|
The ol' proverbial hockey stick?
|
|
|
|
Mike Hearn did more for bitcoin than all of you put together. History will record this moment as the time when bitcoin blew up. All you haters and butthurters will be sorry that you didn't listen to Mike. Truth hurts. Sell your worthless coins now. We're going down HARD. Why do I feel like a broken record?
The miners are firing Blockstream Core... that's bullish in the long term. Time to sell was last week when Core took an email from gmax as gospel and the price was $450. |
|
|
|
Most are just frustrated at the infighting , politics, bikeshedding , and lack of consensus. I seriously doubt it has anything to do with the roadmap. They want an increase like everyone else.
Yep, I often stick a middle finger in the face of my "friends" too. You need to wake up and smell the revolution. Fence sitting can be painful. |
|
|
|
Annnnnd....I'm back. 72 hours in angsty exile and you godless monsters! Look what you've done!! Confession: My deep sense of isolation drove me into the hoary orange arms another forum.  Thanks Obama Blockstream Mike!  There's no drama like internet nerd drama. |
|
|
|
But hey, if you bitches prefer it by Peter Rizun coding shit, go for the fucking it.
Good riddance! The sooner the better noobs.
How's your day going hdbuck? Seems that they're coming at you from all sides... Power Rangers want segwit signature separation for old nodes... Classic has endorsement from 50% of the hashrate... eek. |
|
|
|
This is the beauty of open source software.
If and when the "evil" muhahahah... blockstream guys carry out their dastardly plan of "forcing" their products onto the bitcoin community I can reject them and their code. In the meantime I like their contributions and would appreciate if you judge their current work based upon its merit and something more substantive than ... its too complicated.
Exactly. My opinion doesn't matter all that much. It's a sort of catharsis to get it out there though. The market will decide on proposals, and they are. The incentive structure upon which Bitcoin operates might prove that it actually works... Bullish (at least when when the drama's died down). |
|
|
|
No they don't. Their actions have proven that over the last 1-2 years.
Ok, I understand , You are one of those conspiracy theorists without evidence who doesn't take either their word or work in support of raising the capacity as any indication... Big, old bad Blockstream(never mind the other 40 devs) out to eat your children and all... Gotcha. I'll preface by saying that the Blockstream guys are highly competent coders and cryptographers, they were before they formed Blockstream, and they are today. Your placement of trust in them thus far is not alien to me. However, a conflict of interest is an insidious thing, it may start out benign, but under the pressure of investors, deadlines, and runway... may begin to allow a form of self delusion... a self reinforcing mentality that what is best for the company is best for the protocol.
The investors that deposited $21 mil didn't do so out of charity, they were sold an eventual ROI. I'm not satisfied with the thesis that it was "we're going to altruistically contribute open source code to better Bitcoin, which will probably make us massive amounts of money somehow, and we'll dissolve the company while stiffing the investors if we have second thoughts about it." I want to know how they plan to make money, and if artificially crippling the main chain could incubate that plan.
It seems that more distribution of available software is the only way to allow miners, who issue the votes that count, to fully exercise their built in right of voting with hashes. If the miners continue to choose core's direction, so be it, I'll convert my node to a segwit node so it actually continues to fully verify. I got interested in Bitcoin because it felt like there wasn't a central point of control, that it natively resisted control by centralized influence. I have confidence that the market will settle the blocksize just as efficiently as it sets the price and the difficulty, a market with production quotas is not a market. Mining valid blocks is not a trivial thing, and those doing it have an interest in seeing the system they manage be as successful as possible.
|
|
|
|
I must admit that you sound like a pretty reasonable person, so I'll go easy... 50% of the hashrate basically just said NACK to Core's Roadmap™. Either the Blockstream devs and their wizards quickly alter course and are able to maintain and grow the shreds of support they still possess... or we are very likely to have a "contentious™" and quickly decided fork this spring. Out of those 45... how many do you think will #ragequit and never work on Bitcoin again because they couldn't keep 1MB and pave the way for LN and Blockstream™ products? 49% of the hashing power said "Ack" to to the idea of 2MB(which segwit essentially does). They are still all running core. We cannot assume their intentions towards acking Bitcoin classic 2MB until they actually change their code. My guess is there will be some consensus made between Core and Classic or some of that hashing power will just except Core + segwit if it gets rolled out ontime and merely acked classic because they wanted to reach consensus and move forward and would be happy with either classic or core + segwit. If you have evidence that those miners oppose segwit and simply want BIP102 without segwit than please let me know. I personally would be happy with either proposal , but am slightly inclined to core for obvious technical reasons. Can you explain to me why BIP102 is technically better than core + segwit? You honestly think these miners would do this [endorse Classic]... if they were happy about the roadmap™? Look what it did to the price today... they are in it for the long term, even willing to take a huge hit in the price today to secure a more certain and prosperous tomorrow. Some elements of segwit are likely to be introduced if their benefits outweigh the costs of complexity, and with the clarity/cleaness of a hard fork, the market will control the introduction and timing of such a solution. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin "Classic"! What a stupid name. Logically there's nothing really classic about it. They should have spent a little more time thinking up a proper name at least.
It's called Classic because it is was inspired by Satoshi's scaling solution. And is in keeping with his vision for a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Bitcoin classic is BIP 102 Summary of differences between core+segwit and classic now - Classic - BIP102Effective 2MB block capacity + possibly removing RBF + possibly versionbits 5 developers maintaining CoreEffective 1.75-2MB Block capacity Version bits , future fraud proofs, signature pruning, simpler script updates, fixing malleability allowing future payment channels. 45 developers maintaining Both are good.... but Classic isn't that exciting now that they decided to remove 2-4 + segwit as an option. I must admit that you sound like a pretty reasonable person, so I'll go easy... 50% of the hashrate basically just said NACK to Core's Roadmap™. Either the Blockstream devs and their wizards quickly alter course and are able to maintain and grow the shreds of support they still possess... or we are very likely to have a "contentious™" and quickly decided fork this spring. Out of those 45... how many do you think will #ragequit and never work on Bitcoin again because they couldn't keep 1MB and pave the way for LN and Blockstream™ products? Also, nothing stops the two group to team up after Classic forks to work together and implement the Core upgrades later into the now Classic chain. Especially after they realize they (core dev team) can be routed that easily, not like it is good -or bad-, just a fact. Consensus by the majority of the network, is not that how bitcoin developing supposedly? So, why is that not an option? Because rage?? Nothing stops Core or anyone else from developing Bitcoin before, during, or after a fork. The market decides what direction they want to go via:  |
|
|
|
The real reason for the drop is...
...global markets continue to melt, as oil hits 12 year lows, and the whales who move the BTC price sell to cover losses and bottom feed in other sectors. Are you even aware there is a global economy, and Bitcoin's fiat price is determined in that context? Or are you so fixated on Blockstream all other matters fade into the background, as your obsession increases your derangement to the point where you are reduced to ranting about an absurd, utopian scenario wherein "the fork goes off without a hitch?" Tell us more about how _Classic's contentious hard fork will be a cakewalk, and the conquering Gavinista heroes will be greeted as liberators with roses, candy, and ticker tape parades. You're a fool if you think that the price crashed because oil went below $30. It went down because a hard fork this spring now looks very likely, that means uncertainty, am I repeating myself...? With 75% of the hashes needed, what kind of hitches should I expect aside from some petty DoS'ing and some cheap "rage dumped" coinz? Maybe use guise will spam the mempool and donate some fees to the miners? Unfortunate that it will be slightly more expensive at 2MB.  |
|
|
|
Bitcoin "Classic"! What a stupid name. Logically there's nothing really classic about it. They should have spent a little more time thinking up a proper name at least.
It's called Classic because it is was inspired by Satoshi's scaling solution. And is in keeping with his vision for a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Bitcoin classic is BIP 102 Summary of differences between core+segwit and classic now - Classic - BIP102Effective 2MB block capacity + possibly removing RBF + possibly versionbits 5 developers maintaining CoreEffective 1.75-2MB Block capacity Version bits , future fraud proofs, signature pruning, simpler script updates, fixing malleability allowing future payment channels. 45 developers maintaining Both are good.... but Classic isn't that exciting now that they decided to remove 2-4 + segwit as an option. I must admit that you sound like a pretty reasonable person, so I'll go easy... 50% of the hashrate basically just said NACK to Core's Roadmap™. Either the Blockstream devs and their wizards quickly alter course and are able to maintain and grow the shreds of support they still possess... or we are very likely to have a "contentious™" and quickly decided fork this spring. Out of those 45... how many do you think will #ragequit and never work on Bitcoin again because they couldn't keep 1MB and pave the way for LN and Blockstream™ products? |
|
|
|
Bitcoin "Classic"! What a stupid name. Logically there's nothing really classic about it. They should have spent a little more time thinking up a proper name at least.
It's called Classic because it is was inspired by Satoshi's scaling solution. And is in keeping with his vision for a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.  |
|
|
|
|
Just the "socioeconomic majority" demonstrating their base of support.
|
|
|
|
This is a great day for Bitcoin. Hearn@gnome.zurich.ch has with typical self-aggrandizement surrendered unconditionally to the Knights of Satoshi, leaving the Gavinista insurgency demoralized and rudderless. A parasitic shitcoin exchange will no longer operate fraudulently on an undisclosed fractional reserve, teaching noobs about the risk of being too greedy and gullible. Fee markets continue to mature, as Bitcoin's pay-for-priority model ignores the drama and reliably records properly funded transactions. Planned upgrades to Honey Badger proceed apace, as Core's Wizards develop miracles such as Lightning, SegWit, Sidechains, Confidential Transactions, RBF, CLTV, etc. The Winklevoss ETF is one day closer to approval, while Bitcoins are shaken free from forlorn faint-hearted Gavinista fail-forkers' feeble fingers. The Bitcoin Core community continues thriving under the light touch of Thermos's moderation and administration, while the Gavinistas splinter into increasingly esoteric personality-driven cliques. Paper money continues to burn, as Chinese and other markets are in free-fall despite the best efforts of Hearn's beloved BIS coordinated and funded Plunge Protection Teams. I'm happy as a daisy! https://i.imgur.com/sDHOoZ2.jpg[/img][/center] 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.  The tide is turning against the Blockstream takeover. Can't say I didn't try to warn you. You've been bootlicking the wrong powers. Bitcoin routes around attempts to steer and control it, about time you learned that. The control you believed they possessed is slipping like sand out of a clenched and mailed fist. I'm salivating about buying up a piece of Mircea's suicide short this spring. If I'm lucky (and he's not a coward), I'll get a piece of iCE's rage dump too.   Blockstream Core... #REKT |
|
|
|
From what I can tell BitcoinClassic has 50% commitment and they're about to add another 23 ...
From what I can tell there will be a ClassicBitcoin fork. Hope every want-free-bitcoin-space idiot will join them. R u guise planning on forking at the same time to lower the difficulty and change the PoW for your <25% cripple chain side? We'll stick to the main bitcoin branch guise. I thought after XT altcoin fork got rekt you're planning the next one - the BitcoinClassic fork. XT was 8MB now, going to 8GB over 20 years... miners said "no way", and with solid reasoning. Additionally, dictatorship by Mike Hearn was undesirable to them and me as well. Classic is 2MB in 2016, growing to 4MB in 2018. This is exactly what miners wanted, and half of the hashrate has already signed on to that vision. Garzik, Gavin, and Toomim listening to miners, businesses, and the community for direction is far from a Hearn dictatorship. Drawing an equivalence between the two just demonstrates your ignorance of the situation. You are sticking to the Blockstream Core side of the fork... I asked you how you plan to do that with less than 25% of the hashrate of Classic. |
|
|
|
Stop defending him, he does not deserve it.
"Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people." Lauda's just worried now that it appears he's been bootlicking all the petty tyrants and would-be technocrats that have impeded Bitcoin's destiny. The internet remembers. The tide is turning tho, the free market incentives upon which Bitcoin was built might just work... Bitfury, Bitmain, BW, KnC have taken the gloves off and are asserting their right of vote by hashrate. Wonder who's next? Makes me more bullish than ever for the long term. Short term, it's gonna be a little messy, lots of rage dumping and gnashing of teeth. When we emerge at the other end of the tunnel though... it may turn out to be a glorious spring day, with the summer halving right around the corner Maybe, but i dont wanna loose the core devs. They are important as fuck! Just with Gavin and two, three others we wont be able to move on, we have to integrate them into the eventual 2MB version. If they fail to build peace it will get very difficult... Still an open source project, they are welcome to contribute to Classic, or even update Core to be compliant with the network consensus. If any of them #ragequit and refuse to work with network consensus because they can't have it all their way, we're better off without them. |
|
|
|
From what I can tell BitcoinClassic has 50% commitment and they're about to add another 23 ...
From what I can tell there will be a ClassicBitcoin fork. Hope every want-free-bitcoin-space idiot will join them. R u guise planning on forking at the same time to lower the difficulty and change the PoW for your <25% cripple chain side? |
|
|
|
Stop defending him, he does not deserve it.
"Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people." Lauda's just worried now that it appears he's been bootlicking all the petty tyrants and would-be technocrats that have impeded Bitcoin's destiny. The internet remembers. The tide is turning tho, the free market incentives upon which Bitcoin was built might just work... BitFury, Bitmain, BW, KnC have taken the gloves off and are asserting their right of vote by hashrate. Wonder who's next? Makes me more bullish than ever for the long term. Short term, it's gonna be a little messy, lots of rage dumping and gnashing of teeth. When we emerge at the other end of the tunnel though... it may turn out to be a glorious spring day, with the summer halving right around the corner |
|
|
|
Thanks to this guy Mike Hearn the price went down $60 today. Alot of people have lost a lot of money and it's all because of this guy.
In order to get back our money we need to find this guy and make him take back all the bullshit and lies he wrote in his blog. He will be making a full public media apology for his actions and a confession that he is a troll and FUD master.
So if you know Mike Hearn, his address or any information about him please post it. We need to contact him personally and let him know he is responsible for people losing their hard earned money. And we need to ask him what he is going to do about it.
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. |
|
|
|
"Raise the block size!" they said. "We have consensus!" they said. "Market is going to rally around big blocks" they said. welp  Your tears are delicious. I saw you rage tweeting BitFury earlier... No matter, "socioeconomic consensus" doesn't need miners... amirite? The tide is turning against the Blockstream takeover. Can't say I didn't try to warn you. You've been bootlicking the wrong powers. Bitcoin routes around attempts to steer and control it, about time you learned that. The control you believed they possessed is slipping like sand out of a clenched and mailed fist. I'm salivating about buying up a piece of Mircea's suicide short this spring. I would try to buy some of your rage dumping too... but your join date probably makes that goal moot. Blockstream Core... #REKT |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
