diversity is good.
imagine(shoe on other foot) if the network was just core only and they had a bug..
...
(2013: AKA Sipa's big leveldb boo boo) caused more real damage than just a few nodes going offline
however by having many different implementations and being diverse. means people can just run a different node until a bug is fixed.
devs need to start acting independent and helping eachother out.
but if core want to kill(rekt) the network to become kings. then users wont have diversity to protect them, expect another 2013 Sipa boo boo
You know franky1, leveldb was rnike heam's brainchild, right? |
|
|
|
|
Franky1, you do understand that BU themselves were the first to publicly release this info, right?
|
|
|
|
This post is a dirty fucking lie.
Every Bitcoin user should be outraged at this libel.
BU shipped vulnerable software. BU disclosed their vulnerablity in public. Random people on the internet broke their shit.
Now the BU org claims "Bitcoin Core" did it?
FUCKING BULLSHIT.
The only thing contributors to Bitcoin Core have done here is gone "WTF".
Don't worry, we are outraged. Anyone who followed the timeline of these events can clearly see that this article is nothing but malicious spin. It's really phenomenal how they have the gall to twist BU's vulnerability (and their handling of it) into "Core is the devil". In my opinion, this propaganda (what else can you call it?) is the real attack and anyone pushing this narrative is actually trying to harm Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Also, if we can reach high volumes of transactions with a layer on top of the existing network
That's called a banking network. It can only work through centralization. LN hubs are banks, knowing you, knowing what you do, and blocking what you want to do eventually, reporting you, asking you to pay for their services.... like normal banks. If you are fine with that, why not use normal banks and fiat ? It works since ages. I don't care about high transaction volume with Bitcoin in the slightest, but I'm willing to accept that some do. As long as it's built on a layer that does not harm the existing network, I could care less. We are in agreement. Imagining that we can have censorship-proof micro-transactions for sub-pennies with a system that requires full nodes to maintain a ledger which must record every transaction since it's creation is absurd to me!
Every transaction does not need to be censorship-proof as long as the option exists.
I use fiat (credit cards as well) all the time and have absolutely no desire to use Bitcoin for daily, mundane purchases. |
|
|
|
There are plenty of examples of things that are stores of great value, that have _extremely_ low transaction volumes, and yet persist as a store of value. Collectibles, for example. Artwork, stamps, antiques, classic cars, numismatics, you name it.
So I'm pretty sure we don't _need_ a high volume for bitcoin to survive or thrive. But I'll agree that high volume trumps low volume, especially as it relates to fees. And I'd like cryptocurrency to be more than just digital gold.
Indeed, the gold standard of stores of value, gold itself, has low transaction volumes and certainly doesn't have widespread use (as a currency at least)! Also, if we can reach high volumes of transactions with a layer on top of the existing network, preserving the properties that make Bitcoin a highly secure store of value while also allowing for coffee purchases, isn't that a win-win scenario? |
|
|
|
It's true. I had to show my secret decoder ring before I was allowed to download the software to mine bitcoins! Less sarcastic version: What is Bitcoin's barrier to entry? If average people choose not to use Bitcoin, and Bitcoin can "shelter money" as the OP suggests, isn't the average person just shooting himself in the foot? On a side note: You could erase all money in the world and evenly distribute X amount of new money to every person on the planet, and before long I imagine it would end up looking very much like the Pareto principle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle#In_economics |
|
|
|
|
The amount of spin in this thread is astonishing. I don't know if some of you are actually that dishonest or simply ignorant. I hope it's the latter, but I have a feeling it isn't.
|
|
|
|
To me it makes sense to adjust things so that miners can remain profitable on block rewards forever but it's a little too early to really consider that closely yet. It sounds like you are talking about permanent inflation? Another approach would be to recognize the social value of Bitcoin and have the public subsidize mining (this will not be a popular approach with many of the Bitcoin community).
You got that right (the not popular part). If Bitcoin is truly a functional and useful system, there is no need for public subsidies (or the strings that will be attached to them). I mean, are these subsidies going to be voluntary? Enforced? Local? Worldwide? Built into the system as permanent inflation? It disturbs me that anyone would think that the ability to append the block chain should be the responsibility of anyone other than the person trying to append it. Bitcoin, by it's very design, basically hands all the responsibility to the user. That responsibility is what allows such freedom! The social value of Bitcoin is that it empowers the individual at the cost of that individual taking responsibility for his actions! I just don't understand. Why are you interested in Bitcoin if you are happy to consider sweeping changes that turn Bitcoin into something unrecognizable by those who have embraced it all these years? There is a reason satoshi halved the block reward at precise intervals. Wouldn't it be better to start from scratch and implement these changes from the start in a new system, therefore attracting people who truly desire them, instead of suggesting that there is something wrong with Bitcoin when there are plenty of users who are quite comfortable with the existing system, and in fact have embraced Bitcoin specifically because of these properties? |
|
|
|
Mmmmhh hmmm.....
Tell you what, chicken littles... I've got well over a first world salary parked on my BU node. First of you loudmouths harping about 'crappy BU code' who can actually exploit this so-called weakness is welcome to my stacks.
All I ask is that you first announce your attempt. Not that I'll invoke any countermeasures... I just want to make clear how fail-full your attempt is.
All right... who's first to eat it?
I have no idea what your jurisdiction is, but aren't you encouraging someone to break the law here? Which... again depending on your jurisdiction, may also be illegal. Anyway, nothing I want to get involved with, just a warning to anyone who considers this offer. I'm also not really sure advertising that you store large amounts of bitcoins on a networked machine is a wise decision... but, to each his own. |
|
|
|
my BU NODE IS BACK UP BITCHES  Can I interest you in a Chevrolet Corvair? Ooh, I know. How about a nice Ford Pinto? |
|
|
|
i'll be here giving free hugs when you're crying over BU having taken control from Blockstream.  So BU wants to "take control" of Bitcoin, huh? That's just the kind of talk I like to hear when it comes to open source projects... o_O If you honestly believe that Blockstream "controls" Bitcoin (which is ridiculous, no one has ever forced me to install specific software, anyone else?), maybe your argument would sound better if you said something like, "gives control back to the users". Just sayin'. Try it out next time some spin is in order! |
|
|
|
It has been a lot time that i not monitor this thing. we don't have a voting process on that? who makes the final decision ? hard fork could f@ck bitcoin price and trust of course...
No. There is no "voting process" in a decentralized cryptocurrency. The whole ecosystem either comes to a decision by consensus or not. You technically give your "vote" by running or adopting a specific soft fork, hard fork, or implementation. I'd say the only vote that matters, in Bitcoin or anywhere really, is the voting that you do with your wallet. |
|
|
|
as long as the option exists.
See the bolded part above. This is what concerns me (and others) when it comes to the scaling debate. When we, for example, restrict the transaction throughput, the option to be censorship proof may no longer exist at a reasonable price. Well, as I said, I'm ready to err on the side of decentralization (as I perceive it). So, I can only argue from that point of view. I'd say we are no-where-close to going beyond a reasonable price yet you have people crying bloody murder! The early block subsidy has, in my opinion, spoiled a lot of users. They are used to not having to pay for security because the inflation did it for them. Well... the coins had to be dispersed somehow, and now it's time to start moving away from the block subsidy to a direct cost to the user. If we wait longer, we will just have a larger group of people ready to cry bloody murder and it will be even more painful. |
|
|
|
I would disagree that TPS doesn't make Bitcoin valuable because high TPS = widespread use, which one of the key characteristsics (in addition to fungibilitiy, portability, etc) that make something valuable as money. Iow, its 'utility'. But we can agree to disagree on that if you like. I would say the reason Bitcoin has value is because it offers something that other solutions don't offer. In my mind, that's censorship-proof transactions and a seize-proof store of value. We have these things thanks to decentralization. It's not simply "utility", it's unique utility. Sure, we can each have our opinion about this, but that is probably going to frame the entire debate. I was hoping you can tell me more about the off chain solutions since you seem to know something. I guess my question would be: If its stored somewhere off chain, who is storing it, who is securing it, and if its not miners, isn't that a trusted third party, which is a form of centralization?
Sorry, you'll have to look elsewhere. I've never researched those things because I don't care. Every transaction does not need to be censorship-proof as long as the option exists. I'm willing to pay handsomely and wait a long time to append the block chain because I place a very high value on the properties decentralization affords. That's why I would rather err on the side of decentralization, even if it harms adoption. If people want cheap micro-transactions, and that can be arranged by adding a layer on top of Bitcoin that can be removed should the need arise, who am I to complain, and why should I care if those "coffee" purchases aren't censorship-proof? Life is about trade-offs. Everything can't be all things to everyone! Imagining that we can have censorship-proof micro-transactions for sub-pennies with a system that requires full nodes to maintain a ledger which must record every transaction since it's creation is absurd to me! |
|
|
|
Can you imagine having or processing over 100 million transactions everyday the benefits it would bring to the space.
Ya, 25 GB added to the block chain every day would do wonders for Bitcoin! Extremely beneficial for decentralization (you know, the very thing that gives Bitcoin value). [ ] You understood the context he was writing in. (Hint: LN) Rico Yep, my mistake. |
|
|
|
Can you imagine having or processing over 100 million transactions everyday the benefits it would bring to the space.
Ya, 25 GB added to the block chain every day would do wonders for Bitcoin! Extremely beneficial for decentralization (you know, the very thing that gives Bitcoin value). if off chain scaling is used, where does all that transaction data go? For starters, Bitcoin isn't valuable because of TPS, it's valuable because of the unique properties decentralization provides. Next, if scaling is done off chain, then the "scaled" transaction data is... wait for it... off chain. They are aggregated on an additional layer which can be removed should the need arise. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
