Everything that doesn't allow Bitcoin to run nodes on the average Joe's computer is an attack to Bitcoin. We have enough evidence to know that 8MB blocks will be way too much in the coming years too. Im just not sure what Mike Hearn wants with all of this.
The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users. Satoshi Nakamoto |
|
|
|
|
BIP101 forced Adam to react and he is now proposing 2-4-8 all the time.
Core now has the choice to choose between raising the limit or to be forked off.
|
|
|
|
but if it ultimately comes to splitting the community, the forkers will have it on their conscience from breaking with this fragile consensus mechanism, and chances are that bitcoin experiment will fail.
just saying.
Bitcoin will not fail. You will fail if you'll not jump to the >75% train. |
|
|
|
What XT really is - is just a way for Mike Hearn to "take control of the Bitcoin project" (and he has admitted as much).
XT is open source. Since it is on the market, the user has choice. The only people who are trying to control Bitcoin are on the side that is banning, censoring, DDoSing. I want to respond to all this consensus talk by saying that all that matters is the consensus of the users, not the consensus of the devs, moderators, or some nebulous definition of the "community".
Bitcoin was designed so that all that matters is the consensus of the users of the software. The consensus of the developers is irrelevant except as a source for informing user consensus. The consensus of the moderators is similarly irrelevant.
To reach consensus, users must be able to test alternate implementations and moreso to switch to implementations inconsistent with the consensus of the developers, moderators, or any other smaller subgroup. If users cannot switch implementations, they cannot meaningfully achieve consensus, because any decision they make represents an imposition of the coercive will of a smaller group in charge of the "allowed implementations" rather than an organic consensus of the users.
Therefore, any actions which prevent users from exploring alternatives to achieve consensus are actively hostile to such a consensus. This includes coercion of the community against switching implementations, and coercion of the community against the forking of the currency, all of which are essential tools inherent to the consensus-enabling data structure that brought us all here in the first place.
Bitcoin is an idea, not a piece of software. Bitcoin is not Bitcoin Core. Telling users what Bitcoin is and isn't constitutes deciding for them in a coercive fashion, and is the most counterproductive action one can take towards achieving a consensus of the users. It also shows an alarming lack of faith in the blockchain datastructure itself, which was built to allow for forking both soft and hard.
Scaling Bitcoin requires consensus of the users. Consensus of the users requires free discussion, the ability to explore alternate implementations, and the ability to create both soft and hard forks freely. Consensus requires market participation, and consensus on scaling Bitcoin cannot be meaningfully achieved otherwise, especially not through such policed weekly sandboxed discussions only a few users are still participating in.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3qpnud/scaling_bitcoin_102915/cwrrbdk |
|
|
|
The AMA overload failed to attract a critical mass of users, but the bills still have to be paid. The desperation is palpable. Bitcoin Judas badly overestimated how much of a fuck anyone would give about yet another rump forum. My prior analysis predicted this outcome. Those eager to defect from Bitcoin's existing consensus are by definition self-selected for fractious tendencies. Given their even higher than normal Bitcoin users(!) propensity to be unable to play well with others, they will naturally continue to recursively divide themselves into ever smaller groups. Monty Python famously depicts this phenomenon in Life of Brian, as the People's Front of Judea despises the Judean People's Front and Popular People's Front (which is revealed to be a solitary individual) even more than the Romans. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WboggjN_G-4
"Splitter!"  Delicious. Our classic frontist cited the joke with the Judean People's Front. I didn't just cite the joke, I *EXPLAINED* in detail why it applies to the topic at hand. Can you do that? In no way does La Serenissima care about the Gavinista Defector Front. Your self-beclowning is only of value for entertainment, like a court jester or village idiot. You care. Hardly a single post without exposing your XT/Gavin paranoia. You're leading yourself ad absurdum. |
|
|
|
Well, what he is doing is not really censorship, he believes xt is an altcoin therefore anyone who posts or talks about it in the bitcoin section will get removed. It happens already with any altcoin, if you start a discussion here about litecoin it will get removed because it is an altcoin. By your logic, any deleted post about any altcoin is censorship.
Forget it. Just one example: The second most viewed thread has not just been moved. It has been locked. You can't fool all the people all the times. The tide is turning. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/ |
|
|
|
The premise that thermos is in a "bubble" is fallacious because it is ad hominem.  Uuuuh, ad hominem against the Greatest Censor of Bitcoin History ... |
|
|
|
The AMA overload failed to attract a critical mass of users, but the bills still have to be paid. The desperation is palpable. Bitcoin Judas badly overestimated how much of a fuck anyone would give about yet another rump forum. My prior analysis predicted this outcome. Those eager to defect from Bitcoin's existing consensus are by definition self-selected for fractious tendencies. Given their even higher than normal Bitcoin users(!) propensity to be unable to play well with others, they will naturally continue to recursively divide themselves into ever smaller groups. Monty Python famously depicts this phenomenon in Life of Brian, as the People's Front of Judea despises the Judean People's Front and Popular People's Front (which is revealed to be a solitary individual) even more than the Romans. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WboggjN_G-4
"Splitter!" Delicious. Our classic frontist cited the joke with the Judean People's Front. |
|
|
|
The idea of some n00b like you (even if you are Mike_Hearn@sigint.google.mil) lecturing people like Adam Back and Nick Szabo on Bitcoin fundamentals is laughable. Adam is ridiculous. Whining about downvotes and not criticising the Greatest Censor of Bitcoin history. Our iCEman will get Blocks with a cap that will be at least doubled next year. The stalemate ("which is the preferred outcome for bitcoin core") won't continue. Bad outlook for the moronero trolls. (monero near alltime low now, by the way...). |
|
|
|
Scust. A bunch of banking parasites pretending to be important. LOL. This is Bitcoin - not communist coin. |
|
|
|
Peter R's mojo is made potent by an economically and technically illiterate audiences who lack critical thinking skills and the ability to generate unique thoughts on their own. And to the fact that some segment of the population is drawn to shiny and colorful things which itself is an artifact of our simian ancestry where nature selected individuals who were able to identify fruit which was ripe. Fortunately for Peter R the world is full of such people. I see a lot of name calling, but can't see any actual arguments... Peter's "spherical blockchains" theories have been thoroughly debunked throughout various forums, mailing-lists and irc chats. Don't blame it on us if you're late to the party. "Peter's "spherical blockchains" theories have been thoroughly debunked" they not his theories. They are part of Bitcoin's intensive system as designed by Shatoshi! He just showed them to you. Satoshi's Bitcoin intensive structure is not yet broken dispirit all your name calling. lots of ignorent people call bitcoin's incentive structure broken and say Satoshi was wrong. Yes, Peter's charlatanism was indeed very useful in describing how fragile the incentives behind the systems are and how stupid it would be to leave the block size unbounded. You know the part he likes to gloss over about negative externalities? Yep, that part. nop. Just smoke and small block screen. Bitcoin's alkalis heel is centralized development and decision making. And you not helping.  Bitcoin's Achilles' heel is the consolidation centralization of its governance into the hands of a few corporate organizations by way of making access to a full node impossible for individuals. Satoshi never designed Bitcoin for your free shit nodes army. That was never intended as everybody knows here, including the blockstream shills. |
|
|
|
Peter R's mojo is made potent by an economically and technically illiterate audiences who lack critical thinking skills and the ability to generate unique thoughts on their own. And to the fact that some segment of the population is drawn to shiny and colorful things which itself is an artifact of our simian ancestry where nature selected individuals who were able to identify fruit which was ripe. Fortunately for Peter R the world is full of such people. I see a lot of name calling, but can't see any actual arguments... Name calling is the best argument small block proponents have in their pocket. It's great that the small blockers expose themselves over and over again. |
|
|
|
I don't care how it gets fixed, as long as it does gets fixed.
How did we still not get consensus on this?
An open source protocol should be much faster at adopting to change.
This is not a good sign
nothing to be fixed as no problem jeopardizing bitcoin as of now. + the famous pseudo BIPs solutions brings more problems to bitcoin in the first place if implemented in such hurry. consensus is status quo, and research. open source means you can propose and participate at the writing of the code, yet nobody is forced to use your new code, even if you have a noob army brigading for you over social networks a la reddit. It has to be fixed. Even Adam 'proposes' today: 2 MB now, 4 MB in 2 years and 8 MB in 4 years. On which planet do you live? |
|
|
|
Isn't there already a CEO in charge of bitcoin, the Blockstream CEO?
How dare another CEO wanting to control bitcoin?!
OP does not (want to) listen. |
|
|
|
1 MB.. 1!.. Just 1!.. for a global payment network!!?? jesus christ.. Come on.. This whole situation with Core vs XT, all the bad blood etc, could have been diffused completely with ZERO risk if the core boys had simply bumped the min block size to 2 or (dare I say it 3) MB. That's it. End of story. Finished. Then they can take another few years on the REAL solution. It is, IMHO, 'completely' an issue with the way CORE has handled this. XT is a symptom of their dithering.. ' Geordie! - It's time to EJECT THE CORE '.. You can't have one in a decentralised system. Makes no sense. .. This whole situation reminds me of the beginning of RAMBO : First Blood. They could have diffused the situation, diffused HIM, let him slip through the net, and picked him up working in a gas station a couple of months later. Instead - they chose to bring a LOT OF BODY BAGS. Bad choice.  Won't you stop getting your panties in a bunch and wait for responsible adults to weight the proper alternatives and analyse the best decision moving forward? If you expect Bitcoin to grow exponentially and are afraid blocks are going to get filled up too quick what good is a linear 1mb increase? By the way I'm pretty sure they are going to come up with a proposal that involves something like 30% growth YOY. Be patient. Not tonight dearWaiting forever is irresponsible from a business perspective. End of story. Enough patience, the deadline is December. Deal with it. Yes, core will be forced to raise the limit at least to 2 MB within the next 2-4 month. They won't be able to prolong the stalemate ("which is their preferred outcome" iCE) by doing nothing and endlessly talking. |
|
|
|
Of course it may pop at some point, then recover, but there wasn't even 4rd wave since 240. All this is the local 3rd.
Anyway, this is above my skillz. I waited this great 3, it comes suddenly. I quit. Bye guys. Analysis ended.
Epic end to an epic thread. Of three epic threads only one is left  . The three threads: Goomboos Journal https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=60501.0This thread. Third? The thread with the 1'527'282 views. |
|
|
|
Of course it may pop at some point, then recover, but there wasn't even 4rd wave since 240. All this is the local 3rd.
Anyway, this is above my skillz. I waited this great 3, it comes suddenly. I quit. Bye guys. Analysis ended.
Epic end to an epic thread. Of three epic threads only one is left . |
|
|
|
If/when there is contention for space on the blockchain, there is a huge amount of room to grow by simply squeezing out the freeloaders. As it happens, they'll not be left homeless or forced to the alt-ville ghettos due to the development of subordinate chains which provide real Bitcoin power through a proxy and does not bloat the core chain and thus compromise the network or require a hard-fork and associated risk.
In other words, life is good! Just look at the price charts for confirmation. It is funny (and not very surprising) to see the likes of Coinbase desperate to reverse the goodness.
Squeezing out the freeloaders? I suppose that would include myself and many other users of Bitcoin, I pay fees but I would not be prepared to pay much larger fees if I can just use an alternative currency instead, Bitcoin does still need to compete. Who are you to say what is a legitimate use of the blockchain and what is not, we should allow as many people as possible to use the blockchain so that its benefits are felt by more people in the world. Third parties build on top of the Bitcoin blockchain do not have the same benefits as transacting on the main bitcoin blockchain directly, no thank you to using third parties on top of the Bitcoin blockchain, not for me at least. Fine then; go ahead move over to an alt for your latte purchases. The overwhelming majority of txs are not latte purchases. The 'bitcoin as a settlement layer' phantasies are new phantasies, pushed by the corporatist blockthestreamers. |
|
|
|
DO IT! Wait till December. I can't wait. Me too. Do you promise to leave us the fuck alone when it inevitable fails to materialize though Do you promise to leave us the fuck alone when core is stupid enough trying to defend the 1MB cap beyond Hongkong? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
