There is still hope for mankind if BIP 102 fails.

As bitcoin becomes inundated and infiltrated by companies like Blockstream and PWC, alternative currencies will learn from these breaches and compromises and build stronger systems to prevent Satoshi's original protocol from being perverted, co-opted, and corrupted.

I had not long ago given up entirely on Bitcoin after discovering the depths of its infection, but BIP102 has given me new-found hope. If somehow this proposal can escape the paid puppets and prevail, it will buy more time for the community to pull the pesky corporate weeds from its Core.

~~

Existem pessoas que NUNCA vão confiar no Bitcoin!

Qdo eu cheguei aquí na España eu pensava q a visão q temos da internet em sí e da informática em geral era uma base, uma dessas coisas que ninguém dúvida q veio pra ficar. Mas a realidade é q n é assim! Se aquí ainda encontro pessoas q fazem as contas em pesetas(moeda anterior ao euro)! Tive uma "interessante" conversa com uma pessoas q acha q td isso(Internet e computadores) n é nada mais que pura "moda", e q um día voltaremos a estar como nos anos 60!

Assim que, mesmo que o Bitcoin alcançe um nivel de aceitação de Bilhoes de pessoas, o Banco convencional vai continuar existindo, até que, algúm día, se enfrentem a uma crise de proporções titanicas e se afoguem nas suas propias dividas.. Mesmo assim sou da teoria qo Bitcoin tem q estar como ALTERNATIVA a esse sistema corrupto, e nao como o "carrasco".. Creio que devemos pensar que as criptodivisas estão aqui para criar um sistema alternativo aos bancos de sempre... O email n eliminou o correio, certo?(vc ainda pode pegar um envelope, escrever uma carta, por selo e mandar ela). O q sim aconteçe é q o correio ficou num segunidsimo lugar. Acho q a relação  entre bancos e bitcoin será assim.

E tbm acho q esses mesmos bancos sabem MTO bem disso, por isso querem "meter na nossa cabeça" o conceito de Bitcoin é uma coisa e blockchain é outra. E, sinceramente, acho q isso vai ter um pequeno sucesso, mas também, a idéia de que pode existir a blockchain sem exisitir nenhum criptomoeda, vai ter uma vida curta. E o q existe será PRIVADO, e esse é um grande erro. Ainda assim, a comunidade Bitcoin tem q pensar nas pessoas, deixem os bancos pra lá! 

You think 2 competing coins is bad but are ready to risk it with a low 75%? We have already have had multiple soft forks with 95% so I don't understand why you believe that is unachievable especially when the polls indicate that over 95% of the miners are ok with 2MB HF. The core devs are also ok with a 2MB hardfork in feb/march 2017 bringing it to an effective 4MB. So the only real contention is the the timeline ... but that can't possibly be the case because even with an extremely rushed HF, segwit is going live before or near the same time as classic bringing a similar capacity increase... which leads me to think that the true number classic wants is 4MB or higher capacity by mid 16' where they do a BIP 102 bump and than copy cores work on segwit.

So if its really 4MB on the chain what is wanted this year ... do you think a compromise can be made where the 4MB+ capacity(likely higher because LN may roll out this year too) can be accelerated to later this year(Pieter already said that with high consensus a 6 month HF may be possible) instead of March 17' if we work together on the node drop off rate, talking about an IETF governance model for devs and mining centralization problems? Is this something even worth pursuing you think or are there other needs not being met?

What I fear is that it really isn't about 2MB or even 4MB ... but this is BIP 101 which is the highest voted for proposal. https://bitcoin.consider.it/
Are my fears unfounded... or are those numbers right and Bitcoin classic is merely a re-branded XT? If it isn't than surely a compromise for and effective  4MB can be found ... right?

Um exemplo simples do que eu tava dizendo(Isso foi um uso REAL):



Editado: Tava aí o meu nome inteiro, mas como um amigo meu tava "chiando" aquí, eu troquei o nome por "DXXXX MXXXXXX"..mas o resto é real

Nothing has to change on a fundamental level, just the output display of wallets and sites. Most of them offer that option already. I do think Satoshi missed a trick there. It would've been far simpler to do it from minute one. Average human psychology isn't programmed for piles of zeroes at the front.

LMAO

Eu estou pensando em criar um grupo de ajuda. Que tal o nome: FAUCETEIROS ANÔNIMOS  

The conflicts of interest inside Bitcoin core have reached near deadly levels. At one time core was free and independent, this is no longer true.

Taking a look around here, it's not very hard to see that most devs opposed to 2MB blocks are on Blockstream's payroll. Very sad and disgusting.

But its working for alot of us on the forum. and yes its not realy free since you do work for them. But it pays and it pays better then all these faucets and its less work.

Core's view of how Bitcoin should be governed:

1. All changes should be with conensus

2. Consensus means everyone agrees.

3. We don't agree to anything but our own roadmap

4. Therefore, anything but our way isn't consensus and can't happen.

5. Hard forks threaten consensus too, so no hard forking unless
we say so and no doing anything unless Gregory says its ok.

that guy is great.. but the first day someone gets interested in bitcoin, it needs to be laymen demonstration. then lesson 2 gets more technical explanation, lesson 3 gets even more technical code snippets..

for instance if
5=consumers
1=github repo's

the guy in the world bitcoin network video's is a 2-3.

bitcoin needs alot more concentration on level 5 consumer based services, options and tutorials

less buzzword wizardry and theory. more layman demonstration.
as i said before on a different page making an escrow (multisig) should not be a command prompt technique where users have to try remember the spellings of the command and the formatting of the brackets, comma's and speachmarks.

the way i imagine it..

imagine you meet a woman in a bar
you dont say i am a trader of a trustless world wide decentralized cryptographically secure public ledger token.
you would say. i trade international currencies

and when they seem interested. you dont say "to use it you need to RPC call createmultisig <nrequired> <‘[“key”,”key”]’>, add the .."
instead you say, "let me show you, let me buy you a drink, waitress ill have bottle of champagne, can you display your QR code so i can pay"

as i think that is the problem with the whole escrow thing.
1. they are bombarded with technical waffle that bitcoin is a trustless peer to peer, blah blah that doesnt need central oversight.. so that makes them think they dont have to worry about trust.
then they know RPC commands are like speaking chinese to a texas rancher, so they just do what they would do on paypal and hand the money over to some stranger who says they offer a escrow payment service

Concordo plenamente, mas o que vc acha que eles podem fazer pra tomar o controle desa tecnologia? Porque teoricamente o bitcoin é nocivo pros bancos, certo?

No. A hard fork simply needs *one* miner to start mining it. How long it lives (how many blocks) is another story.
As far as "majority" goes, this "majority" doesn't include people who are hodling (not trading/using) their coin. Only the coins currently in play (on exchanges) & fiat (people willing to buy mined coins) are a part of this "majority."
TL;DR: Miners will mine whatever they can sell, most of their assets are in gear/real estate housing that gear, don't necessarily hold BTC,
Can you see how their interests might not coincide with the hodlers?