Bitcoin Forum
December 18, 2017, 09:49:19 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal?  (Read 5066 times)
fatguyyyyy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406

Bitcoin Mixer: https://BitLaunder.com


View Profile WWW
June 03, 2015, 08:43:59 PM
 #81

Right now Bitcoin works fine .. if it's working, don't f*k with it

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513590559
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513590559

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513590559
Reply with quote  #2

1513590559
Report to moderator
1513590559
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513590559

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513590559
Reply with quote  #2

1513590559
Report to moderator
kingcolex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316



View Profile
June 03, 2015, 08:49:48 PM
 #82

Right now Bitcoin works fine .. if it's working, don't f*k with it
Okay so we know the daily transactions are increasing, it is a fact : https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

So if we don't do anything the time will come where the blocks are constantly full, you have to understand that. Now if that happens the next block will be filled quicker and there will be a queue and very long transaction times.

So if we don't change it Bitcoin won't take 10 minutes for a confirmation but a lot longer.

So your solution is just do nothing and just have long transaction times where eventually only the highest fees get through?

DooMAD
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456



View Profile WWW
June 03, 2015, 10:37:31 PM
 #83

Upping the transaction fees has a backslash: It will centralize Bitcoin in the sense of it will become a more and more elitist payment system as fees goes up, to the point only the wealthy can use it, when in fact Bitcoin is at it's best when operating in severely impoverished countries without banking infrastructures. You don't want to make the fees higher because those people would really suffer from it even if for us is not that much.

Indeed, this is why the anti-fork crowd are campaigning so hard.  That's exactly what they want.  Guaranteed security for the whales, but any users making smaller transactions are forced to introduce risk, either by being forced off-chain, or gambling that the fee they've elected to include is sufficient to make it into the next block once they start to fill up.  All those greedy one-percenter-wanabees are welcome to stay behind if they like.  The masses won't support a system that doesn't support them, so it stands to reason that the outcome of a fork is highly likely (if not inevitable, perhaps).  The fork ensures that fees remain reasonably small (but may still increase slightly), while still maintaining a healthy income for miners.  It also ensures that we stay true to our current ethos that Bitcoin is open to anyone to use and take part, not restricted to the wealthy and privileged.  The only people who are genuinely afraid of allowing the market to make its own decision, are the ones campaigning against the fork and for purely selfish reasons. 

SaltySpitoon
Global Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778


Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?


View Profile
June 03, 2015, 11:23:03 PM
 #84

I still haven't figured out why there is even an opposition. How much larger to increase the blocksize is certainly open for debate, but it is undeniable that at this point, it does need to happen, be it to 2mb or 20mb. Gavin's point of increasing straight to 20mb is so that they won't have to go through this again next year when 2mb is getting near its cap, which is understandable, but I'm sure there would be a way to start off at 2mb or whatever and increase it automatically at set blocks.

The "I'm only against this because I don't like how Gavin is going about this" is annoying. I'm not a Gavin fanboi, I just support whoever is right at the moment. If you work with a team of people who are unwilling to work with you, and you feel strongly enough that you won't drop the issue, you do what Gavin is doing. Who cares if a dev team has 1 person or 30 people, as long as Bitcoin users decide what fork to use, it isn't centralization. A fork wouldn't even be needed if everyone just started working on a workable compromise.

Bloat isn't the issue here, bandwidth could be an issue at 20mb, but again, the dev team could work out some feasible increase to satisfy everyone. There are already measures against dust transactions, such as minimum transaction sizes and transactions fees and such. If you don't want to fork the chain, you need to smoothly roll into the changes. If too much time is spent arguing, and we hit the 1mb cap before a fork is unavoidable.
ArticMine
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086


Monero Core Team


View Profile
June 03, 2015, 11:41:48 PM
 #85

Bandwidth has followed Nielsen's law http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/ of 50% growth per year. If one starts with 1 MB at the start of 2009 then the equivalent amount in mid 2016 is 21 MB. What is needed is not just an increase to 20 MB but also an ongoing increase at a rate that is a significant fraction of 50%. I understand that Gavin was talking around 20% annual compound rate of increase.

Concerned that blockchain bloat will lead to centralization? Storing less than 4 GB of data once required the budget of a superpower and a warehouse full of punched cards. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/IBM_card_storage.NARA.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card
kingcolex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 01:41:32 AM
 #86

I still haven't figured out why there is even an opposition. How much larger to increase the blocksize is certainly open for debate, but it is undeniable that at this point, it does need to happen, be it to 2mb or 20mb. Gavin's point of increasing straight to 20mb is so that they won't have to go through this again next year when 2mb is getting near its cap, which is understandable, but I'm sure there would be a way to start off at 2mb or whatever and increase it automatically at set blocks.

The "I'm only against this because I don't like how Gavin is going about this" is annoying. I'm not a Gavin fanboi, I just support whoever is right at the moment. If you work with a team of people who are unwilling to work with you, and you feel strongly enough that you won't drop the issue, you do what Gavin is doing. Who cares if a dev team has 1 person or 30 people, as long as Bitcoin users decide what fork to use, it isn't centralization. A fork wouldn't even be needed if everyone just started working on a workable compromise.

Bloat isn't the issue here, bandwidth could be an issue at 20mb, but again, the dev team could work out some feasible increase to satisfy everyone. There are already measures against dust transactions, such as minimum transaction sizes and transactions fees and such. If you don't want to fork the chain, you need to smoothly roll into the changes. If too much time is spent arguing, and we hit the 1mb cap before a fork is unavoidable.
Totally agree, even most opposition agrees there has to be an increase even if they had working alternative so they could get them implemented correctly.

cryptworld
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 02:55:03 AM
 #87

This is what I don't understand

People keep complaining about the block size increase, but nobody say what is the problem or what would they do instead
Wary
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798


Who's there?


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 03:22:18 AM
 #88

Is anybody discussing this proposal?
In case nobody does, here is the link.

http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-1-scarcity/
http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-2-price-discovery/

The author suggestion is (if I get it correctly) instead of using artificial restrictions, use natural market forces to regulate it.
Currently all new minted bitcoins go to miners. Nodes do their work for free, while carrying expenses (bandwith etc). That is cost of maintaining network goes to nodes, while benefits - to miners and users. That's why number of nodes goes down. The author suggests enabling nodes to charge miners and users for their services. Everyone will be able to earn bitcoins by running a node. It'll fix both the problems: of block size and of node centralization.

I think it is the ideal solution. Pity Satoshi didn't implemented it in the first place. But it's not too late to do it now. Is anybody working on it?

Fairplay medal of dnaleor's trading simulator. Smiley
vm_mpn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 600


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 03:42:31 AM
 #89

Is anybody discussing this proposal?
In case nobody does, here is the link.

http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-1-scarcity/
http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-2-price-discovery/

The author suggestion is (if I get it correctly) instead of using artificial restrictions, use natural market forces to regulate it.
Currently all new minted bitcoins go to miners. Nodes do their work for free, while carrying expenses (bandwith etc). That is cost of maintaining network goes to nodes, while benefits - to miners and users. That's why number of nodes goes down. The author suggests enabling nodes to charge miners and users for their services. Everyone will be able to earn bitcoins by running a node. It'll fix both the problems: of block size and of node centralization.

I think it is the ideal solution. Pity Satoshi didn't implemented it in the first place. But it's not too late to do it now. Is anybody working on it?

Just reading from your summary not sure if this is the problem being addressed here... Potential problem is a growing number of blockchain transactions and inability to pack them all into small 1Mb blocks, essentially running out of processing capacity. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Wary
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798


Who's there?


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 03:56:05 AM
 #90

Currently Bitcoin operates as a state: all bitcoin holders are taxed (it's property tax in form of inflation tax), then the taxes are distributed between miners.
While nodes are supposed to work for free, for the good of the community. All problems are handled by core developers and miners.

So
-We are taxed citizen (taxation without representation).
-Miners are tax-receiving fatcats and IRS rolled together.
-Nodes are conscious volunteers.
-Core devs is parliament that issues laws (block limit etc).
-Enforcement goes though threat of forking.

That's a socialist system. Why should we have it?

What is suggested instead is capitalism: nodes, miners and users provide services to each other for money. All the questions such as block size, number of nodes, compensation to miners and nodes are settled by the demand-supply laws. No political games, no enforcement is required, just free market.

EDIT: nodes are ...

Fairplay medal of dnaleor's trading simulator. Smiley
Wary
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798


Who's there?


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 04:04:10 AM
 #91

Is anybody discussing this proposal?
In case nobody does, here is the link.

http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-1-scarcity/
http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-2-price-discovery/

The author suggestion is (if I get it correctly) instead of using artificial restrictions, use natural market forces to regulate it.
Currently all new minted bitcoins go to miners. Nodes do their work for free, while carrying expenses (bandwith etc). That is cost of maintaining network goes to nodes, while benefits - to miners and users. That's why number of nodes goes down. The author suggests enabling nodes to charge miners and users for their services. Everyone will be able to earn bitcoins by running a node. It'll fix both the problems: of block size and of node centralization.

I think it is the ideal solution. Pity Satoshi didn't implemented it in the first place. But it's not too late to do it now. Is anybody working on it?

Just reading from your summary not sure if this is the problem being addressed here... Potential problem is a growing number of blockchain transactions and inability to pack them all into small 1Mb blocks, essentially running out of processing capacity. Correct me if I'm wrong.
It is problem only because it is free. Any free resource is tend to become overused. Bitcoin users would devour any amount of transaction bandwidth because they won't have to pay for it. As a result, core developers have to use their administrative power to introduce artificial limitations on this usage:
 1) block size limit
 2) mining reward amount
 3) minimal payment amount limit.
From the other side, nodes have no incentives to spend their money on processors/storage/bandwith, because they are not paid for it, so we have to look for altruists that would work for free "for the good of community".

So we have classical socialism with all the problems of socialism. Introducing payments between miners, nodes and users will transfer this socialist system into a normal market.

EDIT: number two is taken care of by Satoshi. Because of the halvings, the mining reward will be gradually replaced by transaction fee. But the other market machinery we have to introduce ourselves.

Fairplay medal of dnaleor's trading simulator. Smiley
SaltySpitoon
Global Moderator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778


Welcome to the SaltySpitoon, how Tough are ya?


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 04:43:14 AM
 #92

Currently Bitcoin operates as a state: all bitcoin holders are taxed (it's property tax in form of inflation tax), then the taxes are distributed between miners.
While nodes are supposed to work for free, for the good of the community. All problems are handled by core developers and miners.

So
-We are taxed citizen (taxation without representation).
-Miners are tax-receiving fatcats and IRS rolled together.
-Nodes are conscious volunteers.
-Core devs is parliament that issues laws (block limit etc).
-Enforcement goes though threat of forking.

That's a socialist system. Why should we have it?

What is suggested instead is capitalism: nodes, miners and users provide services to each other for money. All the questions such as block size, number of nodes, compensation to miners and nodes are settled by the demand-supply laws. No political games, no enforcement is required, just free market.

EDIT: nodes are ...

Interesting theory, but users vote for everything. If the Honduran government puts out a fork of Bitcoin, its up to the users to decide whether or not they want to use it. Whether Gavin or the Core devs or whoever is participating in forking is successful is completely to do with survival of the fittest. If the Bitcoin users like Gavin's idea better, then it will become the dominant fork, or vice versa. I'd say that is probably the greatest form of representation. We represent ourselves.
Miners are providing a service. They process transactions, and people making transactions pay for that service. Again, you can choose to include 0 tx fee if you want, but just like in real life, if you want a service done for you for free, expect to wait. You are also free to become a miner yourself.
Core devs are groups of individuals who build on Bitcoin. If you don't like what they are doing, as I said before you can choose not to use their work, you can choose to work on Bitcoin yourself, you can really do whatever you want.

I understand the concept, if the 1mb blocksize is kept, people will have to compete to get their transactions onto a block. There are a couple of issues with that. It could make Bitcoin less competitive as a payment system. Someone with just a few Bitcoins could completely fill blocks in effect keeping others from getting transactions through. Would be a very cheap way to perform a DOS attack on the Bitcoin network. Far cheaper than 51% attacking.
vm_mpn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 600


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 05:14:12 AM
 #93

Ditto... I do not know if mandatory fees and blockchain cleaning has been addressed, and I hope it will be at some point... However, even if all transactions are paid for and junk-free we still nowhere near scalability of other payment networks like Visa / MasterCard https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability

I also think Bitcoin is entering level of maturity and acceptance where "forking" might become the biggest obstacle to it's growth... And this is not going to get any better with time. This was one of the counter-arguments of Peter T. to Galvin A. block size increase proposal... Other side wants to find a graceful and permeant solution which will not require hard forking every few years. Unfortunately, this solution is nowhere to be seen at the moment, at least not practical anyway.
Wary
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798


Who's there?


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 06:08:06 AM
 #94

Interesting theory, but users vote for everything.
It's like vote for US president. Once in 4 years, when there is fork elections, you are given a chance to choose. If 50%+1 of voters have chosen the same that you did, you win. But even this i's not real win, because president policy is a package of dozen items and you'll inevitability get items that you like along with those you hate. Compare it with real democracy: market. You vote every time you go to a shop. And in every shop you have not just two option, but hundreds of them. Hundreds, Carl! Smiley Every day!

Quote
If the Bitcoin users like Gavin's idea better, then it will become the dominant fork, or vice versa. I'd say that is probably the greatest form of representation. We represent ourselves.
Right. That's why Gavin is going to apply to major miners and exchanges. Smiley They are "us". They'll choose and we'll obediently follow. Out of fear of losing all value of our bitcoins, we will obediently download the "proper" wallet update.

Quote
Miners are providing a service.
That's right. But the service is currently paid for not by fee, but by mining. Which is a property tax. Every bitcoiner is taxed at about 10% a year. These 10% are divided between miners. Sure, you can also include transaction fee, just like you can bribe an official. Smiley Thanks to Satoshi, in several halves time this problem will be fixed, the tax will be replaced by fees, i.e. socialism in this area will be replaced by market. But other areas will not be fixed, unless we do something about it.

Quote
Core devs are groups of individuals who build on Bitcoin. If you don't like what they are doing, as I said before you can choose not to use their work, you can choose to work on Bitcoin yourself, you can really do whatever you want.
I can also go in politics and try to become the president. Chances are about the same.

Quote
I understand the concept, if the 1mb blocksize is kept, people will have to compete to get their transactions onto a block.
The concept is bit different. The block size will be decided by each miner individually. Which blocks to propagate will be decided by nodes, individually. Which nodes to connect to will be decided by users, individually. This will allow market forces to work and to search for the most effective solution.

Currently market doesn't work properly here, because users don't have enough power. We cannot choose miners, we cannot choose nodes. The only lever we have is, once in forever, in case of fork to (not)download wallet update. (BTW, altcoin is not real lever too). While core developers and miners have a number of levers. They decided on block size, they decided on "dust" transactions, they decide which features to include or postpone. So the market is not balanced, that's why it is more like a state that a market.

In the suggested system we will have an option to choose between nodes and between miners. So they will have incentive to listen to us. Nodes will have an option to choose users and miners. So all market participants will have equal power: each is free to choose whom to deal with and whom not to. Developers will compete for miners. Miners will compete for nodes. Nodes will compete for users. Market as it supposed to be.

Fairplay medal of dnaleor's trading simulator. Smiley
Wary
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798


Who's there?


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 06:18:26 AM
 #95

Ditto... I do not know if mandatory fees and blockchain cleaning has been addressed, and I hope it will be at some point... However, even if all transactions are paid for and junk-free we still nowhere near scalability of other payment networks like Visa / MasterCard https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability

I also think Bitcoin is entering level of maturity and acceptance where "forking" might become the biggest obstacle to it's growth... And this is not going to get any better with time. This was one of the counter-arguments of Peter T. to Galvin A. block size increase proposal... Other side wants to find a graceful and permeant solution which will not require hard forking every few years. Unfortunately, this solution is nowhere to be seen at the moment, at least not practical anyway.
And without forking we, the users, will lose the last lever (apart from bitching on forums). Do we want the trajectory of bitcoins to be determined not by users, but by small group of people and by government that has plenty of levers to influence this group?

Fairplay medal of dnaleor's trading simulator. Smiley
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862


WARNING FOR NOOBS: Dash is an Instamined scam coin


View Profile WWW
June 04, 2015, 06:46:05 AM
 #96

My dos tacoshi:

Quote
First, we must wait and see how the infrastructure and ecosystem react/adapt to scarcity.   Without this crucial empirical data, we cannot make informed future decisions about ideal block sizing.  We cannot risk a civil war between BTC1 and BTC2 camps by forcing the issue prematurely (but if I were actually anti-BTC and pro-alt, I'd relish such a Great Schism).

Second, we must use the results of the experiment with 1MB scarcity to decide on a preliminary blocksize increase, to somewhere between 2MB and 10MB.

20MB blocks can then be considered, if and only if the community, pruning/compression mechanisms, and TOR/DSL are ready to support them.

As a compromise, I'll support an increase to 2MB ASAP, on the condition that we then maintain that limit until facts about market reaction to block real estate scarcity are ascertained.

I'd be OK with closing the loop by doubling block size when block reward halves.


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
kingcolex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316



View Profile
June 04, 2015, 02:26:00 PM
 #97

Regarding the OP...Easy.. Make users increase their transaction fee to compete to be one of the few who get into the next block (priority goes to the highest transaction fees).  That way, not only does the little guy get to keep his node (when he would have had to shut it down due to increased expenses following this centralization hard fork), but he might be able to make money mining again as the transaction fees increase making it valuable for the little guy to mine (just like he used to do back in the glory days of bitcoin).  But that solution (among many others I have brought up) brings decentralization back into bitcoin (and we want that), but since we are not in control here, then we will not get what we want (profitable mining again for the little guy).  Instead we will receive centralization.



 The fork will not fill instantly, the "little guy" will be fine keeping his node, he may just have to get a bigger hard drive in a couple of years but that should be a lot cheaper due to storage medias ever dropping $/GB.

I don't see how it will bring decentralization? Just because a few less gigabytes over years? Profitable mining for the little guy has and always will be dependent on external factors (Such as location, electric price, hardware price).

The idea you give just clogs the network forcing anyone who doesn't want to pay large fees to switch to an altcoin, if this went through I would be very happy to be a litecoin bag holder.

manselr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840

ICO appreciator


View Profile
June 04, 2015, 03:52:15 PM
 #98

Regarding the OP...Easy.. Make users increase their transaction fee to compete to be one of the few who get into the next block (priority goes to the highest transaction fees).  That way, not only does the little guy get to keep his node (when he would have had to shut it down due to increased expenses following this centralization hard fork), but he might be able to make money mining again as the transaction fees increase making it valuable for the little guy to mine (just like he used to do back in the glory days of bitcoin).  But that solution (among many others I have brought up) brings decentralization back into bitcoin (and we want that), but since we are not in control here, then we will not get what we want (profitable mining again for the little guy).  Instead we will receive centralization.



 The fork will not fill instantly, the "little guy" will be fine keeping his node, he may just have to get a bigger hard drive in a couple of years but that should be a lot cheaper due to storage medias ever dropping $/GB.

I don't see how it will bring decentralization? Just because a few less gigabytes over years? Profitable mining for the little guy has and always will be dependent on external factors (Such as location, electric price, hardware price).

The idea you give just clogs the network forcing anyone who doesn't want to pay large fees to switch to an altcoin, if this went through I would be very happy to be a litecoin bag holder.
Yeah, I don't like the idea of increased fees and off the chain transactions, but I don't like the idea of micropayments on the main blockchain, there should be a limit, and once passed that threshold of too small of a transaction, it goes off the chain. No need to process all those tiny ass transactions in the min blockchain.
Rampion
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120


View Profile
June 05, 2015, 06:23:21 AM
 #99

There's about 3.2 billion reasons why a larger block altenative isn't already launched.  The assumption is that this change to the protocol should be accepted by existing Bitcoin users, miners, exchanges, wallets, etc. and thus the $3.2 market cap would transfer in its entirety to the hardfork side.     But this Bitcoin-XT (specifically, the change to support larger blocks) should simply be considered as being a new coin -- one with initial distribution (premine) such that 1 UTXO exists in the new coin for each UTXO that existed in Bitcoin at the time of the hard fork.

The only way for the new coin to have any chance of having an impact is if it captures all the existing traction and momentum that Bitcoin has received to-date.

Sure, that's a lofty goal.   Essentially, those pushing this new coin (BTX) want to gamble with our bitcoins (BTCs).

Maybe the solution is to simply treat this new coin  .... as a new coin, difficulty 1, and no premine.

This is the best post in the thread IMO - this is exactly how I see it.

Thanks, Stephen.

iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862


WARNING FOR NOOBS: Dash is an Instamined scam coin


View Profile WWW
June 05, 2015, 06:55:56 AM
 #100

There's about 3.2 billion reasons why a larger block altenative isn't already launched.  The assumption is that this change to the protocol should be accepted by existing Bitcoin users, miners, exchanges, wallets, etc. and thus the $3.2 market cap would transfer in its entirety to the hardfork side.     But this Bitcoin-XT (specifically, the change to support larger blocks) should simply be considered as being a new coin -- one with initial distribution (premine) such that 1 UTXO exists in the new coin for each UTXO that existed in Bitcoin at the time of the hard fork.

The only way for the new coin to have any chance of having an impact is if it captures all the existing traction and momentum that Bitcoin has received to-date.

Sure, that's a lofty goal.   Essentially, those pushing this new coin (BTX) want to gamble with our bitcoins (BTCs).

Maybe the solution is to simply treat this new coin  .... as a new coin, difficulty 1, and no premine.

TYVM for eloquently expressing why when discussing the present situation many use words like coup, megalomania, Gavinista, and GavinCoin.

XT would ideally be launched like a stock split, with shares in the new spin-off distributed pro-rata, not imposed from above as the mother of all scamcoins.

As bad as the 20-cum-8MB proposal is, the core dev team meltdown it's revealing and compounding is even more potentially dangerous for the system's diffuse/diverse/defensible/resilient antifragility suite.


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!