I doubt there will be another workable implementation ready by December. The only other one that I am aware off is Bitcoin Unlimited but I don't think it will be a popular choice.
Changing the blocksize to e.g. 2 MB required less than 5 minutes of work unless you're really bad at what you're trying to do. Implementing a BIP is something else. I also think that there is enough time to implement a working BIP in Core before Hong Kong, or something else. Don't listen to what Mike is feeding you. Don't listen to what blockthestream is feeding you. |
|
|
|
Maybe not; otherwise they wouldn't attract so many bitcoiners.
Coinbase just exploits its dominant position, this doesn't make it a good company nor adds credibility to that CEO guy words. It's up to you and MOA to build a better business that is more trustfull to the community. The more bitcoiners who trust you, the more dominant you become. you are so lost in the rage of your vendetta you do not see how far you have strayed. Because bitcoin is all about putting your trust into dominant central institutions like coinbase with your wealth and financial data in Brian Armstrong's hands?! Please just try to leave the politics at the door and contribute to the technical solutions. You know very well which side represents the vendetta and enforced domination: The cheerleaders of the Totalitarians and the Censors. There is only one real central institution: The core developers. But this centralization will soon be history. |
|
|
|
Maybe not; otherwise they wouldn't attract so many bitcoiners.
Coinbase just exploits its dominant position, this doesn't make it a good company nor adds credibility to that CEO guy words. It's up to you and MOA to build a better business that is more trustfull to the community. The more bitcoiners trust your business, the more dominant you become. |
|
|
|
Armstrong should stick to what he is good at, shuffling money around, schmoozing up to political power brokers and extracting personal financial data for reporting to authorities ... and leave his limited technical ability out of the public spotlight, in case people begin to doubt the wisdom of investing in his company.
He can do what he wants to do. Bitcoin is not a darkcoin. If you need a darkcoin, you can change your bitcoins at any time. At what date did you wake up today? Darkcoins hasn't been called Dark in ages, they are called Dash now. Everybody knows that. I wrote: ' a darkcoin'. That means any dark cryptocoin. |
|
|
|
Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong calls the industry to fork Bitcoin Core by the end of December
Coinbase? Isn't it that company which practices tricks bordering with scamming? Like not allowing to sell BTC to realize profits or delaying purchases to make the deal unprofitable for the customer? Maybe not; otherwise they wouldn't attract so many bitcoiners. It's up to you, MOA and alikes to build a better business for the community. |
|
|
|
Armstrong should stick to what he is good at, shuffling money around, schmoozing up to political power brokers and extracting personal financial data for reporting to authorities ... and leave his limited technical ability out of the public spotlight, in case people begin to doubt the wisdom of investing in his company.
He can do what he wants to do. Bitcoin is not a darkcoin. If you need a darkcoin, you can change your bitcoins at any time. |
|
|
|
Fork Bitcoin Core? No problem. Fork to XT? No, thank you. Stop with the propaganda. This is an appeal to authority, not an argument nor the right way to start a discussion. If you go down this path, we will end up in infinite circles of nonsense again. Wait for Hong Kong, and stop provoking each other.
There are people running Bitcoin Unlimited today. Bitcoin Unlimited is Core without the block size limit. It will follow the longest chain composed of valid transactions, using the consensus mechanism described in the Bitcoin white paper. The reason it is not forking with respect to Core is that the longest chain presently contains only blocks smaller than 1 MB. In the future, if the longest chain includes blocks larger than 1 MB, then these nodes will follow that chain thereby forking off the Core nodes (assuming Core doesn't increase the block size limit too).https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1236879.msg12877811#msg12877811 |
|
|
|
Yeah my leveraged 20x long is making crazy profit right now. I cashed out 20% of it to keep me well in the green even if the other 80% gets eaten up on some out-of-the-woodwork selloff. This run up is sparking old memories  I have to go take care of some business for a few hours, but try to hit $480 before I return, okay guys?  Change your Moneros as long as you can get Bitcoins for it. Monero near alltime low now. |
|
|
|
[–]solex1
Yes. I think the Bitcoin ecosystem will move to a big-blocks version whether Core updates or not.
However, there would be a lot more price volatility and bad publicity the longer Core Dev continues with the "settlement layer" fantasy.
[/i]
Yeah we get it. We didn't reject it. We're "just not ready". The Blockstream/core attack failed. Whether their implementation will be ready for the coming txs explosion or not is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
this shorter is going all in
What shorter? There's only 9300 BTC swaps on BFX. It's just a seller. BTW, thanks bulls. I just made so much money shorting today, that I can dump again if you wanna take another swipe at $420. So you opened you're just when exactly? When we busted through 380? 400?  I call BS I started shorting @ $399 and kept shorting the whole way up. I could have shorted twice as much, but after covering @$380, I know have enough to safely short Three times as much if we come anywhere close to $420 again. I also transferred in some coins I was using for arbitrage just so I have some extra margin. Try it again, Bulls. I double dare you. See if I'm bluffing. dude you've really gone off the rails, sort yourself out. first with all the big block crap and now this shorting shit ... you used to be a model bitcoiner, what happened to you? Smallblockers happened to me. Scale or die.
[–]chinawat
I strongly believe the block size increase problem is already solved. An implementation exists right now and only needs adoption. Should a more popular solution arise in the meantime, that will be adopted instead, but BIP 101 is like Bitcoin itself, it can't be uninvented.
[–]Ant-n
Interresting point, I think your right,
(My anxiety level dropped a bit..)
[–]solex1
Yes. I think the Bitcoin ecosystem will move to a big-blocks version whether Core updates or not.
However, there would be a lot more price volatility and bad publicity the longer Core Dev continues with the "settlement layer" fantasy.
|
|
|
|
Fears of centralization are real, fear of 3 tps being a huge bottleneck are real.
Calling large miners centralized is like saying Kenya rigs the Boston Marathon. Bitcoin needs to be competitive. Should they limit the run to only white middle-class factory workers from Peoria? Watching them drop dead from heart attacks wouldn't be much fun, nor does watching blocks take days to process and get dropped. You can't make rules that exclude people because they are good at what they do. "This forum is comatose" Lulz. Looks like the bitco.in forum exiles are back in full force. Go back to your ad hominem thread instead of destroying this thread. You wouldn't be trying to censor me now would you  Never. Just advising. That's the difference between you, the chearleaders of the totalitarian censors and us, the anarchists. |
|
|
|
Fears of centralization are real, fear of 3 tps being a huge bottleneck are real.
Calling large miners centralized is like saying Kenya rigs the Boston Marathon. Bitcoin needs to be competitive. Should they limit the run to only white middle-class factory workers from Peoria? Watching them drop dead from heart attacks wouldn't be much fun, nor does watching blocks take days to process and get dropped. You can't make rules that exclude people because they are good at what they do. "This forum is comatose" Lulz. Looks like the bitco.in forum exiles are back in full force. Go back to your ad hominem thread instead of destroying this thread. |
|
|
|
There's no problem with different implementations.
Exactly. The prolem is: Some people believe otherwise: that all Bitcoin code must emanate from Bitcoin Core. For them the idea of providing alternatives and allowing the free market to decide is threatening. Hence the smear campaign to brand XT as an “altcoin” and forbid discussion of it in various public fora — nevermind the screaming irony of trying to censor discussion of a censorship-resistant piece of software. Hence the outright DDoS attacks against miners who mine on XT and the pools that permit them.
We are told by these people that Bitcoin is too fragile to permit alternative clients — in other words, miners may “vote with their CPUs,” but they must have the option of voting only for one Party. We know what an election with only one choice is called: Totalitarianism.
If Bitcoin is so fragile that it demands actual adherence to Totalitarianism in order to prop it up, then we who have supported it for these many years should pack up, go home, and concede defeat. The experiment in permissionless, Stateless money has failed: we tried, but ended up recreating the State, only this one run by a tiny handful of technocrats.
Some people argue that the block size will be raised, but only after it reaches a certain pain threshold. Here I personally side with Mike: you don’t smear alternatives, break apart online communities, and outright DDoS your competitors because you agree on everything except for timing. Those are the actions of people who perceive a threat.https://medium.com/@riprowan/the-entire-debate-transcends-block-sizes-and-gets-to-the-fundamental-principles-of-bitcoin-as-c7f7bc1a493#.qj0wwps11 |
|
|
|
Of course not. We have Totalitarianism as long as we don't have choice. Since there is the first alt Implementation on the market that is ready for the next txs number explosion, the totalitarian developer situation terminated. The price is reflecting the new situation. The attempt to take over bitcoin by taking over the core developers by blockthestream inc. failed miserably.
Hang on, you're saying the price went up because XT..... failed to attract a userbase? . If the blockstream core devs will be stupid enough to prolong the stalemate into the next txs explosion, their implementation can be replaced by at least another one that is ready. The more alternative implementations we get, the better. Consult a professional, you've turned full retard. Funny thing is price started launching up after Blockstream's Liquid announcement  Doesn't matter if you promote Blockthestream fulltime as a volunteer or as a paid shill. Developer decentralization can not be prevented. Indeed, repo is here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin Anyone is free to contribute but don't expect to be welcomed warmly... Yes, that's why the central authority got competition. |
|
|
|
Of course not. We have Totalitarianism as long as we don't have choice. Since there is the first alt Implementation on the market that is ready for the next txs number explosion, the totalitarian developer situation terminated. The price is reflecting the new situation. The attempt to take over bitcoin by taking over the core developers by blockthestream inc. failed miserably.
Hang on, you're saying the price went up because XT..... failed to attract a userbase? . If the blockstream core devs will be stupid enough to prolong the stalemate into the next txs explosion, their implementation can be replaced by at least another one that is ready. The more alternative implementations we get, the better. Consult a professional, you've turned full retard. Funny thing is price started launching up after Blockstream's Liquid announcement Doesn't matter if you promote Blockthestream fulltime as a volunteer or as a paid shill. Developer decentralization can not be prevented. |
|
|
|
Of course not. We have Totalitarianism as long as we don't have choice. Since there is the first alt Implementation on the market that is ready for the next txs number explosion, the totalitarian developer situation terminated. The price is reflecting the new situation. The attempt to take over bitcoin by taking over the core developers by blockthestream inc. failed miserably.
Hang on, you're saying the price went up because XT..... failed to attract a userbase? As I wrote, the price went up because everybody knows now that there is choice. If the blockstream core devs will be stupid enough to prolong the stalemate into the next txs explosion, their implementation can be replaced by at least another one that is ready. The more alternative implementations we get, the better. |
|
|
|
Even when Ice'n'Berg are tragically embarrassed by what happens in the real world, this thread still won't matter.
in real world, and more precisely *now*, bitcoin is acknowledging it by going up, Bitcoin is going up since there is choice, which means that the totalitarian, centralist corporatist dev situation is history. As soon as txs numbers explode, core will implode. |
|
|
|
The days of the totalitarians are numbered. Zero chance to stay in charge.
If you mean Hearn and his one-guy-in-charge-and-not-even-a-competent-one model, then yeah I agree. Of course not. We have Totalitarianism as long as we don't have choice. Since there is the first alt Implementation on the market that is ready for the next txs number explosion, the totalitarian developer situation terminated. The price is reflecting the new situation. The attempt to take over bitcoin by taking over the core developers by blockthestream inc. failed miserably. |
|
|
|
Raise the fucking block sizes already.
That will happen eventually, but Not Tonight Dear.But soonish. Core's (blockthestream inc.) attempt to take over bitcoin got REKT. They got competition by implementations that are ready for the next bubble. Developer centralization is over. Totalitarianism doesn't work here. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
