Bitcoin Forum
December 12, 2017, 01:16:07 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Please devs, getting consensus over *any* solution is better than NO consensus  (Read 488 times)
Kazimir
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
June 01, 2015, 10:20:26 PM
 #1

Personally I'm in favor of Gavin's proposal. But either way, can core devs who are currently divided over this topic, do some internal voting, and then decide to go with whatever comes out?

Having consensus over at least *any* solution, is way better than the current state of affairs. I know a fork wouldn't be the death of Bitcoin, but we sure as hell could do without another steampile of uncertainty amongst the masses.

Note: *any* solution here means any of the suggested alternatives by the core devs. Forget about the bogus posted by many others, I think most core devs will have a well informed idea on what an ideal solution would look like. And although I personally favor Gavin's proposal (as I think it's the least intrusive and causes the least long term problems) I'm sure that with any of the alternatives, we'd be able to manage as well.

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
Insert coin(s): 1KazimirL9MNcnFnoosGrEkmMsbYLxPPob
1513041367
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513041367

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513041367
Reply with quote  #2

1513041367
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513041367
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513041367

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513041367
Reply with quote  #2

1513041367
Report to moderator
1513041367
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513041367

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513041367
Reply with quote  #2

1513041367
Report to moderator
1513041367
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513041367

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513041367
Reply with quote  #2

1513041367
Report to moderator
DooMAD
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456



View Profile WWW
June 01, 2015, 10:23:54 PM
 #2

Asking the devs to reach consensus is a bit like asking forum users not to start a million topics about the same damn subject and keep the discussion in one place.  Easy in theory, but in practice it doesn't work that well.   Roll Eyes

unamis76
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386


View Profile
June 01, 2015, 10:26:44 PM
 #3

Even if they voted and reached a consensus, people who voted for the losing option wouldn't be too happy about it, especially in such a small group... Besides, if they did vote, bigger blocks probably wouldn't win.

It's up to them to make whatever they want and let people decide on what's best Smiley
cellard
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 854


View Profile
June 01, 2015, 10:36:25 PM
 #4

Even if they voted and reached a consensus, people who voted for the losing option wouldn't be too happy about it, especially in such a small group... Besides, if they did vote, bigger blocks probably wouldn't win.

It's up to them to make whatever they want and let people decide on what's best Smiley

This. I was like OP when I had no idea what was going on. It's clear now that there isn't any problem with this. The people will decide if Core of XT wins by running nodes, simple as that.

       ▀
   ▄▄▄   ▄▀
   ███ ▄▄▄▄  ██
       ████
    ▄  ▀▀▀▀
▄▄
      ██    ▀▀
██▄█▄▄▄████████
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀███▀▀▀
██████████████████
████▄▀▄▀▄▀███▀▀▀▀▀
████▄▀▄▀▄▀███ ▀
████▄▀▄▀▄▀████████
▀█████████████████
]
,CoinPayments,
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
█████
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████ ██
█████
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2352


View Profile
June 01, 2015, 10:39:52 PM
 #5

Gavin seems to be the major sticking point.  The other devs seem to do reasonably well and everyone expects Todd to be a chronic pain-in-the-ass (as well as being very much worth paying attention to.)

If Gavin moves over to Hearn's XT project to work on datacenter scaling for 'peer' status, state-issued passport identity stuff, coin blacklisting, etc like he threatens then it's pretty much 'problem solved' for a while it seems to me.

edit: slight

Meuh6879
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456



View Profile
June 01, 2015, 10:55:32 PM
 #6

we have many group of troll this week ... are they from the NASDAQ train ?
not altcoin hitler
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84


View Profile
June 02, 2015, 03:19:32 AM
 #7

OP, may i bring to your attention that we actually currently enjoy a consensus about 1MB blocks because ... you know ... it's actually running ...

sheep will be led to the slaughterhouse
---- Hitler and Stalin support Gavincoin ----
anderson00673
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308



View Profile
June 02, 2015, 06:25:45 AM
 #8

OP, may i bring to your attention that we actually currently enjoy a consensus about 1MB blocks because ... you know ... it's actually running ...

Sure and if something is not done soon then bitcoin will be in some serious trouble.  Is that what you want?  I certainly want bitcoin to continue its success as a useful currency.  Why are you spreading all of this fud?  Nothing is going to happen with Gavin's solution.  Bitcoins will just keep working.

Plus there seem to be a conflict of interest in case anyone wonders why the team is against Gavin.  Kinda makes you wonder who is behind all of these noob fudders that keep popping up doesn't it?
SuperClam
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 785


CLAM Developer


View Profile WWW
June 02, 2015, 06:48:21 AM
 #9

Gavin seems to be the major sticking point.  The other devs seem to do reasonably well and everyone expects Todd to be a chronic pain-in-the-ass (as well as being very much worth paying attention to.)
If Gavin moves over to Hearn's XT project to work on datacenter scaling for 'peer' status, state-issued passport identity stuff, coin blacklisting, etc like he threatens then it's pretty much 'problem solved' for a while it seems to me.
edit: slight

Regardless, given no consensus in the development community, client code supporting both sides of the disagreement should be released.

If that manifests via Hearn's XT project that is acceptable; given the "patch" nature of the project.

However, a forced release of the core client (quite possibly with other improvements piggy-backed as "pork"), distributed via "official" channels such as bitcoin.org, without development consensus, would be a clear indication of political decision making.



I think most people likely agree with Gavin's consistent statements that the core development team has no place in the political discussion.



If the community believes this to be a politically charged debate, I expect there will be much greater challenges ahead.

- Clearly define the ideals, in priority order, that the given code base will follow.
- Execute on those priorities.
- Let consensus sort it out; as it should be.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623147
Proof-Of-Chain, 100% Distributed BEFORE Launch.
Everyone who owned BTC, LTC, or DOGE at launch got free CLAMS.
Pages: [1]
  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!