How about community takeover?

[NorrisK]

The development is about much more than just this block size debate.. Security patches are also a major thing, as well as any other improvements to the wallet and network.

If you can do all that, please go a head and code a better proposition for a fork.

[n2004al]

Fuck Mike and Gavin and fuck the core-team too.
We need a third and fourth devteam to push different forks on us. Not enough dev competition.

Community should start pushing their own softwares and not use any of that crap these puppets try to push on us.

None of these assholes has any say if nobody listens.

Very angry my friend. You don't need nor the one and nor the other. But if the others in a certain point disappointed you what can be made? The solutions aren't easy to find and the key is to talk and not to complain. The collaboration can solve everything and not the war. So it will be better to put all the people in a round table and force them to hear each other. Then to decide in the best of the all.

[S4VV4S]

How dedicated are these developers, if Gavin did not work on Bitcoin for nearly 2 years, and Mike worked on "The Lightning Project" to win a $40 000 bounty from Oliver and also developed a competing fork for Bitcoin?

We should have a dedicated team of people, who work on Bitcoin 100% of their time. Not as a little side project.
Wladimir seems to carry on at his own pace, and is willing to kick the can down the road, as he put it.

Nobody is really 100% committed to making Bitcoin work. In my opinion these guys are being paid to sabotage and slow down Bitcoin.  ^hmf^

  

Like these guys:  https://blockstream.com/team/ ?

Let have a broader look at all the bitcoin "expert" to see where the problem lies , ok? :

Developer	Employer	In favor of
Gavin Andresen	MIT	8mb+
Mike Hearn	Google, now Vinumeris	8mb+
Meni Rosenfeld	Israeli Bitcoin Association, Bitcoil	tentative 8mb+
Jeff Garzik	Bitpay, now Dunvegan Space Systems, Inc.	2mb+
Peter Todd	Viacoin et al.	1mb
Luke-JR	Subcontracted by Blockstream	1mb
Adam Back	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Matt Corallo	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Gmaxwell	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Peter Wuille	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Mark Friedenbach(Maaku7)	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
laanwj	MIT	1mb

See any pattern? Remember Blockstream got tens of millions from investors. VCs dont just invest to have a fair game with competitors, they invest because they want to jump ahead of the game.

Take away the Blockstream crew and you still have an undecided split. Plus, some questionable experts on that list and others not even listed.

I'm not gonna argue about that but this list include all the people that this forum consider "consensus network" (5 person from the list)

That in itself is a centralized issue but everyone ignore it.

Sure, one cannot but wonder if 5 developers have personal motivation for not wanting larger blocks but....

Why did Gavin and Mike decide to bring up the block size "issue" now? (which isn't an issue as we have 0.4 - 0.5 mb blocks)
Since they knew that their co-workers on Bitcoin have handled it with the use of Blockstream and there is NO immediate need for larger block sizes anyway,
doesn't it seem a bit odd, or convienient if I may say?

If I was to attempt to take over then that is exactly what I would do and blame the other devs for having personal motivation.
There is no immediate need for larger blocks, and since it would have been handled by Blockstream, then what is the deal with Gavin and Mike?
The fact that they have blacklisting code doesn't make them very credible to me, and of course the way they are attempting to take over.

Personally, I do not agree that ANY member of the core team should be in the core dev team if they have personal gain by doing or not doing something.
That includes both sides of this circus we are seeing lately.

And to be honest I agree with the OP.
It is time the community stepped up and removed them from their "thrones" because their are not working for the good of Bitcoin and the community anymore.
 

[SebastianJu]

There is very little incentive for developers with the right skill set to jump into this role. Besides, what guarantees are there that this new group would better align with your particular needs?

That's one point. The coding language is really not easy. I'm a good coder, i think about myself, but this language is really no fun. On top the code is not easy. So finding someone who is able to do this is hard.

Theoretically we only would need to take xt and drop all shit hearn's dictatorical mind comes up with. Then spread this version. Or take bitcoin core and add the 8 mb part.

It's a pity that instead something like this happens, we get bitcoin cores that look like xt's. There is no reason for it's existance except claiming that all xt nodes are fake.

Really stupid that no community member is able to handle this.

[SebastianJu]

Actually this would be horrible for price. If it ain't broke don't fix it, every time someone tries to change protocol price goes down. Bitcoin needs to be stable to grow.

I don't think so. Bitcoin has no future without a blocksize increase. That is pure logic and not disputable. So giving bitcoin a future is the way to go. Of course some people spread fear but it doesn't matter which coin wins. When you held bitcoins when the fork happened then you would have bitcoins in core and bitcoins in the fork. You can't really lose with that.

[SebastianJu]

How dedicated are these developers, if Gavin did not work on Bitcoin for nearly 2 years, and Mike worked on "The Lightning Project" to win a $40 000 bounty from Oliver and also developed a competing fork for Bitcoin?

We should have a dedicated team of people, who work on Bitcoin 100% of their time. Not as a little side project.
Wladimir seems to carry on at his own pace, and is willing to kick the can down the road, as he put it.

Nobody is really 100% committed to making Bitcoin work. In my opinion these guys are being paid to sabotage and slow down Bitcoin.  ^hmf^

 

Exactly. And this is a pain. It seems bitcoin development is not rewarding enough so some developers search a side income. This wouldn't be a problem when there would not be an incentive to hurt bitcoin by doing so. Since that way you can draw more power and money to your side.

F...ing politics.

[SebastianJu]

what about proposing something better if you really want to say fuck that fuck this?, the point is that there isn't something better there is no good alternative to increase the block size, and blockstream isn't one of these for sure

I think the idea was more to build a version that is something like bitcoin xt to include the bigger block size but drops all the controversial ideas that hearn comes up with. I wonder how tempted he feels to include tainting.

A version cleared of this would surely become the hit since i don't know any bitcoiner who supports bitcoin xt and likes all these things he wants additionally.

[mallard]

There's nothing stopping you making your own changes to Bitcoin.
It's just that most people that do try to get their changes into core.

[SebastianJu]

The development is about much more than just this block size debate.. Security patches are also a major thing, as well as any other improvements to the wallet and network.

If you can do all that, please go a head and code a better proposition for a fork.

I might be wrong but it only would need someone who drops all the code that is unwanted. Let the core devs create the patches and include them then. Adding code should not be that hard if you at least understand the code.

In the case this software actually wins the race then surely developers will flow to that versions development.

[SebastianJu]

How dedicated are these developers, if Gavin did not work on Bitcoin for nearly 2 years, and Mike worked on "The Lightning Project" to win a $40 000 bounty from Oliver and also developed a competing fork for Bitcoin?

We should have a dedicated team of people, who work on Bitcoin 100% of their time. Not as a little side project.
Wladimir seems to carry on at his own pace, and is willing to kick the can down the road, as he put it.

Nobody is really 100% committed to making Bitcoin work. In my opinion these guys are being paid to sabotage and slow down Bitcoin.  ^hmf^

  

Like these guys:  https://blockstream.com/team/ ?

Let have a broader look at all the bitcoin "expert" to see where the problem lies , ok? :

Developer	Employer	In favor of
Gavin Andresen	MIT	8mb+
Mike Hearn	Google, now Vinumeris	8mb+
Meni Rosenfeld	Israeli Bitcoin Association, Bitcoil	tentative 8mb+
Jeff Garzik	Bitpay, now Dunvegan Space Systems, Inc.	2mb+
Peter Todd	Viacoin et al.	1mb
Luke-JR	Subcontracted by Blockstream	1mb
Adam Back	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Matt Corallo	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Gmaxwell	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Peter Wuille	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
Mark Friedenbach(Maaku7)	Blockstream Co-Founder	1mb
laanwj	MIT	1mb

See any pattern? Remember Blockstream got tens of millions from investors. VCs dont just invest to have a fair game with competitors, they invest because they want to jump ahead of the game.

Take away the Blockstream crew and you still have an undecided split. Plus, some questionable experts on that list and others not even listed.

I'm not gonna argue about that but this list include all the people that this forum consider "consensus network" (5 person from the list)

That in itself is a centralized issue but everyone ignore it.

Sure, one cannot but wonder if 5 developers have personal motivation for not wanting larger blocks but....

Why did Gavin and Mike decide to bring up the block size "issue" now? (which isn't an issue as we have 0.4 - 0.5 mb blocks)
Since they knew that their co-workers on Bitcoin have handled it with the use of Blockstream and there is NO immediate need for larger block sizes anyway,
doesn't it seem a bit odd, or convienient if I may say?

If I was to attempt to take over then that is exactly what I would do and blame the other devs for having personal motivation.
There is no immediate need for larger blocks, and since it would have been handled by Blockstream, then what is the deal with Gavin and Mike?
The fact that they have blacklisting code doesn't make them very credible to me, and of course the way they are attempting to take over.

Personally, I do not agree that ANY member of the core team should be in the core dev team if they have personal gain by doing or not doing something.
That includes both sides of this circus we are seeing lately.

And to be honest I agree with the OP.
It is time the community stepped up and removed them from their "thrones" because their are not working for the good of Bitcoin and the community anymore.

Um... with the use of Blockstream bitcoin gets fixed? That is not a solution. That is NOT using bitcoin. Nothing more. It's avoiding it's use and tunneling transactions into an altcoin.

And Gavin came up with that because we already know that at the end of 2016 we will have full blocks. It would be too late to act then. Not to mention that bitcoin would die instantly when amazon would decide to accept bitcoin payments tomorrow. Because bitcoin could not handle this amount of transactions. The new users would have a terrible experience and that would be a huge hit for bitcoin.

No, there is no way around raising the blocksize limit or even dropping it completely.

I'm no fan of hearn for sure. And i don't like that gavin went to hearn. But as far as i read nearly no one supporting xt wants all the other stupid things hearn wants. So it is only a vehicle to get the 8mb blocks. Then they would use core again.

[JeromeL]

Fuck Mike and Gavin and fuck the core-team too.
We need a third and fourth devteam to push different forks on us. Not enough dev competition.

Community should start pushing their own softwares and not use any of that crap these puppets try to push on us.

None of these assholes has any say if nobody listens.

Thanks for sharing that hitler. Thanks to your interesting and valuable thoughts, the community has now a clear path to scale Bitcoin through consensus.

[Mickeyb]

Fuck Mike and Gavin and fuck the core-team too.
We need a third and fourth devteam to push different forks on us. Not enough dev competition.

Community should start pushing their own softwares and not use any of that crap these puppets try to push on us.

None of these assholes has any say if nobody listens.

Well we all have power to do it. Nothing stops anyone of us to implement changes, write code and release the client. If it's a superior solution, the users will accept it. At least this is how all this decentralization system should work.

Now I cannot do it since I don't know how to code at all. I am also not that smart to start doing stuff like this!

[RGBKey]

Very true. Now where's your code so we can see if it is better than Core and XT?

This is the problem that people don't consider, these people have committed most of their time towards debating what is best and developing software. That's not cheap or easy.

[maokoto]

More developers would be good, but I doubt there are so many people with the right skill to get a step ahead.

Probably we will have to be content with core or XT solutions.

[MicroGuy]

Fuck Mike and Gavin and fuck the core-team too.
We need a third and fourth devteam to push different forks on us. Not enough dev competition.

Community should start pushing their own softwares and not use any of that crap these puppets try to push on us.

None of these assholes has any say if nobody listens.

This is what is already happening, they're called alternative currencies. And they are beginning to take hold.

In my view, the only way for bitcoin to remain competitive is for the core team to 1.) mature, 2.) put their ego's aside, and 3.) do what's best for the community.

[alani123]

I give this post less than a day until it becomes a XT bandwagon and it's moved into altcoin discussion.

[SebastianJu]

Fuck Mike and Gavin and fuck the core-team too.
We need a third and fourth devteam to push different forks on us. Not enough dev competition.

Community should start pushing their own softwares and not use any of that crap these puppets try to push on us.

None of these assholes has any say if nobody listens.

This is what is already happening, they're called alternative currencies. And they are beginning to take hold.

In my view, the only way for bitcoin to remain competitive is for the core team to 1.) mature, 2.) put their ego's aside, and 3.) do what's best for the community.

But we want bitcoin. A forked xt only could become bitcoin when everyone believes that it is the true bitcoin that forked. Using altcoins instead bitcoin surely would be no alternative to many bitcoiners.

YES to your last paragraph. I would add 4.) Don't let your side projects and possible incomes change your decisions. Though that is probably too hard when you are already involved. So maybe "Don't get involved in a project when you would have a financial advantage when bitcoin gets worse."

[BillyBobZorton]

Everyone is free to create their own version of Bitcoin. If you manage to get enough people supporting you you can have a chance.
But there's no need to be that ambitious, contributions in BIP form can be made.

[SebastianJu]

Everyone is free to create their own version of Bitcoin. If you manage to get enough people supporting you you can have a chance.
But there's no need to be that ambitious, contributions in BIP form can be made.

The contributions can be made. Though it is the next question if they get implemented. For example the current discussion about bigger blocks. I have the feeling that the majority wants them, still they did not get implemented. There simply is no real voting system for this besides forking and let miners vote by mining.

[iCEBREAKER]

Bitcoin has no future without a blocksize increase. That is pure logic and not disputable.

Hmm, let's see how your BitcoinObituary.com FUD has aged over the past two years.

UPDATE:

MAX_BLOCKSIZE=1MB (no change)

PRICE=$20,000 (up 10,000%)


So much for your "not disputable" "pure logic."  If you're going to write such specious pompous nonsense, expect to be held accountable and made the subject of mockery.

Um... with the use of Blockstream bitcoin gets fixed? That is not a solution. That is NOT using bitcoin. Nothing more. It's avoiding it's use and tunneling transactions into an altcoin.

And Gavin came up with that because we already know that at the end of 2016 we will have full blocks. It would be too late to act then. Not to mention that bitcoin would die instantly when amazon would decide to accept bitcoin payments tomorrow. Because bitcoin could not handle this amount of transactions. The new users would have a terrible experience and that would be a huge hit for bitcoin.

No, there is no way around raising the blocksize limit or even dropping it completely.

I'm no fan of hearn for sure. And i don't like that gavin went to hearn. But as far as i read nearly no one supporting xt wants all the other stupid things hearn wants. So it is only a vehicle to get the 8mb blocks. Then they would use core again.

UPDATE:

BLOCKSTREAM=STILL HERE
YOUR FUD = BTFO & REKT