Is Blockstream the reason why 4 core developer won´t increase the blocksize?

[QuestionAuthority]

Well, now this is an interesting theory.  If it is true it shows a significant conflict of interest by the people that oppose a bigger block size.  I am not technically versed enough to make 100% sense of this but what does everyone else think?

Indeed nice find, really depresing in a way. Bitcoin should be above personal interest.

it cannot, you know, because money are involved, everything where money is involved, always end up like this, where everyone just look at his portfolio

you can't really blame them we are doing the same, but they at least care for other portfolio, seeing how they are in charge for the development...

Its not the same though.  This is more like Pete Rose betting against his team when he was coaching.  If I manage my portfolio, or come on here to post about an alt coin that I own, that is ok because it doesn't really matter.  In this case people are getting hurt financially because of this nonsense.  Look at the price drop in bitcoins recently.  I think it is because of fear of this mess.  And this mess wouldn't be a problem if the team didn't have a huge confict of interest.

You hit the nail on the head. That's really all I or probably most people care about. I'm afraid they are going to fuck with something and devalue the coins I'm holding. There are a lot of pretentious posers that come here to brag about how much they know about Bitcoin (as if that means a fucking thing in the real world). They study and research the issues but in the end they have no control whatsoever. I only know what I learned on this forum, reddit and a few others. My knowledge is limited but it's a hell of a lot more than you could ever expect a casual user of debit cards or credit cards to know about the way they work. What I do know is I'm afraid that they're going to fuck with Bitcoin so much that my coins will end up worthless before I can get my money out without a loss before I die.

[anderson00673]

Well, now this is an interesting theory.  If it is true it shows a significant conflict of interest by the people that oppose a bigger block size.  I am not technically versed enough to make 100% sense of this but what does everyone else think?

Indeed nice find, really depresing in a way. Bitcoin should be above personal interest.

it cannot, you know, because money are involved, everything where money is involved, always end up like this, where everyone just look at his portfolio

you can't really blame them we are doing the same, but they at least care for other portfolio, seeing how they are in charge for the development...

Its not the same though.  This is more like Pete Rose betting against his team when he was coaching.  If I manage my portfolio, or come on here to post about an alt coin that I own, that is ok because it doesn't really matter.  In this case people are getting hurt financially because of this nonsense.  Look at the price drop in bitcoins recently.  I think it is because of fear of this mess.  And this mess wouldn't be a problem if the team didn't have a huge confict of interest.

You hit the nail on the head. That's really all I or probably most people care about. I'm afraid they are going to fuck with something and devalue the coins I'm holding. There are a lot of pretentious posers that come here to brag about how much they know about Bitcoin (as if that means a fucking thing in the real world). They study and research the issues but in the end they have no control whatsoever. I only know what I learned on this forum, reddit and a few others. My knowledge is limited but it's a hell of a lot more than you could ever expect a casual user of debit cards or credit cards to know about the way they work. What I do know is I'm afraid that they're going to fuck with Bitcoin so much that my coins will end up worthless before I can get my money out without a loss before I die.

I for one certainly hope that you do not lose the value of your coins.  This whole things is a tempest in a teapot that is threatening to break free and become a full fledged storm.  My hope is that more people will bother to read up on what is actually happening, and then as a result will calm down.  I will admit that I was a bit panicked when I first heard about this.  But then I went through the trouble to read up on the details in stead of getting my information from a bunch of noobies posting on the forums.

[Lauda]

If we could get side chains to work and implemented well I am all for them and agree. I think we should rather have the 8mb though to give more time between forks to perfect everything, but if we can get the chains to implement nicely and that is the best route then it should be what we do.

Yeah, we agree on this. I guess different people (including the current developers) see the situation differently. Some don't expect us to hit the limit anytime soon, and some want to let the market solve the situation (wrong). However we should actually try to prevent it from happening rather than applying fixes once it happens.
Even if we only increase the limit to 4MB it would still give us much more time than we previously would have had. The worst part of all of this is that it is going to negatively impact Bitcoin itself. We have already seen a minor decline in the price and the media is exaggerating that Bitcoin is going to die. This happens because we let Mircea and his band start threads that contain FUD.

[jeannemadrigal2]

If we could get side chains to work and implemented well I am all for them and agree. I think we should rather have the 8mb though to give more time between forks to perfect everything, but if we can get the chains to implement nicely and that is the best route then it should be what we do.

Yeah, we agree on this. I guess different people (including the current developers) see the situation differently. Some don't expect us to hit the limit anytime soon, and some want to let the market solve the situation (wrong). However we should actually try to prevent it from happening rather than applying fixes once it happens.
Even if we only increase the limit to 4MB it would still give us much more time than we previously would have had. The worst part of all of this is that it is going to negatively impact Bitcoin itself. We have already seen a minor decline in the price and the media is exaggerating that Bitcoin is going to die. This happens because we let Mircea and his band start threads that contain FUD.

It is always better to prevent a problem rather than fix it after the fact.  Unfortunately people tend to ignore things until they become a problem, rather than preventing them.

Mircea started making self modded threads and deleting my posts.  I was trying to explain things as they are and not as he says, lol.  I also link to this thread when I can because I feel that it is very important for the community to know about this stuff before they make a decision.  Who is this Mircea guy anyway, and why is he spreading such obvious nonsense?  Maybe he just wants to drive the price down so he can accumulate at a lower rate?

[ebliever]

Do you think we have enough time to get sidechains down 100% and a part to the main chain before the 1mb size is full and we start have a confirmation time problem?

I'm very hopeful about the long term value of sidechains.... but also unconvinced they are going to work. I wish there was better information for the rest of us on sidechains, because I've been doing my own thinking about how I think a sidechain (or multiple chains bearing the same crypto) would work, and I'm having real trouble with it.

I think that until someone actually makes a crypto with sidechains, and it survives in the wild for a good while resisting hackers and real-world stresses, it's gong to be impossible to say for certain that it is ready for prime time. Especially not by a given drop-dead date. So for now Bitcoin needs to move forward without them.

[Lauda]

It is always better to prevent a problem rather than fix it after the fact.  Unfortunately people tend to ignore things until they become a problem, rather than preventing them.

Mircea started making self modded threads and deleting my posts.  I was trying to explain things as they are and not as he says, lol.  I also link to this thread when I can because I feel that it is very important for the community to know about this stuff before they make a decision.  Who is this Mircea guy anyway, and why is he spreading such obvious nonsense?  Maybe he just wants to drive the price down so he can accumulate at a lower rate?

This is what I've been talking about. Why would we deal with the problems when we can prevent them. Increasing the block size to 4 or 8MB would give the network more time before other solutions are ready.
I don't see a problem with this.

I've noticed that as well. He had already made 2 or 3 threads before, but it looks like he couldn't stand the opposing arguments. I didn't want to waste my time replying on that thread as it would probably get deleted anyways.
As for who he is:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=942404.0
http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/realwork/EXPORT/projects/bitcoin/wikipedia/Mircea%20Popescu%20-%20Wikipedia,%20the%20free%20encyclopedia.html

He actually threatened (over twitter) that he would kill Andreas Antonopoulos.

[Klestin]

I'm 100% with Gavin in any decision he makes. But we've actually started making progress in countries where Bitcoin was once illegal, how do we rebuild these achievements and what will the ultimate consequence be for Bitcoin & XT?

Bitcoin-XT is running, right now.  It's the same blockchain.  It doesn't create "XT coins".  The proposed code change would only take effect when 90% of blocks were compliant with the XT changes.  This is not the first time we've branched.  IMO, this is much ado about nothing.

[tvbcof]

I'm 100% with Gavin in any decision he makes. But we've actually started making progress in countries where Bitcoin was once illegal, how do we rebuild these achievements and what will the ultimate consequence be for Bitcoin & XT?

Bitcoin-XT is running, right now.  It's the same blockchain.  It doesn't create "XT coins".  The proposed code change would only take effect when 90% of blocks were compliant with the XT changes.  This is not the first time we've branched.  IMO, this is much ado about nothing.

For those who are new to things, note that the first >1mb block (or otherwise incompatible) block XT produces will release what I call 'XTaint' into the wild.  That would be the 25 block reward (the 'coinbase'.)

What a possessor of XTaint (or it's derivative) can do is to mix a little in to a spend to themselves.  The spend will be invalid on Core so their Core holdings are unimpacted, but will be valid on XT so they can run it right down to an exchange or pawn it off on some other XT user.

Of course the converse is also true.  Coretaint can be used by XT users in the same manner.  Choose your side wisely if you are going to play these games, or just sit on your hands for a (long-ish) while.

Likely many others will join in the games so thing become what I call a 'battle royal'.  The weaker ones (and maybe others) will employ various kinds of tricks such as analyzing alternate forks and artificially legalizing transactions tainted with other coinbase, or simply monitoring for spend activity on other chains and devaluing them.

Some chains might distribute some 'free taint' which _must_ be mixed into future spends.  Some might force deep storage to be dug out and re-spent for various reason.

Some chains might switch to merge mining in hopes of using the extreme sha256 for backing while hoping to protecting against POW attacks.  Some might tweak their POW to limit the danger.  Some will go temporarily or permanently central for oracle service to guard against attacks.

There will be exchanges where people can bet on outcomes and play the various spreads.  Even different spends within a chain will be valued differently depending on whether they are 'universal' or not.  Spends consisting only of coin prior to 'the event' will command a premium.  So long fungibility.

This, and likely countless things I've not thought of, are what lies inside Pandora's box,  The lid can be pried off by forking without decent consensus, but eventually it probably will be pried off anyway so it would not be fair to blame Gavin for the event but simply the timing thereof.  There is a lot of value in the blockchain and a lot of people trying to get that which currently is controlled by others, and a lot of others trying to protect what they have buried within.  It's going to be fun.

Obviously these are just my predictions.  But, FWIW, I predicted that BTC in the single digits could be a very good buy among other decent calls over the years.  I also predicted that UTXO's buried in the blockchain would retain a value (if not grow) in an event such as I've described, and that was one of my rationals for taking the position I did.

[BusyBeaverHP]

XT up and running.

I've come to despise the Bitcoin Core developer's obstructionist position, and have voted with my nodes.

[anderson00673]

XT up and running.

I've come to despise the Bitcoin Core developer's obstructionist position, and have voted with my nodes.

Cheers!  Thanks so much for your vote.  Someday when I have a budget for it, and more technical ability, I hope to set up a node myself.  Of course by then there might not be any point to a small time home based node.  But sane people like you should help keep us safe from the recent insanity and nonsense.  Thanks!

Thanks for the links Lauda, I will have to read up on this guy.  He sounds like a real menace, threatening to kill people.  He might see a psychiatrist, they can help with that sort of thing.

[tss]

Thanks for the research. I couldn't find it. If this would also make Satoshi's storehouse of coins worthless I'd be all for it. That way he can't decide to cash out in the future and crash Bitcoin.

nice.  thats a great way to push this change.  promise to wipe out the top addresses of the bitcoin rich.  

Let's seriously think about this for a moment. Gavin, in his infinite weirdness, is afraid for Bitcoin's future success. He's running around like chicken little screaming that the sky is falling if we don't increase the blocksize but isn't concerned at all that one guy with a vendetta or possibly a gun to his head could destroy Bitcoin overnight. If this fork is that important then let's make it even more so - invalidate Satoshi's coins in the process and secure Bitcoin's future permanently.

i agree.  just to be sure we get most of them we should invalidate all of the coins till early 2012.

[QuestionAuthority]

Thanks for the research. I couldn't find it. If this would also make Satoshi's storehouse of coins worthless I'd be all for it. That way he can't decide to cash out in the future and crash Bitcoin.

nice.  thats a great way to push this change.  promise to wipe out the top addresses of the bitcoin rich.  

Let's seriously think about this for a moment. Gavin, in his infinite weirdness, is afraid for Bitcoin's future success. He's running around like chicken little screaming that the sky is falling if we don't increase the blocksize but isn't concerned at all that one guy with a vendetta or possibly a gun to his head could destroy Bitcoin overnight. If this fork is that important then let's make it even more so - invalidate Satoshi's coins in the process and secure Bitcoin's future permanently.

i agree.  just to be sure we get most of them we should invalidate all of the coins till early 2012.

Everyone bitches about how horrible altcoins are because they're premined.  o_O

[QuestionAuthority]

Thanks for the research. I couldn't find it. If this would also make Satoshi's storehouse of coins worthless I'd be all for it. That way he can't decide to cash out in the future and crash Bitcoin.

nice.  thats a great way to push this change.  promise to wipe out the top addresses of the bitcoin rich.  

Let's seriously think about this for a moment. Gavin, in his infinite weirdness, is afraid for Bitcoin's future success. He's running around like chicken little screaming that the sky is falling if we don't increase the blocksize but isn't concerned at all that one guy with a vendetta or possibly a gun to his head could destroy Bitcoin overnight. If this fork is that important then let's make it even more so - invalidate Satoshi's coins in the process and secure Bitcoin's future permanently.

i agree.  just to be sure we get most of them we should invalidate all of the coins till early 2012.

Everyone bitches about how horrible altcoins are because they're premined.  o_O

Dumb fuck you dont even know what premine means?

Premine does not mean early adopters, it means the creator/team literally create coins b4 they launch.

Bitcoin was launched right after Genesis block. Anyone can participate, so they're not premine they're early adopters.

Too bad you were too stupid to understand bitcoin and just spilling shit out of your mouth

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? How many coins does Satoshi have genius?

[QuestionAuthority]

Thanks for the research. I couldn't find it. If this would also make Satoshi's storehouse of coins worthless I'd be all for it. That way he can't decide to cash out in the future and crash Bitcoin.

nice.  thats a great way to push this change.  promise to wipe out the top addresses of the bitcoin rich.  

Let's seriously think about this for a moment. Gavin, in his infinite weirdness, is afraid for Bitcoin's future success. He's running around like chicken little screaming that the sky is falling if we don't increase the blocksize but isn't concerned at all that one guy with a vendetta or possibly a gun to his head could destroy Bitcoin overnight. If this fork is that important then let's make it even more so - invalidate Satoshi's coins in the process and secure Bitcoin's future permanently.

i agree.  just to be sure we get most of them we should invalidate all of the coins till early 2012.

Everyone bitches about how horrible altcoins are because they're premined.  o_O

Dumb fuck you dont even know what premine means?

Premine does not mean early adopters, it means the creator/team literally create coins b4 they launch.

Bitcoin was launched right after Genesis block. Anyone can participate, so they're not premine they're early adopters.

Too bad you were too stupid to understand bitcoin and just spilling shit out of your mouth

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? How many coins does Satoshi have genius?

He has tons of coins because the blockchain needed to be kept up online. The fact that you didnt get to anticipate does not mean its a premined.

Learn some fucking english at the same time dumb shit

"pre- " here means "pre-launch" Not "pre" your awareness of bitcoin.

I can tell how incredibly stupid you are from looking at your post history but do you mean to tell me that you can't tell it's the same outcome. Someone that has the first million coins whether it's before or after launch - same outcome. Back on ignore for you - bye, bye.

[smoothie]

simply put:

Bitcoin ... A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.

Satoshi Nakamoto - Bitcoin Whitepaper

[Denker]

This thread is very helpful.Didn't know that it existed before. Especially right now we should bump it up more often so that people who have no clue what is going on can study it. LaudaM has brought up some real good arguments why both sides might be important for Bitcoin's future, i.e. increasing the blocksize + sidechains.

[EternalWingsofGod]

This thread is very helpful.Didn't know that it existed before. Especially right now we should bump it up more often so that people who have no clue what is going on can study it. LaudaM has brought up some real good arguments why both sides might be important for Bitcoin's future, i.e. increasing the blocksize + sidechains.

It has been a while since this thread was posted in so it would be nice to hear about any changes and make sure people are aware of all areas of the debate.
Looking quickly just noticed a beta published on June 9 no update on the BIP proposal as far as I can tell at this time.
http://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-open-source-code-sidechains/
http://coinjournal.net/blockstreams-adam-back-describes-the-road-ahead-for-decentralized-sidechains/

[agath]

The only people who could be against the block size limit increase/removal are the blind, the clueless, or bound to the success of another project.

To keep bitcoin decentralized and under control of nobody we must make it accessible to everyone. This means hundreds of transactions per second and 1 MB blocks can't handle this. Other solutions are proprietary.

[meono]

It is always better to prevent a problem rather than fix it after the fact.  Unfortunately people tend to ignore things until they become a problem, rather than preventing them.

Mircea started making self modded threads and deleting my posts.  I was trying to explain things as they are and not as he says, lol.  I also link to this thread when I can because I feel that it is very important for the community to know about this stuff before they make a decision.  Who is this Mircea guy anyway, and why is he spreading such obvious nonsense?  Maybe he just wants to drive the price down so he can accumulate at a lower rate?

This is what I've been talking about. Why would we deal with the problems when we can prevent them. Increasing the block size to 4 or 8MB would give the network more time before other solutions are ready.
I don't see a problem with this.

I've noticed that as well. He had already made 2 or 3 threads before, but it looks like he couldn't stand the opposing arguments. I didn't want to waste my time replying on that thread as it would probably get deleted anyways.
As for who he is:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=942404.0
http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/realwork/EXPORT/projects/bitcoin/wikipedia/Mircea%20Popescu%20-%20Wikipedia,%20the%20free%20encyclopedia.html

He actually threatened (over twitter) that he would kill Andreas Antonopoulos.

Look at whos siding with Mircea now,.....

I must say the fear monger works wonder, it brainwashed some of the members on here to now go against what they said before this drama.

[QuestionAuthority]

It is always better to prevent a problem rather than fix it after the fact.  Unfortunately people tend to ignore things until they become a problem, rather than preventing them.

Mircea started making self modded threads and deleting my posts.  I was trying to explain things as they are and not as he says, lol.  I also link to this thread when I can because I feel that it is very important for the community to know about this stuff before they make a decision.  Who is this Mircea guy anyway, and why is he spreading such obvious nonsense?  Maybe he just wants to drive the price down so he can accumulate at a lower rate?

This is what I've been talking about. Why would we deal with the problems when we can prevent them. Increasing the block size to 4 or 8MB would give the network more time before other solutions are ready.
I don't see a problem with this.

I've noticed that as well. He had already made 2 or 3 threads before, but it looks like he couldn't stand the opposing arguments. I didn't want to waste my time replying on that thread as it would probably get deleted anyways.
As for who he is:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=942404.0
http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~stolfi/realwork/EXPORT/projects/bitcoin/wikipedia/Mircea%20Popescu%20-%20Wikipedia,%20the%20free%20encyclopedia.html

He actually threatened (over twitter) that he would kill Andreas Antonopoulos.

Look at whos siding with Mircea now,.....

I must say the fear monger works wonder, it brainwashed some of the members on here to now go against what they said before this drama.

Love your signature line. lol

I really miss MPOE-PR. There are a lot of people working on Bitcoin code with less going for them than MP.