edit: and this zarahustra shill is a tiny wheeny piece of lying fucking shit.
Great to know the ad-hominem 'Bitcoiners' on the core side. If you have such friends and cheerleaders you don't need enemies anymore. Hypocrite much? Unfortunately it's true that the blockstream cheerleaders here applauded DDoS attacks against XT Nodes. XT is an attack on Bitcoin. Don't be so surprised if there are collateral damage within the minority XT faction. Blockstream is an attack on Bitcoin development; a take over. That's the reason why development is forking and decentralizing.The mod behavior is also an attack on Bitcoin. That's the reason why the forums are forking and decentralizing: https://www.reddit.com/r/trendingsubreddits/comments/3s0i89/trending_subreddits_for_20151108_rbtc/Sometimes, bad behavior determines good results. Someone apparently didn't get the notice... 40 commits to the Core GitHub repo since the beginning on the month. Last XT commit was October 23rd  By the way your forum "forks" are nothing but unproductive circlejerks. |
|
|
|
edit: and this zarahustra shill is a tiny wheeny piece of lying fucking shit.
Great to know the ad-hominem 'Bitcoiners' on the core side. If you have such friends and cheerleaders you don't need enemies anymore. Hypocrite much? Unfortunately it's true that the blockstream cheerleaders here applauded DDoS attacks against XT Nodes. XT is an attack on Bitcoin. Don't be so surprised if there are collateral damage within the minority XT faction. |
|
|
|
It was Mike's arrogance that put him in this position in the first place. He wanted to seize control over Bitcoin and in doing so divided the developer community. He thought his alliance with Gavin would put him in a better position and it failed. Now we are left with a divided community fighting each other over block sizes. We should just ignore this whole fiasco and
continue what we doing now, because it's working and we are nowhere near to capacity. {Let's just kick the can, down the road}  Core devs are doing just that and putting in work right about now. 40 commits to the GitHub repo since the beginning on the month. Last XT commit was October 23rd |
|
|
|
edit: and this zarahustra shill is a tiny wheeny piece of lying fucking shit.
Great to know the ad-hominem 'Bitcoiners' on the core side. If you have such friends and cheerleaders you don't need enemies anymore. Hypocrite much? No one cares for your delusions. Seriously, fork off. |
|
|
|
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 He also said this: While network nodes can verify transactions for themselves, the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network. One strategy to protect against this would be to accept alerts from network nodes when they detect an invalid block, prompting the user's software to download the full block and alerted transactions to confirm the inconsistency This type of fraud proof, which is necessary to make SPV truly secure, does not currently exist. Your argument to authority is also rather unfortunate given the frankly poor analogy used by Satoshi (NNTP servers vs full nodes) Adam: "2-4-8" You'll get bigger blocks soonish. If blockstream core is not able to reach conensus, they'll be history as a leading group of devs. You sound insecure. Spare us your blockstream obsession you psycho. Adam is forced to push now, which is great. No one cares about your love affair for Adam. He's not pushing anything he's merely brandishing a bone to occupy the retards' attention while adults are doing the work. |
|
|
|
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 He also said this: While network nodes can verify transactions for themselves, the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network. One strategy to protect against this would be to accept alerts from network nodes when they detect an invalid block, prompting the user's software to download the full block and alerted transactions to confirm the inconsistency This type of fraud proof, which is necessary to make SPV truly secure, does not currently exist. Your argument to authority is also rather unfortunate given the frankly poor analogy used by Satoshi (NNTP servers vs full nodes) Adam: "2-4-8" You'll get bigger blocks soonish. If blockstream core is not able to reach conensus, they'll be history as a leading group of devs. You sound insecure. Spare us your blockstream obsession you psycho. |
|
|
|
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 He also said this: While network nodes can verify transactions for themselves, the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network. One strategy to protect against this would be to accept alerts from network nodes when they detect an invalid block, prompting the user's software to download the full block and alerted transactions to confirm the inconsistency This type of fraud proof, which is necessary to make SPV truly secure, does not currently exist. Your argument to authority is also rather unfortunate given the frankly poor analogy used by Satoshi (NNTP servers vs full nodes) |
|
|
|
Altruism aside, why would anyone choose-to-use the main-chain, if the lightning network is just as secure and decentralised, and '..cheaper and faster..' ?
So if you understand that Lightning actually depends upon the main chain why would you ask this question? Your question implies that no transaction is done on the main chain at all - and of course that is not how it works. Please read this: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-summary.pdf(the point being that there are other ways to scale the Bitcoin infrastructure that don't just involve creating bigger blocks) It will certainly help with scaling in the short term, but over longer periods, the real question becomes what percentage of transaction fees are skimmed off the top and don't end up going to the miners securing the main chain? It could potentially hit miners hard later down the line if we don't strike the balance right. Too much traffic on the main chain is bad, but too much off-chain could be equally precarious. I don't see how that is a problem. There are basically two type of demand for transactions: cheap & instant and irreversible settlements. In the long run entities looking for secure settlements of large transactions will necessarily settle directly on the blockchain and it's likely the market fee for these transactions will cover miners' cost. I respect your optimism, but I'm not quite ready for all of us to bet the farm on "likely". We need to tread carefully on this. What's the plan if miner fees start to drop? Politely ask providers of the off-chain services to stop taking a cut? Somehow I don't see that working. The first major off-chain solution launched is Liquid, which is designed precisely for large scale settlements. Have we not got this a little backwards if "settlements of large transactions will necessarily settle directly on the blockchain"? That's not what Liquid is for. It's basically a liquidity pool for market makers & exchanges. Settlement on the Bitcoin blockchain offers unparalleled security so basically you are arguing that there is not going to be enough demand for this. I consider this pretty unlikely. |
|
|
|
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.
Exactly. I have argued in the past that anyone telling you that "you don't have to run a full node" is making a direct attempt at your monetary sovereignty and you should consider them an enemy of financial freedom. |
|
|
|
Altruism aside, why would anyone choose-to-use the main-chain, if the lightning network is just as secure and decentralised, and '..cheaper and faster..' ?
So if you understand that Lightning actually depends upon the main chain why would you ask this question? Your question implies that no transaction is done on the main chain at all - and of course that is not how it works. Please read this: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-summary.pdf(the point being that there are other ways to scale the Bitcoin infrastructure that don't just involve creating bigger blocks) It will certainly help with scaling in the short term, but over longer periods, the real question becomes what percentage of transaction fees are skimmed off the top and don't end up going to the miners securing the main chain? It could potentially hit miners hard later down the line if we don't strike the balance right. Too much traffic on the main chain is bad, but too much off-chain could be equally precarious. Also, they should probably fix that typo in the summary.pdf: Transactions confirmed on the bitcoin blockchain take up to one hour before they are irrevesible. I don't see how that is a problem. There are basically two type of demand for transactions: cheap & instant and irreversible settlements. In the long run entities looking for secure settlements of large transactions will necessarily settle directly on the blockchain and it's likely the market fee for these transactions will cover miners' cost. |
|
|
|
Unless a node is doing mining, why should it limit the block size? Block size is determined by what the majority of miners accept. Other nodes are just slaves of the miners.
Because mining nodes are subsidized while the other full nodes on the network, who are essential to Bitcoin's censorship resistance, are not. Do you want to centralize node control over to mining nodes? |
|
|
|
Corporations should not be trying to force or persuade us into these changes, else we simply turn into a system of centralised decision making and
Nah. Let them try to persuade whoever they want. It's called freedom of speech. More importantly: Blockstream, a private company who also controls most
of the core developers, represents far more of "centralized decision making" than anything else. I see you're still shamelessly spreadin lies |
|
|
|
The XT crew have made lowcows of themselves. Even Gavin has moved back to working on Bitcoin Core (on github).
He has never stopped. All the claim from idiots that he was stopped developing on Bitcoin was pure shit Maybe all of you should get back to reality http://forums.prohashing.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=650&p=2467The altcoin post... Someone should seriously ban you it's shame how desperate you are |
|
|
|
I have write this before i will write it again. It seems that the business ecosystem around bitcoin are desperate to take control of the source code of it with their own developers etc. This is a fight for the soul of bitcoin. And it is clear who is with them like Roger Ver, Mike Hearn, Gavin Andressen and many more.
You are right but almost nobody listen. I said the same since 2 years ago. A bunch of people are controlling the ecosystem. The big exchangers like Coinbase, Bitstam, Bitfinex, BTC China HAVE THE SAME SHAREHOLDERS(behind the scene) !  Also, these shareholders are controlling the BTC media like Coindesk and SatoshiDICE.I think most of the people are blind or they dont' care. BTC is becoming a centralized system. Do they also have bitcoins? Cause if they dont....  |
|
|
|
Oh come on. We just want bigger blocks right, now nothing less nothing more. You didn't get that already?
The majority of community and developers doesn't want it to happen tho. In times like these, i really wish Satoshi makes a statement about the issue and close arguments that are separating this community into fractions. I believe everyone would follow him. A majority wants bigger blocks even if BIP101 is have not reached a majority. Anyway that is why a fork is going to happen, because the status quo haven't managed to reach a compromise to satisfy everybody. Plain and simple. You can't force people on a path they don't want forever. A fork is not going to happen until consensus on a path moving forward has been achieved. You and your little clique of defectors might start thinking about creating your altcoin. Do you understand what is at stake here? No miner is idiot enough to risk a contentious fork that split the community. |
|
|
|
How can Coinbase force someone to do anything is still to be explained lol
Well being a centralized service and all they can certainly force a lot of things on their users |
|
|
|
Again, I fail to see the hostility behind people freely moving away. If there is hostility then it is coming from you.
Then why the constant posting by you (as a shill) about this? If people freely wanted to move away then they wouldn't need you to push them would they? I consider lengthily debate as a good thing but at some point it has to come to an end. Some businesses have put december as a deadline and all the people that want to move away are waiting for that deadline to move at the same time which is natural. The situation is now this, some people considered the status quo as a consensus and firmly sit on it. while in fact, it is not. Now those on want to move are about to make a move because the other side is taking advantage of the status quo and are unwilling to give an inch, in a timely matter. Ignoring the "time" variable is where you people failed at reaching a consensus. There is still a month remaining though so the ball is in your camp. We don't wanna play bals with you shills. I'm afraid December will come and you parasites will hang around without ever admitting your crushing defeat One thing is for sure, you won't succeed at forcing your useless small blocks on the market. They haven't been forced on anyone. The fact is, there is currently consensus for 1MB blocks. There is not yet consensus in the wider community for BIP101. The fact that Coinbase is trying to force XT and BIP101 on everyone is grossly out of place. This is where you are wrong and why all this mess is happening. Do we really have to spell out the difference between consensus and unanimity to you? |
|
|
|
The "corporate takeover" already happen, Blocktream is now the owner of bitcoin development and they're pushing their agenda, maybe you should be worried about that...
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. What are yours? The fact that no other scaling proposition other than the for profit privately owned Liquid should be worrying you. I'm not again Liquid but clearly blockstream have the wrong priorities on the scaling manner. There are different propositions being worked on right now by the various people at Blockstream. Too bad you can't keep track, being retarded and all that. |
|
|
|
Again, I fail to see the hostility behind people freely moving away. If there is hostility then it is coming from you.
Then why the constant posting by you (as a shill) about this? If people freely wanted to move away then they wouldn't need you to push them would they? I consider lengthily debate as a good thing but at some point it has to come to an end. Some businesses have put december as a deadline and all the people that want to move away are waiting for that deadline to move at the same time which is natural. The situation is now this, some people considered the status quo as a consensus and firmly sit on it. while in fact, it is not. Now those on want to move are about to make a move because the other side is taking advantage of the status quo and are unwilling to give an inch, in a timely matter. Ignoring the "time" variable is where you people failed at reaching a consensus. There is still a month remaining though so the ball is in your camp. We don't wanna play bals with you shills. I'm afraid December will come and you parasites will hang around without ever admitting your crushing defeat |
|
|
|
The "corporate takeover" already happen, Blocktream is now the owner of bitcoin development and they're pushing their agenda, maybe you should be worried about that...
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. What are yours? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
