Core devs will act when they absolutely have to. Surely they won't risk losing out purely through ignorance & refusal to change.
its starting to feel like if they don't do somthing fast, their opinion will be irrelevant. they really need to commit to some kind of plan with a time frame at this point.
It sounds like you might not be very technical, and may have been misled by soundbites.
That's OK, the Core Team of Bitcoin is technical, and have discovered that a 2MB block limit would be an extreme blow to decentralization and censorship resistance. Verification time scales quadratically to size and there is no known or conceived way to stop someone from making a 2MB block that will take 10 minutes to verify, thus destroying Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is immune from government and corporate influence today, and very technical people are working around the clock to keep it that way. Conspiracy theories about nefarious profit and control motives of the Core Technicians have been promulgated by non-technical people [Big Banks], don't listen to them.
Core Technicians have come up with a time frame and a plan. It's unfortunate that someone [Big Banks], has kept that from you. All your concerns and questions are answered here: in roadmap.
Kind Regards.
Your patience is appreciated while coders write code. |
|
|
|
Because this is a consensus based community, anything that is more complex than 1+1=2 will not be able to reach consensus simply because not every participants have time to understand complex schemes. 2MB is most possible to reach major consensus right now
This does not justify the situation. I'm pretty sure that 99% of the users do not correctly know how the underlying math and hashing works yet they believe in the security and privacy (pseudo anonymity) of Bitcoin. This is why people without a IT background should not be deciding on these matters and making illogical moves. Choosing 2 MB blocks over SegWit is very redundant. Maybe you could offer your services to BitFury and talk some sense into them Lauda. They obviously know nothing about IT backgroundscaping. Please clarify whether BitFury is in favor of plain old non-segwit 2MB blocks, or 2MB tx + 6MB witness blocks. And what about RBF/CLTV? You do know which it is, right? I'm sure you would never presume to advocate for a third party's position on which you are not perfectly clear. I'm not advocating for any third party. My interests are my own as a long time participant and investor in BTC. This is the only info I have directly from BitFury:  |
|
|
|
I won't be lectured as to what Bitcoin "stands for" by the crowd that is using a malicious miner DDoS limit from 2010 as an economic policy tool to benefit Blockstream™. Come back to me when you do a little research and discover why F2Pool mined that block.
The current situation does not benefit Blockstream, stop with the conspiracy nonsense that you've been filled with by the likes of Hearn. There's no need to do more research on that issue. It would be both funny and sad if someone were to manufacture such a block on the first day of Classic.  Even if we disregard this, scaling to 2 MB in comparison to SegWit is very redundant (because SegWit will increase the tps capacity to an equal level as standard 2 MB blocks would). Personally, I'm glad Hearn did his little farewell "fuck you". His agenda was too aggressive and would never satisfy a broad consensus of miners. He said his piece and he is done, he didn't just whip his cape and go into seclusion for a month or two. I'm thankful for bitcoinJ, but his approach, especially towards chinese miners, and yes, some fellow devs, was quite unproductive. I'll drop the conspiracy nonsense if you tell me how Blockstream intends to pay back the $21 million... and give their VC benefactors an ROI, and why a crippled and expensive main chain wouldn't incubate that plan. Classic is #R3KT right?? So no worries there... I bet they haven't even considered malicious miner attacks and DDoS'ing from the real socieconomic majority. |
|
|
|
Such an attack could be easily disallowed by the protocol. Not to mention it's completely illogical from a miner's perspective. But you already knew that...
Disallowed? That would mean you would have to disable a certain type of blocks/transactions which would be a very bad move considering what Bitcoin stands for. Illogical from a miner's perspective? Not if I spend a couple of BTC in fees; they would not ignore it. A similar block was mined by F2Pool last year (IIRC). I won't be lectured as to what Bitcoin "stands for" by the crowd that is using a malicious miner DDoS limit from 2010 as an economic policy tool to benefit Blockstream™. Come back to me when you do a little research and discover why F2Pool mined that block. |
|
|
|
Maybe you could offer your services to BitFury and talk some sense into them Lauda. They obviously know nothing about IT backgroundscaping.
Just because they know how to make hardware that does not meant that are familiar with software engineering nor that they're good at it (hence why it is almost impossible for a person to be an engineer of both sorts). However, this is not even remotely related to my post. I was talking about the users. 2 MB blocks could be engineered so that they take longer than 10 minutes to validate (that would be a 'fun' scenario if Classic takes off). Such an attack could be easily disallowed by the protocol. Not to mention it's completely illogical from a miner's perspective. But you already knew that... And yeah, BitFury haz no softwarez engineering talentz.  |
|
|
|
Because this is a consensus based community, anything that is more complex than 1+1=2 will not be able to reach consensus simply because not every participants have time to understand complex schemes. 2MB is most possible to reach major consensus right now
This does not justify the situation. I'm pretty sure that 99% of the users do not correctly know how the underlying math and hashing works yet they believe in the security and privacy (pseudo anonymity) of Bitcoin. This is why people without a IT background should not be deciding on these matters and making illogical moves. Choosing 2 MB blocks over SegWit is very redundant. Maybe you could offer your services to BitFury and talk some sense into them Lauda. They obviously know nothing about IT backgroundscaping. |
|
|
|
Well... the number of coins is limited to 21 million, and it is sensorship resistant... therefore, print out some private keys, put them away... <years pass> Filthy Rich. |
|
|
|
The core development team had more than enough time now to design a version of Bitcoin that allows scalability. The original Bitcoin never had the 1MB limitation and raising it now to 2MB will not kill the currency, it's simply adjusting the code to new requirements, gives BTC the potential to grow further and seems to reflect minimal consensus needed at this point in time. Let BTC thrive with 2MB blocks. Very simple. Classic it is!
Sounds like you've been misled by soundbites, and aren't very technically oriented. If Bitcoin is hardforked to 2MB by a majority of hashrate, businesses, and users... Bitcoin haz failed, K? It's only logical. Antifragile ftw. |
|
|
|
|
In other news, after an arduous battle with assburgers, OP learns how 2 speal. Here's Tom with the weather.
|
|
|
|
Don't worry... The "socioeconomic majority" is standing-by to get the chiners back in line if they don't know what is best for them... capiche??? *nipple rubbing intensifies* Isn't it reeeeeally not faaaaaair that nobody can DDOS Bitcoin, but _Classic is going to be nuked with state-backed (La Serenissima) agency levels of IP fury? How terrrrrrible that anyone stupid enough to attack Bitcoin and risk $5 billion of other people's money in catastrophic consensus failure will be obliterated. UDP is permissionless? Aaaaawwwee, tough luck little fellah. Coinbase is built to withstand 100Gb/s DDOS? That's cute. MP is probably building a Starkiller Base capable of hitting all attacking nodes, Coinbase, and the rest of the Blockchain Alliance with 500Gb/s for weeks. When Coinbase's ISP/CDN/COLO get turned into smoking, glowing craters and Brian is told to find other providers to paint a giant target on, that's going to entail a lot of downtime. If you understand Bitcoin at all, you understand it necessarily confers all possible advantages to its defenders, and all possible disadvantages to attackers. EG: How many dollars and customers does Coinbase lose every minute it's down? How much reputation and potential business does it lose with every " Coinbase blasted off the internet!" story in the press and electronic media? I don't know, but I'm sure it's much more than Coinbase's investors want to lose in a futile, aggressive war of choice. |
|
|
|
|
Remember guise... "Either Blockstream Core, or price through the floor!" -Obama
|
|
|
|
A tool has been created. What the tool enables, where that leads, and how, is up for history to decide. I doubt Satoshi was ignorant of this fact when he released it into the wild.
I'm sure his conscience will have an easier go of it than Oppenheimer's.
i think it was well known that Oppenheimer was a psychopath that likely didn't have a conscience ... yet a remarkable mind never-the-less. The guy that quoted the Bhagavad Gita... Psychopath confirmed. |
|
|
|
Wouldn't you say that the proposal sounds a little more reasonable now that Hearn is gone though? I'm still surprised that prominent miners show support towards "Bitcoin Classic" despite the fact that it hasn't been developed yet.
Eschewing modern features which form the foundation for scaling (RBF/SEGWIT/CLTV/Lightning/Sidechains), in favor of a trivial TPS increase and catastrophic consensus failure, is not in any way "reasonable." Not even a little bit! It's so unreasonable that iCE doesn't even have to furiously type away against it.  but it is stupidly simple enough to suck in the punters .... hence the typing. The punters that run PH/s? |
|
|
|
Wouldn't you say that the proposal sounds a little more reasonable now that Hearn is gone though? I'm still surprised that prominent miners show support towards "Bitcoin Classic" despite the fact that it hasn't been developed yet.
Eschewing modern features which form the foundation for scaling (RBF/SEGWIT/CLTV/Lightning/Sidechains), in favor of a trivial TPS increase and catastrophic consensus failure, is not in any way "reasonable." Not even a little bit! It's so unreasonable that iCE doesn't even have to furiously type away against it. |
|
|
|
bad or not bad,Coinbase is used by the most US bitcoiners I agree. And Wal-Mart sells a lot of smartphones. But they don't tell Apple and Samsung how to design them.  ~ Companies like Coinbase and Circle need to stick with retailing, and let core focus on design unmolested. Retailers should retail, miners should mine, and core should develop. They might just get that chance... and the GPU mining section might get a lot busier too.  |
|
|
|
|
... This week in Stolfi's utopia.
In the grand experiment of Bitcoin, one involving a large number of human participants and for a variety of reasons... expecting only the right people being involved for the right reasons is ridiculous.
A tool has been created. What the tool enables, where that leads, and how, is up for history to decide. I doubt Satoshi was ignorant of this fact when he released it into the wild.
I'm sure his conscience will have an easier go of it than Oppenheimer's.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin routes around attempts to centrally steer and control its destiny. Nothing Mike Hearn, nor anyone else, can do about that.  |
|
|
|
heheh, pulled a rabbit out of a hat there adam, well done  Ugh, the cockr0ach is talking sense again... I'm outta here.  |
|
|
|
|
Yeap... All our problems are due to Mike Hearn... who has a blog.
|
|
|
|
Such BS. If Mike was so wrong and a hindrance to the project... the market would have rallied with the news he was quitting Bitcoin for good. The real reason for the drop is that we very well may be firing Blockstream Core as the development team for Bitcoin this spring. That means uncertainty, lots of it, markets hate uncertainty. Already, half of the hashrate has signed on to the direction of Bitcoin Classic, and it isn't even released yet. Comparing it to XT is a display of ignorance. The good news, once the fork goes off without a hitch, 1MB4EVA crowd rage dumps, we can rally HARD... and have the extra capacity to do it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
