Bitcoin Forum
June 23, 2021, 12:16:12 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.21.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 135 »
1  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT on: April 14, 2016, 02:39:53 PM
Could you point me to the global consensus ledger that Safari, Mozilla and Chrome maintain together? No? Then you're making a terribly foolish analogy.

you mean this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertext_Transfer_Protocol

[facepalm]
well its a protocol they all adhere to which is very hard to HF...
for the purposes of the analogy it fits.

Wonder if you can recall anything before there was Safari, Mozilla and Chrome.

That one player M$ did try very hard to screw up all sorts of standards by being "innovative" and more "user friendly" aka breaking compatibility.

Document.all, marquee, ActiveX, VBScript... say these words to a senior web developer once and he will want to punch you in the face.

Perhaps the most important reason that Mozilla won web developers to Firefox was to stick to the web standards(which they did not create), rather than creating their own. It's exactly because browser developers learnt a lesson from IE6 and thus make sticking to web standards a super political correctness, that we could have a uniform browsing experience regardless which browser we are using today.

Needless to say, there are countless network protocols which leaves no room for maneuvering when it comes to implementation, you ever heard of anyone coming up with their own version of SSL/TLS protocol?

ever heard of IPv4 and IPv6?

thats a more suitable analogy to the blocksize problem...

segwit is NAT
2MB is IPv6
Lighting network is UDP holepunching

lmao

Yeah don't you find it ironic that experts had started screaming 'we will run out of IP address space soon, increase it NAOO" since 20 years ago, and today internet is still chugging along on IPV4 just fine?
2  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT on: April 13, 2016, 01:00:19 PM
Could you point me to the global consensus ledger that Safari, Mozilla and Chrome maintain together? No? Then you're making a terribly foolish analogy.

you mean this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertext_Transfer_Protocol

[facepalm]
well its a protocol they all adhere to which is very hard to HF...
for the purposes of the analogy it fits.

Wonder if you can recall anything before there was Safari, Mozilla and Chrome.

That one player M$ did try very hard to screw up all sorts of standards by being "innovative" and more "user friendly" aka breaking compatibility.

Document.all, marquee, ActiveX, VBScript... say these words to a senior web developer once and he will want to punch you in the face.

Perhaps the most important reason that Mozilla won web developers to Firefox was to stick to the web standards(which they did not create), rather than creating their own. It's exactly because browser developers learnt a lesson from IE6 and thus make sticking to web standards a super political correctness, that we could have a uniform browsing experience regardless which browser we are using today.

Needless to say, there are countless network protocols which leaves no room for maneuvering when it comes to implementation, you ever heard of anyone coming up with their own version of SSL/TLS protocol?
3  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT on: February 11, 2016, 11:25:08 AM
Nah, you guys need to give a break to the poor dude Toomim, he was ditched as soon as they found him to be of no more value. https://bitcoinclassic.com
4  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? on: January 30, 2016, 02:11:27 PM
It is helpful to clarify and confirm that some of the agitation for 2MB is merely for the sake of "a test of Core team's willingness to listen" (wherein "listen" actually means "obey").

A contentious hard fork is not a "a small compromise" because it puts the entire system at risk of catastrophic consensus failure (and will almost certainly crash the price).

The 'you have to give me something because otherwise you're uncompromising and I will pout' negotiation tactic will not work on Bitcoin engineering decisions.

Our Honey Badger really does not care about hurt feelings from pushy token-demanding nobodies (of any nationality).

If Honey Badger starts negotiating and compromising simply to appease emotionally needy peoples' pleas for a pat on the head, the Bitcoin experiment ends in failure.

I hope this helps you understand why a 2MB increase is not as easy as throwing a bone to a barking dog.

I thought that the core devs wanted to listen to "the community"? Now you are telling me that yes, they may condensed themselves but whatever you Chinese may have to say, it is of no consequence and should have zero effect on the outcome because we know better? Excuse my poor English but this strikes me as a bit condescending.

FYI, Eric, iCEBREAKER is not a core dev.
5  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? on: January 30, 2016, 11:24:06 AM
Quote
Quote from: Peter Todd
So your security assumption goes from not being sybilled, and no miner collusion, goes to "and I am not censored from other nodes which altogether do 100% validation" (for receiving fraud proofs). This is a far-more scalable full-node or partial-full-node model that we could evolve to. It's a security tradeoff. It's certainly not one that everyone would want to make, but it doesn't effect those who wouldn't want that.

It was not said by Peter Todd, but Pieter Wuille in his original Segwit presentation: http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/hong-kong/segregated-witness-and-its-impact-on-scalability/  he was talking about the possibility of a new kind of node between SPV and full node, and it has nothing to do with the full node security during a hard fork. Cypherdoc misrepresented it as " and since one of the stated benefits of SWSF was that it shifts the security assumptions away from miner collusion and non-Sybiling to that of "non censored partially validating SPV node connections" via as yet uninvented/coded fraud proofs in an attempt to scale nodes, this just compounds the problem given that we now know that the p2p network in a SWSF can be parititioned. we can't tell if SWSF is safe."

Your full node would not be downgraded to a "fraud-proof" node in the scenario of a SWSF, AFAIK the code for fraud proof has not even been written(he did mention that, but apparently contradicting himself), it's until now a mere theoretical construction.
6  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? on: January 29, 2016, 08:32:24 PM
Also, I think the important point is: let's just not say if your 'grace period' is too short, what if you see 5% of nodes hanging out there and have not upgraded? 15%, 25%? What if they still haven't upgraded after the fork because, well their admins could just go on vacation or something? What would happen to all the SPV clients connecting to them? Are you going to back down in this hypothetical situation?
If they won't upgrade, the new clients will not even sync with the old relays, because blocks will be seen as invalid by the clients.
If we are talking about SPV clients, which don't see any blocks, then their money will also not be lost. They will regain the control of their money once all of them (relay/processor + client) upgrade. The money will not be lost in (almost ?) any case.


This is a problem for soft forks as well.  For soft forks we know the miners have upgraded, but the user of an SPV client have no idea if the full node he connect to is upgraded or not.  If it isn't, a transaction which is invalid according to the new rules may be presented to the SPV wallet as valid (but unconfirmed).

That's why they are not the same problem....but I am sure you know that.
7  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? on: January 29, 2016, 08:23:56 PM
Not really just business, say, you are buying bitcoins yourself. In fact, in which case, the smaller the hashrate remains on the old chain, the more dangerous it became for those left behind.
Well it is not really dangerous. Your money will not be lost.
The worst thing that could happen is you get but scammed but - as I said - it is not so easy a scam to pull.

I edited my original post, sorry.

Now let's say, the scammer sent a payment to someone, which gets confirmed on the new chain, but the old nodes cannot see the larger blocks, so to them the coins do not move at all, either because the new transaction is included in the 'extra space' part of a 2mb block so it is not included in the old chain due to size limit, or because, well, the only miner left in the world that still mines the old chain is the attacker himself. Now the attacker could take as much time as there is in the world, in theory, to wait for, or mine a new block on the old chain, that includes his transaction which spends these same bitcoins already spent on the main chain, then the buyer/merchant will give him fiats/goods for bitcoins that do not exist on the chain 'at large', because he sees the transaction paying him being confirmed on a block relayed by the old node he connects to,  and he still wouldn't get these coins after upgrading. Makes sense?
8  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? on: January 29, 2016, 08:04:11 PM
Also, I think the important point is: let's just not say if your 'grace period' is too short, what if you see 5% of nodes hanging out there and have not upgraded? 15%, 25%? What if they still haven't upgraded after the fork because, well their admins could just go on vacation or something? What would happen to all the SPV clients connecting to them? Are you going to back down in this hypothetical situation?
If they won't upgrade, the new clients will not even sync with the old relays, because blocks will be seen as invalid by the clients.
If we are talking about SPV clients, which don't see any blocks, then their money will also not be lost. They will regain the control of their money once all of them (relay/processor + client) upgrade. The money will not be lost in (almost ?) any case.

Also, generally when running business it is your goddamn job to make sure that everything is ok. If you don't know that, you should not even start a business.

The grace period is actually much much longer, because the whole situation will be widely known at least few months before that happens. So companies actually have months to change, not weeks.


Not really just business, say, you are buying bitcoins yourself. In fact, in which case, the smaller the hashrate remains on the old chain, the more dangerous it became for those left behind. The coins would not be lost, they would just have been already spent on the new chain, because old nodes cannot recognize the larger blocks, they would not see that.

Quote
Also, generally when running business it is your goddamn job to make sure that everything is ok. If you don't know that, you should not even start a business.

A merchant using USD certainly should not be expected to keep up with Fed's monetary policy, waiting for x confirmations is as much due diligence as should be expected from him, when using Bitcoin.

Quote
The grace period is actually much much longer, because the whole situation will be widely known at least few months before that happens. So companies actually have months to change, not weeks.
Assuming the information is equally accessible to all corners of the world, this economy is way larger than we think.

But anyway, I know I am not going to convince you, I am just saying not all anti-Classic people have evil agendas, that's all.
9  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? on: January 29, 2016, 07:51:38 PM
No, network consensus, i.e., almost all the nodes on the network are ready to accept a new version of blocks.
Are we talking about clients, relays or miners ?
Everyone running a node that retrieves a full copy of blockchain, so all of them except SPV clients.
So relays it is.

I will tell you now how to reach hard-fork "consensus" using relays.

1. Make all relays (or let's assume 75% of relays) upgrade to the Bitcoin Classic
2. The old software that the relays are not using becomes irrelevant
3. Miners, seeing that they are mining using outdated software (and thus are/will be on the wrong chain) quickly upgrade their software to Bitcoin Classic, because otherwise they would lose all profits.
4. Big payment operators, seeing what is happening, also quickly upgrade their software to Bitcoin Classic
All happens within days, if not hours.

5. All the rest of the network (laggards) upgrades to Bitcoin Classic (this may take little longer time)

Boom ! Consensus reached, baby.

Also note that the money left on the old version aren't lost. Users just need to upgrade to use them.

Nah, merchants using old full nodes, who would accept transactions on the old chain, would possibly get scammed through no fault of their own.

You cannot just fork and pray that the best will happen, in a security-critical system.
Exactly.

This is why there is a 2-week (or a month - was it ?) "grace period". So, after number of Bitcoin Classic nodes reach 75% it gives few weeks time to everybody to upgrade.

Yes, of course - there will be some problems, perhaps even some people will get scammed. But I don't think it will be much.

All payments processors will surely upgrade in time, so it will be only single rare cases of users that do person-to-person transactions (but scamming this way would only work if the scammer knew that the person has old version of software).

Such scam will not be easy to pull.

Again, we cannot just speculate and pray.

Also, I think the important point is: let's just not say if your 'grace period' is too short, what if you see 5% of nodes hanging out there and have not upgraded? 15%, 25%? What if they still haven't upgraded after the fork because, well their admins could just go on vacation or something? What would happen to all the SPV clients connecting to them? Are you going to back down in this hypothetical situation?

I don't think we should wilfully allow someone to lose money through none of their own fault, not even one, but from my experience I cannot convince Classic supporters to accept that, but I guess, we can at least agree, that not everyone opposing to the hard fork has an evil agenda, they could just legitimately have moral concerns?
10  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? on: January 29, 2016, 07:43:26 PM
No, network consensus, i.e., almost all the nodes on the network are ready to accept a new version of blocks.
Are we talking about clients, relays or miners ?
Everyone running a node that retrieves a full copy of blockchain, so all of them except SPV clients.
So relays it is.

I will tell you now how to reach hard-fork "consensus" using relays.

1. Make all relays (or let's assume 75% of relays) upgrade to the Bitcoin Classic
2. The old software that the relays are not using becomes irrelevant
3. Miners, seeing that they are mining using outdated software (and thus are/will be on the wrong chain) quickly upgrade their software to Bitcoin Classic, because otherwise they would lose all profits.
4. Big payment operators, seeing what is happening, also quickly upgrade their software to Bitcoin Classic
All happens within days, if not hours.

5. All the rest of the network (laggards) upgrades to Bitcoin Classic (this may take little longer time)

Boom ! Consensus reached, baby.

Also note that the money left on the old version aren't lost. Users just need to upgrade to use them.

Nah, merchants using old full nodes, who would accept transactions on the old chain, would possibly get scammed through no fault of their own.

You cannot just fork and pray that the best will happen, in a security-critical system.

In the 2013 accidental fork, which lasted for 6 hours, someone managed to successfully double spend Okpay, this time an attacker would have months of time ahead to prepare for one.
11  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? on: January 29, 2016, 07:33:37 PM
No, network consensus, i.e., almost all the nodes on the network are ready to accept a new version of blocks.
Are we talking about clients, relays or miners ?

Anyone running a node that retrieves a full copy of blockchain, so all of them except SPV clients.
12  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? on: January 29, 2016, 07:30:12 PM
Then, I guess, perhaps we could agree that, hard fork the network with the support of just 6 pool operators, and one month "grace period", while completely disregarding the response of the network of full nodes at the time, like what the Bitcoin Classic people are very clear about what they are trying to do, is very undemocratic and should not be supported?
If the pool operators were the only ones interested in >1MB blocks then this would fail since most users and merchants would reject their larger blocks. this is not the case however...these companies are supporting it too:

Coinbase OKCoin Bitstamp Blockchain.info (Peter Smith) Xapo Bitcoin.com Foldapp Bread Wallet Snapcard.io Cubits Vaultoro Coinify Bitso Bitnet BitOasis Lamassu BlockCypher BitQuick.co itBit BitAccess Coinfinity Chronos Crypto
Not more?  Consensus is certainly at 1 MB then.  As I suspected.  To break the rules of the blockchain, e.g. by increasing the blocksize, increasing the money supply or inflation rate, etc, 10% is not enough.  Neither is 51% or 75% or even 90%.  You need 100% consensus.
100% consensus is most probably unachievable because of the ability of a single powerful miner to destroy consensus.
I assume we are talking about miner consesus, right ?

1. But that is not really important. The last time hard fork happened (because of network malfunction), the network upgraded, resolved itself & reached "consensus" in around 6 hours. So miner consensus can happen almost instantly. Nobody wants to be on the losing side of the fork - that is pretty obvious.

2. Lately "consensus" means whatever Adam Back wants it to mean. Check out these links:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/434spq/adam_back_on_twitter_understand_bitcoin_social/
https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/692756252418576384
Quote from: adam3us
.@jnxpn understand #bitcoin social contract: majority MUST NOT be able to override minority. that is how political money fails. #consensus

So basically now he claims that consensus is what minority (Blockstream) wants. He has lost it and is completely mad with power.

Last time I remember, Bitcoin was all about what majority wants. When minority wants to change rules of the game then it is called a HARD FORK and they go their separate way.


No, network consensus, i.e., almost all the nodes on the network are ready to accept a new version of blocks.
13  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? on: January 29, 2016, 06:50:11 PM
Can't you really stay straight for an hour ?

Is a plenty of upvoted well-written posts by many distinct accounts on the social media what people believe nowadays?

If you would like to use TLSNotary to prove that your screenshot is genuine, PM me.  Smiley
14  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? on: January 29, 2016, 06:07:25 PM
Frankly that's why I believe the Chinese should not buy into the rhetoric of Bitcoin Classic developers, who clearly have a political agenda(in addition to the absymal record in development of many among them), and supported by people with questionable motives, as Toomim openly acknowledged in the Chinese miners Wechat group.

Nice FUD.


Toomim acknowledged it in an interview with Guy Corem that it was Olivier Janssen and Marshall Long who got him to be the lead dev of Classic, a position Gavin and Jeff repeatedly refused to take over despite repeated requests, get you facts straight.

Quote
Quote
You might think that choosing Classic over Core is the best option to get a short-term block size expansion, but Classic's plan doesn't stop here, they also intend to decide changes to the code by popular vote: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...bitcoinclassic:master , within an environment clearly to the disadvantage of users and businesses in China and many other nations, it's not hard to imagine what most of the outcomes of such votes would be-representing only the opinion of English speaking Bitcoiners, even if we neglect all the technical reasons why it's an amusingly bad idea.

Why would one have to be English speaking to cast a vote? Are Chinese translations so difficult to make? Or is it that (mainland) Chinese are not used to voting?


Because why should a Chinese Bitcoin users be supposed to keep up with whatever happening on Reddit and Github(websites probably blocked in China)? How are they supposed to know if something is going on, and the view points of all sides?  Those in whatever ways closer to the devs naturally get more information and don't forget, Toomim & Co also haven't really clarified on lots of things, e.g., what they meant by Miner's vote, how do they count these votes? Who are eligible? Anyone with a miner counts? Are Butterfly Jalapenos included? If so, what about CPUs?

Quote
Quote
While I cannot eliminate the possibility that certain Core devs working for Blockstream may indeed share a vision with their employer as to what Bitcoin's future would be, the consciousness they have thus far displayed, I believe, is in alignment with the general interest of Chinese Bitcoiners, e.g., one of the most important reasons why Core devs oppose to a rash block size increase is the network connectivity problem of people living in China, and Blockstream is, as far as I know, the only company with both the technical expertise and willingness to work on some of the best solutions to the problem: weak blocks and IBLT, and they are working on it. In contrast with this is Classic devs' clear lack of long term sustainable plan to the block size problem, what if 2 MB blocks are filled up again, do we just double it every year, ad infinitum? I am sure you understand that this is unsustainable.

Classic would not be necessary if Core wouldn't let the network get jammed, as it is letting it do now.
 

Core has no power to have the network upgrading, and could not do so in a timely manner, much of which is still using badly vulnerable client, which Core repeatedly urged to abandon, I have personally spoken to people who told me he wouldn't change anything until the first >1MB block drops, dude, have you ran a full node ever?
Quote
Quote
Also, if it's possible for such a political fork to take place, it would set a very bad precedent, as any interest group can possibly pay some developers to create a campaign to further split the network, by tweaking with some block parameters, for example, imagine some developers try to appeal to the interest of gamers with high-end GPUs by promising them a change of PoW function, under the banner of "re-decentralizing" the network, in which case the miners' opinion would not even matter to them.

You mean like Core devs like Luke-jr are advocating?!! Talking about very bad precedents...


You really don't get the point do you? Luke-jr's patch would not be accepted by Core, and even if it did, it would not be accepted by the wider community(which doesn't take their orders),  and all I have heard is that they are oh so unpopular, you failure to grasp this is probably the origin of all your disagreements and misunderstandings.

Quote
Quote
After all, it never costs much to pay for an army of shills to flood the online discussion forums to create a superficial "economic majority", like what we are seeing now,

How do you know? From experience perhaps?

I did test it, but I was more pointing out the fact that so called "economic majority" was merely a fiction, like, do you even hold a referendum for that?


Quote
Quote
I am not a Core dev and I could not speak for them, my personal suggestion would be: wait for Segwit to roll out,

...we don't have time to wait that long...
You have to, the network wouldn't magically upgrade overnight even if you do a hard fork.
Quote
Quote
and if anything goes wrong with it, or the blocks are filling up again, we can push them harder for a block size raise, while wait for weak blocks and IBLT to be implemented, at which time they would have no further excuse, and it would be the moment of truth when we understand if they are truly sincere or not.  Smiley

Yes, give Core yet another chance. Because they have been so sincere until now.  Roll Eyes


I wonder why you are trusting the code they write, even if you switch to Classic.
15  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? on: January 29, 2016, 05:21:42 PM

Then, I guess, perhaps we could agree that, hard fork the network with the support of just 6 pool operators, and one month "grace period", while completely disregarding the response of the network of full nodes at the time, like what the Bitcoin Classic people are very clear about what they are trying to do, is very undemocratic and should not be supported?

If the pool operators were the only ones interested in >1MB blocks then this would fail since most users and merchants would reject their larger blocks. this is not the case however...these companies are supporting it too:

Coinbase
OKCoin
Bitstamp
Blockchain.info (Peter Smith)
Xapo
Bitcoin.com
Foldapp
Bread Wallet
Snapcard.io
Cubits
Vaultoro
Coinify
Bitso
Bitnet
BitOasis
Lamassu
BlockCypher
BitQuick.co
itBit
BitAccess
Coinfinity
Chronos Crypto

How are companies, most of them centralized services, even supposed to be in this argument bewilders me. They have no place in Bitcoin's original design, and they don't add anything to the democratic value of the whole hard fork campaign, I hope you don't think their support are nearly as good as a real referendum being held? Heck we don't even have any idea how much they account for all the Bitcoin business activities!
16  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? on: January 29, 2016, 05:04:58 PM
So what is exactly the percentage of Core Devs that work for Blockstream?

(I guess this should be the key issue here)


While I agree that it certainly is an issue (and a HUGE issue - conflict of interest), the real issue here, in my opinion, is at it's most basic:

Whether or not we should adopt a 2MB block size increase ASAP, or not - and good, logical reasons to support each side.

I think what would be the correct thing to do is: let the network decides. I.e., you put out you 2MB-supporting client, wait for everyone to convert, and if you have almost everyone on board before you deadline, activate it, otherwise, call off the plan, as of now, Wang Chun's proposal in bitcoin-core-dev channel, which seems to be liked by Matt Corallo, is closest to that.

One of my biggest problems with Bitcoin Classic is they want to go full throttle ahead as long as they have 75% of miners support, no matter what.
17  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? on: January 29, 2016, 04:39:53 PM
Then, I guess, perhaps we could agree that, hard fork the network with the support of just 6 pool operators, and one month "grace period", while completely disregarding the response of the network of full nodes at the time, like what the Bitcoin Classic people are very clear about what they are trying to do, is very undemocratic?

I thought Core/Blockstream devs have spoken out about how Bitcoin is NOT a democracy?  And to make it one would ruin it?

I am not in agreement/disagreement with Core devs on everything/anything. But I was trying to ask your opinion, to see if we can find any agreement.
18  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? on: January 29, 2016, 04:36:09 PM
We can fork many times in the future when consensus does not like when a development team does something we disagree with, this is open source.

This is part of the reason I am very anti-Core dev team at the moment, though.  They are on record saying these kinds of forks are harmful.  I got involved in Bitcoin because it is open-source, and because the idea was that the majority finally have some power over the minority (i.e. us regular folks over banks).  



You do understand an alt-client is completely different from a fork, and  to change the network consensus is not Core dev's job?

Quote
Bitcoin NEEDS to be forkable when the community decides they don't like where something is going.

FWIW I am still waiting for a referendum to organize around this issue, if you really want to be democratic certainly somebody should get us all to vote?

Quote
Also, RBF was certainly not consensus... maybe consensus of the devs but... most people's comments I read are quite against it.

No disagreement here, it's almost like they want to be hated on this.


Yeah, I understand how alt-clients work and what not.  Unfortunately there is no real way to get most people to vote on this (other than running a node supporting your side). I know Classic devs opened up consider.it, but that's not really useful because the people there voting obviously are biased (speaking from my own perspective even as I support them).

Block size all aside, the RBF thing was rolled out pretty poorly, I agree.  Even small/large block size supporters are somewhat meeting in the middle on this (not everyone of course).

Then, I guess, perhaps we could agree that, hard fork the network with the support of just 6 pool operators, and one month "grace period", while completely disregarding the response of the network of full nodes at the time, like what the Bitcoin Classic people are very clear about what they are trying to do, is very undemocratic and should not be supported?
19  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? on: January 29, 2016, 04:21:58 PM
We can fork many times in the future when consensus does not like when a development team does something we disagree with, this is open source.

This is part of the reason I am very anti-Core dev team at the moment, though.  They are on record saying these kinds of forks are harmful.  I got involved in Bitcoin because it is open-source, and because the idea was that the majority finally have some power over the minority (i.e. us regular folks over banks).  



You do understand an alt-client is completely different from a fork, and  to change the network consensus is not Core dev's job?

Quote
Bitcoin NEEDS to be forkable when the community decides they don't like where something is going.

FWIW I am still waiting for a referendum to organize around this issue, if you really want to be democratic certainly somebody should get us all to vote?

Quote
Also, RBF was certainly not consensus... maybe consensus of the devs but... most people's comments I read are quite against it.

No disagreement here, it's almost like they want to be hated on this.
20  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? on: January 29, 2016, 04:08:21 PM
While I cannot eliminate the possibility that certain Core devs working for Blockstream may indeed share a vision with their employer as to what Bitcoin's future would be
Hahahaha.

That's a nice downplaying manipulation right there.

Actually most of prominent Bitcoin Core devs also work for Blockstream:
Adam Back
Gregory Maxwell
Luke-Jr
Matt Corallo
Pieter Wuille
Peter Todd


Misattributing one dev as a Blockstream employee is understandable, but two at the same time, is probably too coincidental. Roll Eyes

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 ... 135 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!