeff Garzik is poison to Bitcoin, smiling and talking in positive language, but the hidden intention is all too clear now: take over, in the most weasling way possible, then change it into something that is against privacy, against freedom, against sound money and against capitalism.

The only good news will be when your appallingly abusive concept dies a death, steven (a far more innovative sidechain will kill your "tech" eventually, lol)

And don't worry, you're not pissing anyone off, you'd have to have some kind of fortitude for that to happen

yes

It's also likely, not possible, that a new main development team led by Garzik would turn Bitcoin into a centralised, permissioned Paypal 2.0 nightmare, replete with blacklisting and compulsory ID for transaction processing (Garzik has demonstrated he is pro-state intervention, pro-closed source code and anti-cash countless times).

Bitcoin will have it's internet cash/gold mission statement compromised by Garzik, no question

Uh, it is?

You do realise that Segwit2x activating is meaningless if users don't switch to the forked Bitcoin software that can use it?


Again, you do realise that a switch in development teams is by no means inevitable?


When you look at Garzik's track record, and the people he's often taken sides with (Mike Hearn, Gavin Andresen etc), he represents the class of people that wnat Bitcoin to be owned and run by the establishment financial system, centrally.

So you're presenting a picture that implies we can't do anything about something that's potentially very bad for Bitcoin: we hand control of the software development to people who want to turn it into PayPal 2.0, probably as slowly as possible to keep as many lemmings on board as possible.


It's simple: don't follow any of these hard forks, they're all demonstrably bad ideas, and all demonstrably dangerous to the stability both of the Bitcoin network and it's market price.

Why are you encouraging (false) belief in a voluntary change that seriously threatens Bitcoin, bbc.reporter? Bit irresponsible of you.

You've got that ass-backwards


The miners must mine the fork with the economic majority transacting on it, otherwise they will end up mining blocks for a blockchain that no-one is using. Vires in Numeris.

It depends what you mean by "fall".


the fundamental points being: fall when? And why?


If the price rises in one blockchain fork quickly after either BIP148 forking or Segwit2x forking, then where's the fiat coming from to cause that rise? Maybe the market as a whole participate to make that happen, but what if someone powerful with lots of fiat money to burn just hoses their spare cash at one of these forks?

What if genuine market forces naturally (and likely slowly) turn the price disparity around after such a fork + price rise? Maybe the mainchain with BIP142 Segwit activated would regain the cryptocurrency number one spot, or the losing fork would (whichever that may be). Maybe the mainchain won't get activated with BIP142, never loses it's number one place in cryptocurrencies, and gets activated by BIP149 instead of any of these options.

There are probably dozens or permutations of what could happen, so simply wishing that the price doesn't fall ever isn't really detailed enough.