Beware of propaganda. There is controversy regarding these changes. There are other internet sources where you can see other viewpoints on this issue, such as r/btc.
^ Viewpoints may include character assasination, baseless slander, sociopathic behaviours, delusional tendencies, self-projection, pathological lies. Enter at your own risk and perils. |
|
|
|
I am starting to think that this is the best solution, there are irronconcielable ideological differences here, that seem irresolvable otherwise, at least this way we will all still have the Bitcoin we want. I also think that this bests reflects the ethos of freedom and decentralization within Bitcoin.
We've been telling you forever to fork off. You dissenters are a minority and nothing else. If you're not happy with the current development then move forward with your implementations and leave us the fuck alone. If your code stands up to its own merits it will gain adoption but don't expect us Bitcoiners to be steered in by your political propaganda. No amount of bullshit is going to cover up for your technical ineptitudes. I am starting to think that you are in the minority now, however this is difficult to measure or know, since we do not have any reliable metrics, and the forums tend to be disproportionately represented by people like us, the writers. Which is why proof of work as a consensus mechanism during a hard fork is really so wonderful. We will get to see what people really think when the market talks to us then. I look forward to that time when the pedal goes to the metal and people will put their money where their mouths are. We will see what happens, either way I am confident the fork to increase the blocksize will happen soon, I will be happy regardless of the support that it gains, since it will represent the freedom of choice, and that Bitcoin is truly free, governed by the economic self-interest of the masses. Bitcoin will not hardfork anytime soon. Your only chance to do so, XT, failed miserably. The miners are already getting behind Core's proposal and anyone trying to interject will simply be left behind. Meanwhile you're free to spin-off your own altcoin because it's only going to get worse for you and your clique from here on out. |
|
|
|
Segregated witnesses will take a significant amount of time to implement, it will take at least two years before we could even expect this to be implemented throughout the entire ecosystem, which is what would be required in order to bring about this increase. Another load of FUD further demonstrating your ignorance of technical aspects and your over-reliance on outsiders for insight. You're obviously basing these numbers on Jeff's openly pessimistic outlook which is being challenged by a considerable amount of devs. The more generally accepted view is that the softwork will take anywhere between 3-6 months. Once activated it provides an immediate 75% increase in transaction capacity. Moreover Jeff presents a shoddy parallel between multi-sig prevalence and potential future pace of SW adoption by the ecosystem. There are many reasons why this comparison is not particularly accurate but the more important one is that the largest actors in the ecosystem (hosted wallets) who are responsible for a important fraction of current transaction load will have clear economic incentive to move forward ASAP with SW. This will immediately translate into even more headroom for regular transactions. Furthermore hard forks should be preferred because they act as an important governance mechanism which allows people to protest by not updating their clients thereby splitting the network, this is why I believe Core is so afraid of doing hard forks, this should be embraced as a feature instead of being considered as a flaw within the protocol to be avoided. Hard forks create a dangerous precedent and potential destruction of the trust that has so far gravitated around Bitcoin since its inception, especially when there is a clear divide and lack of consensus. The ability for us to compromise using a softfork is a clear win and anyone who does not understand this needs to double check their assumptions. As a result, segwit allows scaling Bitcoin capacity in a opt-in way. Those who want to take advantage of extra capacity need to expend extra resources, but those who do not want to use the feature (no matter how small that minority is), do not need to expend any extra resources at all. Therefore, censorship-resistance property of Bitcoin remains unchanged. http://blog.oleganza.com/post/135710722553/how-segregated-witness-is-not-the-same-as-bumpingInstead of trusting any singular organization, we should distribute this power across multiple implementations, this is how mining and nodes are decentralized after all. The same principle should apply to development. So far we have three alternative implementations that support an increased blocksize. Bitcoin Unlimited and XT are both forks of Core so they will continue to take advantage of all of the developments and advances within Core. Btcd has been written from scratch on the other hand, a completely unique implementation, which will also make the network more robust and resilient, since not having a monoculture of implementations would make the Bitcoin protocol more healthy over the long run. Different implementations are generally helpful except when they challenge the existing consensus rules. I don't see why you even adressed this point since clearly no one is challenging it. It seems your complaint is about a general lack of adoption of these implementations. One doesn't have to look far to understand why it is so. Have you looked at XT's Github repo lately? The development has stalled while Core continues to innovate. Its lead developer is missing in action and nowhere to be seen. Are you seriously proposing that users run code that is demonstrably lacking in peer-review? I am starting to think that this is the best solution, there are irronconcielable ideological differences here, that seem irresolvable otherwise, at least this way we will all still have the Bitcoin we want. I also think that this bests reflects the ethos of freedom and decentralization within Bitcoin.
We've been telling you forever to fork off. You dissenters are a minority and nothing else. If you're not happy with the current development then move forward with your implementations and leave us the fuck alone. If your code stands up to its own merits it will gain adoption but don't expect us Bitcoiners to be steered in by your political propaganda. No amount of bullshit is going to cover up for your technical ineptitudes. |
|
|
|
Gentlemen.
As the mempool fills, and our great (totally not captured) technocrats continue to implement what's best for Bitcoin. I'd like to remind you that a new moon is cresting the horizon. Some say $5000 incoming, some say $32000, these are all low-ball estimates.
Some may say that it will take 9-12 months to roll out a complicated accounting trick to gain us 0.75MB of effective space. I say nay, it might happen tomorrow. Wumpus, sipa, and gmax have your best interests at heart. They have heard a panel representing 90% of hashing power state that they are ready for 2MB, and they have graciously and courageously rejected it... to keep you safe.
Institutional investors are very aware that the current number of users and transactions are more than enough to support mining security as the block reward dwindles. This is why they continue to pile in at ever increasing rates. There is not a private, for profit, company that is ready to use the blockchain as their own personal settlement network, this is a lie proffered by conspiritards.
For the first time in Bitcoin's history, everything is looking poised for success, and I've never had more confidence in our future.
Keep the price in the 400's gentlemen, at least for this week.
Rollout of the softwork is planned to take no more than 3-4 months and will indeed provide 75% immediate increase in capacity and in all likelyhood significantly more seeing as most hosted wallets responsible for a large quantity of today's transactions have clear economic incentives to upgrade to SW ASAP. Damn, Core really did pull a rabbit out their hat  |
|
|
|
If Gavin has the power to do it how is it a non-starter?
 Do you really believe Gavin wanna go there? |
|
|
|
Yay for the new developers who not actually write code, but write wonderful science fiction about the future of bitcoin. Woo them who have spent years working on the actual network as they may insist on inconvenient realities, and they who call for restrained step by step progress. We don't need them anymore. In this new era we only want optimistic visions and whitepapers, and dream. Let the fractal block trees grow to fill the skies, so that we can climb to the moon!  Peter's idea is not to replace Core with a different team in the repo, it's to nuke the repo so that ALL teams have to post their offerings in new repos that don't have the privileged position of being historically connected to Satoshi - a privileged position that Core now enjoys. That is just blatant distraction that serves no productive purpose and would do nothing to diminish Core's current position. To be precise: these are excuses made by sore losers who are slowly but surely contemplating their vanishing relevance in the face of Core's most recent advances. They've repeatedly failed to show any kind of ability to put forward a serious alternative that stands on its own merits. It's clear they lack the ingenuity, resources and open-mindedness to create something innovative of their own to compete with Core hence why they repeatedly resort to under-handed tactics in an attempt to cover-up for their own shortcomings. I know this sort of us-versus-them rhetoric is popular with the kids around here. But smugness really isn’t an attractive quality. Did you look at the name of the thread you're in? |
|
|
|
Yay for the new developers who not actually write code, but write wonderful science fiction about the future of bitcoin. Woo them who have spent years working on the actual network as they may insist on inconvenient realities, and they who call for restrained step by step progress. We don't need them anymore. In this new era we only want optimistic visions and whitepapers, and dream. Let the fractal block trees grow to fill the skies, so that we can climb to the moon! Peter's idea is not to replace Core with a different team in the repo, it's to nuke the repo so that ALL teams have to post their offerings in new repos that don't have the privileged position of being historically connected to Satoshi - a privileged position that Core now enjoys. That is just blatant distraction that serves no productive purpose and would do nothing to diminish Core's current position. To be precise: these are excuses made by sore losers who are slowly but surely contemplating their vanishing relevance in the face of Core's most recent advances. They've repeatedly failed to show any kind of ability to put forward a serious alternative that stands on its own merits. It's clear they lack the ingenuity, resources and open-mindedness to create something innovative of their own to compete with Core hence why they repeatedly resort to under-handed tactics in an attempt to cover-up for their own shortcomings. |
|
|
|
I am not convinced that Core will increase the blocksize. I think it would be wrong to expect people to "trust" Core to do this. Remember that all that Core needs to do is stall and delay, this would bring about the early "fee market" which they have been advocating for, which is in direct opposition to many peoples wishes and the original vision of Satoshi. The roadmap is very clearly laid out. Indeed there is no direct blocksize increase through a hardfork that is planned for the foreseeable future. Instead we get immediate 75% increase through an uncontentious, backward compatible softfork which also brings about significant improvements in other aspects of the protocol. Spare us the rest of your FUD. If we can't trust Core with the aforementioned proposal then who should we trust or whose plan should we favor? I don't see any team proposing anything remotely as sound and well thought out so maybe you can enlighten me? Spare us your FUD. You lost, get over it and stop being so impressed by the charlatans over at bitco.in. If you don't want to save yourself no one can. |
|
|
|
zip
Please stop spamming the thread with the same posts repeatedly. Oh and..fork off! |
|
|
|
Does Gavin have this power?? [/quote] pretty certain that's a no |
|
|
|
The lolcows are unusually agitated since Core's most recent show of strength. Behold here Peter R Rizun, Managing Editor of the Ledger academic publication, openly lobbying Gavin to.... you guessed it..... censor the contributors out of the Bitcoin Core repo.  |
|
|
|
However I do not believe that it would even get to that point in the first place, since firstly we would fork before that happened, and secondly I do not believe such a system would gain sufficient adoption especially compared to superior alternatives that would exist concurrently in the free market.
Please, by all means, fork away. There is no competition to Bitcoin. The block size limit is there to keep it that way. |
|
|
|
Anybody silly enough to run an XT node should just send all their coins directly to Uncle Sam now and bypass all the formalities, stress and hassle that lies along that route.
The few people running XT nodes (I imagine) do so in protest of the consensus paralysis experienced by the reference implementation. Stasis requires one vote, evolution requires all votes, an unnatural arrangement. There is a relief valve, and some have already grabbed it. That is exactly why I run XT node(s). I'm just an old man yelling at a cloud. I bought something with bitcoin today because I was surprised to discover at checkout that it was an option. I was pleased that I could spend my bitcoin on goods, despite ongoing attempts to undermine that use case. Settlement layer my ass, just as information wants to be free, so bitcoin wants to be money. All the governments in the world aren't going to stop it, and neither is a group of devs. Bitcoin will be what it will be and attempts to constrain it will fail, arguing about blocksize is a red herring. Honey badger don't care. Indeed, Core has already moved past this issue and is moving on to better, more intelligent scaling solutions. No contentious hard fork is getting merged. On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 6:07 AM, Wladimir J. van der Laan wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 10:02:17PM +0000, Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
wrote:
>> TL;DR: I propose we work immediately towards the segwit 4MB block
>> soft-fork which increases capacity and scalability, and recent speedups
>> and incoming relay improvements make segwit a reasonable risk. BIP9
>> and segwit will also make further improvements easier and faster to
>> deploy. We’ll continue to set the stage for non-bandwidth-increase-based
>> scaling, while building additional tools that would make bandwidth
>> increases safer long term. Further work will prepare Bitcoin for further
>> increases, which will become possible when justified, while also
providing
>> the groundwork to make them justifiable.
>
> Sounds good to me.
Better late than never, let me comment on why I believe pursuing this plan is important.
For months, the block size debate, and the apparent need for agreement on a hardfork has distracted from needed engineering work, fed the external impression that nothing is being done, and generally created a toxic environment to work in. It has affected my own productivity and health, and I do not think I am alone.
I believe that soft-fork segwit can help us out of this deadlock and get us going again. It does not require the pervasive assumption that the entire world will simultaneously switch to new consensus rules like a hardfork does, while at the same time:
* Give a short-term capacity bump
* Show the world that scalability is being worked on
* Actually improve scalability (as opposed to just scale) by reducingbandwidth/storage and indirectly improving the effectiveness of systems like Lightning.
* Solve several unrelated problems at the same time (fraud proofs, script extensibility, malleability, ...).
So I'd like to ask the community that we work towards this plan, as it allows to make progress without being forced to make a possibly divisive choice for one hardfork or another yet.
--
Pieter The rest can fork off to their own altcoins for all I care. By the way, a more important red herring, one you are yourself guilty of entertaining, is the premise that Core is responsible for the network's inaction in raising the block size. Of course Core has no control over the code being run by Bitcoin peers and so it is a network wide decision that supports the existing status quo. Again, if you find yourself in disagreement you are free to move ahead with your own altcoin. |
|
|
|
Page 14444 incoming in a 444.44 incoming price. The singularity is near.
Bullish
|
|
|
|
Someday a bitcoin node may be the size of a google datacenter. So what? Google seems to be doing pretty well. They don't seem to care that most searches aren't for anything important
*facepalms* |
|
|
|
Over at the mental ward... I often find that my writing is most inspired when countering opposing viewpoints. You need to check your ego young man  Your writing is neither inspiring nor does it counter anything not resembling a collection of strawmen. |
|
|
|
VeritasSapere's worst nightmare:  |
|
|
|
I wet my bed at night
 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
