Will Brian Armstrong from Coinbase admit he was wrong?

[thejaytiesto]

Brian Armstrong has been pushing for the big block agenda claiming that a hard fork is "an elegant way" to upgrade and that "2 coins would never coexist". Obviously this has been all proven wrong with the Ethereum/Ethereum Classic dissaster.

Will he admit that the conservative approach of Core devs was the right way to go about things while keep improving and doing more research?

https://mobile.twitter.com/MadBitcoins/status/757987150528811008

[gentlemand]

I'm voting for a hell no. I don't quite know what's going on in their minds, but it's not very constructive or helpful for everyone else.

They should leave the meddling to other people and concentrate on providing good service for all. That probably includes delisting ETH until it's clear that it won't completely rape their less informed customers.

[thejaytiesto]

I'm voting for a hell no. I don't quite know what's going on in their minds, but it's not very constructive or helpful for everyone else.

They should leave the meddling to other people and concentrate on providing good service for all. That probably includes delisting ETH until it's clear that it won't completely rape their less informed customers.

In any case they should allow ETC too, if they refuse to delist ETH. I seriously doubt that they will backpeddle now and stop supporting ETH... so okay, if you want to support Ethereum, then support ETC too because there is a serious demand for the coin and active developers, as we can see in the Poloniex order book, the volume is real.

[marky89]

Of course he won't admit defeat. He will keep pushing his agenda in a futile attempt to sell a story of future revenue for his shareholders. Their actions over the past year really show a company that is desperate to create additional revenue streams.

Brian has been very resolute on the point that fees are killing bitcoin adoption, so I doubt he will stop laboring that point just because it means BTC will split into multiple ledgers.

He has shown his true colors, and the attempt by GDAX/CB to steal customer ETC further proves it.

[thejaytiesto]

Of course he won't admit defeat. He will keep pushing his agenda in a futile attempt to sell a story of future revenue for his shareholders. He has shown his true colors, and the attempt by GDAX/CB to steal customer ETC further proves it.

Well he and all the supports of the hard fork will have a hard time explaining to investors that a very strong fork of the chain is still existing and now it has mutated into another coin and they will compete against each other... this is pretty fucking insane but they were warned about it. Oh and all because of a rollback to get the money back, not as if they were trying to improve the code or something.

[marky89]

As a matter of fact, here is Brian posting 2 hours ago --- after being silent for days --- praising Vitalik Buterin: https://mobile.twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/758331929179545602?p=p

This guy is a joke.

[thejaytiesto]

As a matter of fact, here is Brian posting 2 hours ago --- after being silent for days --- praising Vitalik Buterin: https://mobile.twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/758331929179545602?p=p

This guy is a joke.

The personality cult for Vitalik is way worse than Satoshi's and that's saying a lot. Satoshi did a good by disappearing. Anyway, I doubt that Brian Armstrong will ever admit he was wrong, too much ego involved and money as well. They will need to learn the hard way (already are).

[gentlemand]

Of course he won't admit defeat. He will keep pushing his agenda in a futile attempt to sell a story of future revenue for his shareholders.

I'm sure he'd end up producing more revenue if he was generally supportive of the whole scene and kept himself to himself. It seems like a rather strange approach to me.

[marky89]

Of course he won't admit defeat. He will keep pushing his agenda in a futile attempt to sell a story of future revenue for his shareholders.

I'm sure he'd end up producing more revenue if he was generally supportive of the whole scene and kept himself to himself. It seems like a rather strange approach to me.

I think Brian gave up on the BTC community. Last year, he was saying:



But now? He only switches back and forth between talking smack about Bitcoin Core / pushing for BTC governance coup, and pumping Ethereum and the ETH Foundation.

[thejaytiesto]

Are they losing their mind over Coinbase camp? they seem to be going insane lately. What about this?

http://coinjournal.net/coinbase-and-reddit-ceos-discuss-removal-of-theymos-as-moderator-of-bitcoin-subreddit/

I think they have fucked up big time with the ETH hard fork and are going to keep making more and more stupid moves.

[isvicre]

Of course he won't admit defeat. He will keep pushing his agenda in a futile attempt to sell a story of future revenue for his shareholders.

I'm sure he'd end up producing more revenue if he was generally supportive of the whole scene and kept himself to himself. It seems like a rather strange approach to me.

Coinbase could do a lot to increase their revenue but they're too busy being morons to do so.

[unamis76]

This thread made me go and read what's happening with ETH. Does this sum up everything that's happened nicely?

Never really understood the goal of Ethereum or why does it exist and in what basis does it do something that is better than Bitcoin or that Bitcoin isn't capable of doing, or if it has something that drastically improves the usability of the blockchain and monetary tokens. Not really getting why there was a fork either (someone trying to control most of the hashrate, as far as I understood...?)

Despite this, I don't think Ethereum is a good benchmark for evaluating dangers and advantages of hard forking Bitcoin. Bitcoin is more widely known and accepted. I think we can call it the king of cryptocurrencies. You can fork all the altcoins you want. You'd probably only be able to benchmark possible problems in forking when forking Litecoin, and even so...

[rizzlarolla]

Despite this, I don't think Ethereum is a good benchmark for evaluating dangers and advantages of hard forking Bitcoin. Bitcoin is more widely known and accepted. I think we can call it the king of cryptocurrencies. You can fork all the altcoins you want. You'd probably only be able to benchmark possible problems in forking when forking Litecoin, and even so...

Eth block time and diff adjustment are completely different to Bitcoin, and will produce 2 completely different situations.

Brian Armstrong is, imo, a fool for not realising this.
Anyone who thinks the Eth hard fork is in any way similar to, or representative of a Bitcoin block size hard fork is also just as foolish.

[helloeverybody]

This thread made me go and read what's happening with ETH. Does this sum up everything that's happened nicely?

Never really understood the goal of Ethereum or why does it exist and in what basis does it do something that is better than Bitcoin or that Bitcoin isn't capable of doing, or if it has something that drastically improves the usability of the blockchain and monetary tokens. Not really getting why there was a fork either (someone trying to control most of the hashrate, as far as I understood...?)

Despite this, I don't think Ethereum is a good benchmark for evaluating dangers and advantages of hard forking Bitcoin. Bitcoin is more widely known and accepted. I think we can call it the king of cryptocurrencies. You can fork all the altcoins you want. You'd probably only be able to benchmark possible problems in forking when forking Litecoin, and even so...

They forked because the dao was "hacked"  and the "hacker"  would have had a shit load of eth once he finally got his tokens released which he would then go ahead and dump no on the market which would collapse eths price.

I can't see coinbase ever admit they where wrong though.  If anything this shows hard forks should be approached with caution even if i do support bigger blocks.

[franky1]

first of all.. bitcoin is nothing like ether and ether is nothing like bitcoin.

so lets put things into prospective.
for Ether.. eventually one chain will die out. currently they lack infrastructure and uses to make the choice less than obvious.

however for bitcoin..
if the miners have a majority hash power.. exchanges would follow.. and.. symbiotically
if the main exchanges choose one bitcoin chain. then all the miners will follow that chain as its their way of "cashing out" their rewards.

secondly the merchants would follow the user nodes. after all if people are rejecting transactions where deposits and withdrawals are being done, its not beneficial to merchants to be on a chain causing issues

so bitcoins decision will happen far sooner.

the starting point is consensus. if there was a 50-50 consensus.. well miners wont even bother making a fork.. not really even at 75% but that 75% would be a kick up the ass to atleast say what general direction things will take and what the majority is possibly going with..

once a fork happens at over 90% its only then that the 10% laggers realise they are left with a useless chain that doesnt solve blocks promptly, causing major confirmation delays. also the amount of unconfirmed txs pile up in mempool causing a massive tx fee war to be first in line of the massive back log. causing that useless laggy weak chain to be expensive. and lastly that useless laggy weak expensive chain to be not accepted by merchants so people realise even paying a large fee and waiting hours for 1 confirm.. the merchants wont see it because the merchants are on the majority chain instead..
thus the minority chain dies quite quick..

again ether does not have the hashpower, userbase, usability or infrastructure to push the decision very rapidly.. but with bitcoin you would see a minority chain die quite quickly

[Das]

In any case they should allow ETC too, if they refuse to delist ETH. I seriously doubt that they will backpeddle now and stop supporting ETH... so okay, if you want to support Ethereum, then support ETC too because there is a serious demand for the coin and active developers, as we can see in the Poloniex order book, the volume is real.

ETC is in high demand because it is riding on the wings of ETH. I see no reason why ETH should be delisted because something went wrong somewhere, which of course can be amended.

[pereira4]

first of all.. bitcoin is nothing like ether and ether is nothing like bitcoin.

so lets put things into prospective.
for Ether.. eventually one chain will die out. currently they lack infrastructure and uses to make the choice less than obvious.

however for bitcoin..
if the miners have a majority hash power.. exchanges would follow.. and.. symbiotically
if the main exchanges choose one bitcoin chain. then all the miners will follow that chain as its their way of "cashing out" their rewards.

secondly the merchants would follow the user nodes. after all if people are rejecting transactions where deposits and withdrawals are being done, its not beneficial to merchants to be on a chain causing issues

so bitcoins decision will happen far sooner.

the starting point is consensus. if there was a 50-50 consensus.. well miners wont even bother making a fork.. not really even at 75% but that 75% would be a kick up the ass to atleast say what general direction things will take and what the majority is possibly going with..

once a fork happens at over 90% its only then that the 10% laggers realise they are left with a useless chain that doesnt solve blocks promptly, causing major confirmation delays. also the amount of unconfirmed txs pile up in mempool causing a massive tx fee war to be first in line of the massive back log. causing that useless laggy weak chain to be expensive. and lastly that useless laggy weak expensive chain to be not accepted by merchants so people realise even paying a large fee and waiting hours for 1 confirm.. the merchants wont see it because the merchants are on the majority chain instead..
thus the minority chain dies quite quick..

again ether does not have the hashpower, userbase, usability or infrastructure to push the decision very rapidly.. but with bitcoin you would see a minority chain die quite quickly

Everything sounds great in theory, too bad in practice the fuck up can be monumental. Brian Armstrong is a demonstration of this. "Hey just let's just hard fork, 2 coins will never co-exist!".
Now look at Poloniex, ETC is the coin with the most volume, already surpassing ETH.

Oh and forget about Armstrong ever admitting his mistake, too much ego. But thanks to this Ethereum mess Bitcoin becomes even stronger.

[Carlton Banks]

[fantasised theories, zero facts]

Everything sounds great in theory, too bad in practice the fuck up can be monumental.

Were you expecting anything else but theories, though?

[X7]

Unlikely given his level of arrogance on other matters, he would have to see things with more humility before that occurs.

[MingLee]

This thread made me go and read what's happening with ETH. Does this sum up everything that's happened nicely?

Never really understood the goal of Ethereum or why does it exist and in what basis does it do something that is better than Bitcoin or that Bitcoin isn't capable of doing, or if it has something that drastically improves the usability of the blockchain and monetary tokens. Not really getting why there was a fork either (someone trying to control most of the hashrate, as far as I understood...?)

Despite this, I don't think Ethereum is a good benchmark for evaluating dangers and advantages of hard forking Bitcoin. Bitcoin is more widely known and accepted. I think we can call it the king of cryptocurrencies. You can fork all the altcoins you want. You'd probably only be able to benchmark possible problems in forking when forking Litecoin, and even so...

They forked because the dao was "hacked"  and the "hacker"  would have had a shit load of eth once he finally got his tokens released which he would then go ahead and dump no on the market which would collapse eths price.

I can't see coinbase ever admit they where wrong though.  If anything this shows hard forks should be approached with caution even if i do support bigger blocks.

Coinbase will never admit they're wrong even if they are; that's because they have to put on a big show and get their name out there whenever they can. The shareholders want their money, and if Coinbase can get involved with everything and get their name out to the ETH traders and users, the shareholders get more money.

They'll reach out and be like "Oh yeah this is all great and cool and you know we like this too so check us out" so they can kiss the users' asses for their revenue. I changed wallet sites for a reason.