I would fork bitcoin (in half) today if I could

[DannyHamilton]

NOTE:  THIS THREAD IS SELF-MODERATED.  I will delete posts that I find are:

• abusive
• inflammatory
• trollish
• baiting
• simply not constructive in my personal opinion

If this sort of censorship bothers you, I suggest that you not participate in this thread at all.


If I could find a feature that violated the current bitcoin consensus rules and which approximately 50% of miners, merchants, and users were willing to immediately adopt while the other 50% were adamantly against, I would roll out a node that supported the feature and suggest that we fork bitcoin today.

Perhaps the result would be a complete disaster, and we could all stop wasting our time on an experiment that clearly can stand on its own in the real world...

Or perhaps market forces would stabilize the situation and everyone would finally shut up about how horrible a contentious fork might be.

This won't be the last time that some influential people want something that some other influential people don't want.  It is human nature and will occur over and over many times.  We can all calm down and accept that the design of bitcoin is capable of surviving anything that anyone else might do, or we can accept that the bitcoin experiment is a failure and we can silently move on with our lives.

Either way, it is certainly ridiculous to think that either side in any "fork" is the "right side". It's also ridiculous to expect that the whole world will always do what an individual or group thinks is "best for bitcoin" just because you want the world to behave that way. There will always be differences of opinion, and there will always be people that feel that they can force their opinion on others (by threats, intimidation, mockery, scare tactics, etc).

[CIYAM]

Personally I have found it very strange that the core devs are now fighting against "Gavin and Mike".

Although I am not really interested in the politics itself I will say that I would much prefer to see consensus from all the devs than to have two (currently) non-devs simply take over Bitcoin in a manner that might result in many of the core devs leaving the project.

[Holliday]

A fork is nothing to be feared, in fact it is an opportunity (in more ways than one).

[DannyHamilton]

Personally I have found it very strange that the core devs are now fighting against "Gavin and Mike".

Although I am not really interested in the politics itself I will say that I would much prefer to see consensus from all the devs than to have two (currently) non-devs simply take over Bitcoin in a manner that might result in many of the core devs leaving the project.

There is nothing "official" or "magical" or "ordained" about a "core dev".

New developers will join, old developers will leave.  Nobody is "forced" to work on either project if they don't want to, and consensus is always hard.  The more people involved, and the more they have at stake, the more likely that consensus can't be reached and that the group will split into one or more like-minded sub-groups each with their own agenda and their own opinion about what is "right".

Consensus is great when it exists, but it can't be forced on someone that doesn't share your views.

[Holliday]

Consensus is great when it exists, but it can't be forced on someone that doesn't share your views.

Well it can be (see democracy), but it shouldn't be.

[meono]

Personally I have found it very strange that the core devs are now fighting against "Gavin and Mike".

Although I am not really interested in the politics itself I will say that I would much prefer to see consensus from all the devs than to have two (currently) non-devs simply take over Bitcoin in a manner that might result in many of the core devs leaving the project.

There is nothing "official" or "magical" or "ordained" about a "core dev".

New developers will join, old developers will leave.  Nobody is "forced" to work on either project if they don't want to, and consensus is always hard.  The more people involved, and the more they have at stake, the more likely that consensus can't be reached and that the group will split into one or more like-minded sub-groups each with their own agenda and their own opinion about what is "right".

Consensus is great when it exists, but it can't be forced on someone that doesn't share your views.

Hard to find a level head member like you to post here.

Bravo on the best way to put it.

[CIYAM]

There is nothing "official" or "magical" or "ordained" about a "core dev".

True - but we know their are many people working on Bitcoin Core - how many are working on Bitcoin XT (and how many have indicated they'll move to that should their fork take over)?

[meono]

There is nothing "official" or "magical" or "ordained" about a "core dev".

True - but we know their are many people working on Bitcoin Core - how many are working on Bitcoin XT (and how many have indicated they'll move to that should their fork take over)?

If the fork happens, its still bitcoin and the economy of bitcoin will attract new developers.

I doubt core developers would be childish and choose "my way or highway". After all the fork happens because majority choose their direction.

[CIYAM]

I doubt core developers would be childish and choose "my way or highway". After all the fork happens because majority choose their direction.

Well - childish or not - G. Maxwell has indicated just that (he will stop working on Bitcoin if XT takes over) and I don't think he is the only core dev to have indicated such.

Also calling people names (such as "childish") hardly helps the situation (but is the kind of thing someone wanting to "troll" would bring in).

[DannyHamilton]

Consensus is great when it exists, but it can't be forced on someone that doesn't share your views.

Well it can be (see democracy), but it shouldn't be.

That's not "consensus".  That's "tyranny of the majority" (or "tyranny of the powerful").  It doesn't force the minority (or weak) to share the views of the majority (or powerful), it simply frustrates them and frequently results in them feeling disenfranchised and resentful.  They may obey, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they consent.

[meono]

I doubt core developers would be childish and choose "my way or highway". After all the fork happens because majority choose their direction.

Well - childish or not - G. Maxwell has indicated just that (he will stop working on Bitcoin if XT takes over) and I don't think he is the only core dev to have indicated such.

Also calling people names (such as "childish") hardly helps the situation (but is the kind of thing someone wanting to "troll" would bring in).

Then so be it.

A developer leave because the community has different vision is a good thing. No point having conflict. He can do whatever he wants.

But threatening such action is childish. We all know developers are not staying forever. The community however stays.

[LiteCoinGuy]

Core Devs should come back to reality and adopt 4-5 MB blocks with an automatic increase over time. that would pull back the XT discussion. but for now we only have XT  


more "childish" (alarming) than everything else is the censoring the discussion here 

[CIYAM]

Core Devs should come back to reality and adopt 4-5 MB blocks with an automatic increase over time. that would pull back the XT discussion. but for now we only have XT  

From what I have read there are already BIPs (at least two) that cover increasing block sizes for Bitcoin Core so I don't know why you say "only Bitcoin XT" has proposed this (and in fact the first BIP about this was from the Bitcoin Core devs rather than from Gavin and Mike).

[Holliday]

Consensus is great when it exists, but it can't be forced on someone that doesn't share your views.

Well it can be (see democracy), but it shouldn't be.

That's not "consensus".  That's "tyranny of the majority" (or "tyranny of the powerful").  It doesn't force the minority (or weak) to share the views of the majority (or powerful), it simply frustrates them and frequently results in them feeling disenfranchised and resentful.  They may obey, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they consent.

Sure, but for all practical purposes (in their actions, if not thoughts) they have been forced to consent, which I'll happily admit is an oxymoron.

[meono]

Consensus is great when it exists, but it can't be forced on someone that doesn't share your views.

Well it can be (see democracy), but it shouldn't be.

That's not "consensus".  That's "tyranny of the majority" (or "tyranny of the powerful").  It doesn't force the minority (or weak) to share the views of the majority (or powerful), it simply frustrates them and frequently results in them feeling disenfranchised and resentful.  They may obey, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they consent.

Sure, but for all practical purposes (in their actions, if not thoughts) they have been forced to consent, which I'll happily admit is an oxymoron.

Never bored to read your posts, LOL great way to put it.

[LiteCoinGuy]

Core Devs should come back to reality and adopt 4-5 MB blocks with an automatic increase over time. that would pull back the XT discussion. but for now we only have XT  

From what I have read there are already BIPs (at least two) that cover increasing block sizes for Bitcoin Core so I don't know why you say "only Bitcoin XT" has proposed this (and in fact the first BIP about this was from Bitcoin Core devs rather than from Gavin and Mike).

i guess you mean BIP 100 / 101

i mean that we can only choose between XT (8MB) and Core (1MB) - that is sad.

if i had a choice, i would leave XT and would join BIP 100 / 101...  

[CIYAM]

i guess you mean BIP 100 / 101

Yes.

i mean that we can only choose between XT (8MB) and Core (1MB) - that is sad.

if i had a choice, i would leave XT and would join BIP 100 / 101...  

Well - if consensus between the core devs over one of those BIPs were to happen maybe there would be another choice (it appears to me as though it is XT that is trying to force the issue here).

[quakefiend420]

Core Devs should come back to reality and adopt 4-5 MB blocks with an automatic increase over time. that would pull back the XT discussion. but for now we only have XT  

From what I have read there are already BIPs (at least two) that cover increasing block sizes for Bitcoin Core so I don't know why you say "only Bitcoin XT" has proposed this (and in fact the first BIP about this was from Bitcoin Core devs rather than from Gavin and Mike).

i guess you mean BIP 100 / 101

i mean that we can only choose between XT (8MB) and Core (1MB) - that is sad.

if i had a choice, i would leave XT and would join BIP 100 / 101...  

101 is what's in XT.  100 looks interesting(I like the idea of a dynamic blocksize), but I worry about the implementation since it basically means that a few large mining pools get control over blocksize.

My vote would be for an adjustment every week or so that looks at the last two weeks worth of blocks, and sets max blocksize to 2*(avg blocksize).

[DannyHamilton]

- snip -
core developers would be childish
- snip -

- snip -
calling people names (such as "childish") hardly helps the situation (but is the kind of thing someone wanting to "troll" would bring in)
- snip -

- snip -
threatening such action is childish.
- snip -

I locked this thread for a few hours because it seemed that emotions, tempers, and opinions were beginning to drag discussion off-topic.  I'm hoping that the cool-off period will have allowed people to return to a less confrontational tone.  A warning has been added to the OP.  I'll start deleting any threads that I feel are directed at (or about) people instead of ideas/concepts.  This is entirely subjective and based on my own interpretation of the matter.  You are welcome to avoid this thread if that's a problem.

(And yes, I'm aware that I mentioned that certain thoughts or expectations are "ridiculous" and that this gets very close to accusing people of being "ridiculous".  My thread, my rules.) 

[DannyHamilton]

Sure, but for all practical purposes (in their actions, if not thoughts) they have been forced to consent, which I'll happily admit is an oxymoron.

A bit like how a rape victim that obeys their attacker has "for all practical purposes (in their actions, if not thoughts) has been forced to consent" to sex?

Sorry, you simply aren't going to convince me that "democracy" and "consensus" are the same thing.  Perhaps we'll just have to agree to each use a different dictionary.