It seems to be much better for bitcoin to grow slowly and also much better not to be too rash in attempts to change governance...
I'm curious how bad/urgent a problem would have to be before you thought a change in governance was appropriate. Maybe to the extent to which governance is broken, is a problem that has recently been attempted to be created. Maybe yes, maybe no. It is certainly possible that the governance issue is being used as a vehicle to promote some other political agenda. The way to find out is the separate the issue from others and see whether a change in governance, by itself, and without the baggage of simultaneously proposing immediate changes to the software or chain rules, has any support. Call for a vote of no confidence in Wladimir? I'm down. There is no way to hold such a vote because the existing project organization has no governance rules that would allow it. To change the governance procedure, you have to fork the project and propose a new organization with different governance rules ( and get support otherwise you are forking nothing but your own mind), but that doesn't mean you have to fork the chain. how can blockstream fail? the game is rigged. lol such a whiner when it comes down to it ... you can't handle the truth ... "the game is rigged, please make them stop wah, wah" ... wait i need to delete some more truthiness before I look too stoopid. it is really offensive to all the Core devs who have built this thing for free mostly (what did you do exactly?!) that you think blockstream can dictate. you crassic lusers are such whiner lusers ... maybe time to just piss off and join Hearn if you don't like the rules or haven't got anything better to add?? I whine because i care. but you're right at this point we should all just fork off... i do believe thats what we are leading up too there may be no avoiding it |
|
|
|
It seems to be much better for bitcoin to grow slowly and also much better not to be too rash in attempts to change governance...
I'm curious how bad/urgent a problem would have to be before you thought a change in governance was appropriate. Maybe to the extent to which governance is broken, is a problem that has recently been attempted to be created. Maybe yes, maybe no. It is certainly possible that the governance issue is being used as a vehicle to promote some other political agenda. The way to find out is the separate the issue from others and see whether a change in governance, by itself, and without the baggage of simultaneously proposing immediate changes to the software or chain rules, has any support. Call for a vote of no confidence in Wladimir? I'm down. There is no way to hold such a vote because the existing project organization has no governance rules that would allow it. To change the governance procedure, you have to fork the project and propose a new organization with different governance rules ( and get support otherwise you are forking nothing but your own mind), but that doesn't mean you have to fork the chain. how can blockstream fail? the game is rigged. lol |
|
|
|
It seems to be much better for bitcoin to grow slowly and also much better not to be too rash in attempts to change governance...
I'm curious how bad/urgent a problem would have to be before you thought a change in governance was appropriate. Maybe to the extent to which governance is broken, is a problem that has recently been attempted to be created. Maybe yes, maybe no. It is certainly possible that the governance issue is being used as a vehicle to promote some other political agenda. The way to find out is the separate the issue from others and see whether a change in governance, by itself, and without the baggage of simultaneously proposing immediate changes to the software or chain rules, has any support. the chain rules will change, there is no question about that. now do you want classic or blockstream to make the choices |
|
|
|
|
if this thread must die then so be it
|
|
|
|
|
i can't fucking believe it.
HELLO altcoins
have you heard about bitcoin, and the war going on with classic vs core??? O_o?
|
|
|
|
if you small blocker truly believe the shit you say you should from a group that wishes to lower block limit to 0.5MB.
you'll get more decentralization and security, for everything else there's the Lighting Network promiseland.
I know that you know that most people want bigger blocks - sooner or later. Why keep saying stuff like this? I blurt shit out when i'm stressed and angry. people are angry because they are coming to the realisation that we are all small blockers now  first it was wtf 20MB is fine!, then ok mebbe 8MB is coolest ... now it is pretty please can we have 2MB ... the big blockers stuffed up when they didn't support with BIP 103 (20% increase per annum starting in Jan 16), now they have created enough noise and contention that 2MB is a 'big deal'. all this shows is that gavin was listening to all and trying to form a consensus. while blockstream was FUDing like mad fools, with Mr peter todd leading the charge. |
|
|
|
|
anyone that say adam back was right in not representing blockstreams interest at the meeting in HK is a fucking retard!
the point of the damn meeting was to get some agreement between blockstream and chinese miners....
they wasted and continue to wast EVERYONE'S time, thats the bottom line.
|
|
|
|
|
i'm tried of getting FUCKED by blockstream.
|
|
|
|
let try and change to mood in here.  classic head and shoulders pattern about to complete, targeting just under 400. AKA DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM |
|
|
|
i think peer to peer lending is somthing pretty cool that bitcoin facilitates see: https://btcjam.com/about Our Solution
Most developing countries do not have a national credit scoring system and their citizens are unfortunately subject to aggressive predatory lending practices. We’ve created a unique online credit scoring system to qualify borrowers from all over the world and allow them to build a transparent credit profile on the platform.
Our disruptive credit model is providing a new path to financial freedom for users from over 200 countries around the world. |
|
|
|
So any dates more specific than q1, q2, q3, and q4? Those are pretty vague and they encompass several months. How about actual months specified like Bitcoin Core did with their roadmap (because this is pretty clear to be fighting back against the Core roadmap).
And how about making the roadmap more specific than just the "2016 roadmap"? A lot of things will happen in 2016, but this discusses specifically just scalability.
these dates are goals not deadlines. |
|
|
|
Nope. This board is just right.
Have you not noticed that XT/Classic/BU threads get moved somewhere? I still don't see why they aren't moved to the vastly better suited alternative clients subforum. Classic, XT and Unlimited are, after all, clients, not altcoins (at the risk of further discourse). This discussion is the single most relevant discussion in bitcoinland ATM, let's keep it on the main board.... |
|
|
|
if you small blocker truly believe the shit you say you should from a group that wishes to lower block limit to 0.5MB.
you'll get more decentralization and security, for everything else there's the Lighting Network promiseland.
I know that you know that most people want bigger blocks - sooner or later. Why keep saying stuff like this? I blurt shit out when i'm stressed and angry. |
|
|
|
Initial Impression -- The Good - Thin blocks, Weak Blocks (Also Found in Core's roadmap) The Bad - Advocating for SPV mining , which is a problem exacerbated by their Validate Once proposal, and pushing off the many benefits of Segwit till the end of the year The Ugly - 3rd/4th Q 2016 adaptive rule for a block size limit that heavily incentivizes those with better bandwidth which would drive miners from China to locations with better bandwidth and make many home mining operations obsolete because they cannot compete with the propagation times with larger operations who can afford better uplinks. There is no consideration for centralization concerns or the costs of nodes with this proposal which makes it a non-starter from the get go IMHO. Ugly? UGLY?? This is exactly what we need, something that neutralizes the Chinese electricity and labor cost advantage. Without some way of doing that, we cannot regain censorship resistance. The fact that does so while increasing network performance is just a bonus. The problem i see obviously is that Chinese miners will be reluctant to adopt it. But if they don't adopt it or something like it, I don't see much future for Bitcoin. Either it will stagnate or it will grow to the point where it becomes a threat to the PRC and they will take over the network. This proposal is the only ray of hope I see for overcoming the duel problems of scaling and miner concentration. Is he wrong about this? There is no consideration for centralization concerns or the costs of nodes with this proposalyup thats wrong... Reduce the effect of block propagation times on orphan rates (lost miner income)
De-emphasize block size as an obstacle for scaling and open up potential for on-chain transaction throughput gains using several improvements (listed below).
Optimizations for bandwidth constrained nodes via improvements to the P2P layer
Note: We intend to discuss various solutions such as the ones listed below and pick the best ones.
Parallel validation of blocks (theoretically reduces the profitability of excessive-sized block attacks).
Headers-first mining (largely nullifies excessive-sized block attacks).
Thin blocks: Blocks refer to transactions that have been well propagated rather than including them, allowing for minimization of bandwidth use.
Weak blocks: allow miners to pre-announce the blocks they are working on, to minimize the data sent once a block is found.
Validate Once: Transactions that have been validated when entering a node’s memory pool do not need to be revalidated when included in a block (speeds up block validation).
|
|
|
|
|
if you small blocker truly believe the shit you say you should from a group that wishes to lower block limit to 0.5MB.
you'll get more decentralization and security, for everything else there's the Lighting Network promiseland.
|
|
|
|
Initial Impression -- The Good - Thin blocks, Weak Blocks (Also Found in Core's roadmap) The Bad - Advocating for SPV mining , which is a problem exacerbated by their Validate Once proposal, and pushing off the many benefits of Segwit till the end of the year The Ugly - 3rd/4th Q 2016 adaptive rule for a block size limit that heavily incentivizes those with better bandwidth which would drive miners from China to locations with better bandwidth and make many home mining operations obsolete because they cannot compete with the propagation times with larger operations who can afford better uplinks. There is no consideration for centralization concerns or the costs of nodes with this proposal which makes it a non-starter from the get go IMHO. "make many home mining operations obsolete" -- good to see you still know how to throw in a joke. lmao that not a bad point to much minning happens in chain anyway! ( but the sad truth, that which we ALL know, is that none of the chinese miners will stop mining in china ) |
|
|
|
peter todd thinks there somthing wrong with everything, segwit included. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
