Why Bitcoin Core needs to die

[Muhammed Zakir]

I will run core even if i'm the only one running the node and I'll mine my own blocks and would rather use fiat over xt.
You might say.. " oh come on bro.. you're being irrational!!"

No,..no.. I am not. The reason I got into bitcoin, was not so i can buy coffee with my phone! It was so i can be a part of "new money", one which is not controlled by anyone.
It seems like TPTB have managed to take over some of the figure heads and are using them to gain control over bitcoin. You can't shut down TCP/IP, but you can bribe/threaten, Gavin.

Have fun with your GOV... Gavcoin.

Not controlled by anyone but a bunch of Core devs? Bitcoin is not controlled by anyone indeed and XT is demonstrating just that.

XT is controlled by Hearn and Gavin and them only. Core is controlled by the core devs, which includes a lot more than two people, so I would say that Core is more decentralized than XT right?

Talking about Bitcoin itself though, then yes it is not controlled by anyone and the multiple forks of Bitcoin (including xt) and alternative clients all demonstrate that.

Yes but you have to know that those core developers who control the bitcoin core are on the BlockStream paycheck list. I doubt that they are working for the good of the bitcoin community, BlockStream is trying to sell us their product with the help of these core developers.

A Bitcoin Core developer should not work for anybody else. Will you pay for their livelihood? I doubt you could get a person who agrees to work only for Bitcoin Core without any pay assurance.

[1715543169]

1715543169

[ashour]

I will run core even if i'm the only one running the node and I'll mine my own blocks and would rather use fiat over xt.
You might say.. " oh come on bro.. you're being irrational!!"

No,..no.. I am not. The reason I got into bitcoin, was not so i can buy coffee with my phone! It was so i can be a part of "new money", one which is not controlled by anyone.
It seems like TPTB have managed to take over some of the figure heads and are using them to gain control over bitcoin. You can't shut down TCP/IP, but you can bribe/threaten, Gavin.

Have fun with your GOV... Gavcoin.

Not controlled by anyone but a bunch of Core devs? Bitcoin is not controlled by anyone indeed and XT is demonstrating just that.

XT is controlled by Hearn and Gavin and them only. Core is controlled by the core devs, which includes a lot more than two people, so I would say that Core is more decentralized than XT right?

Talking about Bitcoin itself though, then yes it is not controlled by anyone and the multiple forks of Bitcoin (including xt) and alternative clients all demonstrate that.

Yes but you have to know that those core developers who control the bitcoin core are on the BlockStream paycheck list. I doubt that they are working for the good of the bitcoin community, BlockStream is trying to sell us their product with the help of these core developers.

A Bitcoin Core developer should not work for anybody else. Will you pay for their livelihood? I doubt you could get a person who agrees to work only for Bitcoin Core without any pay assurance.

The Bitcoin Core developer are already getting paid by the bitcoin foundation and MIT, the developers receive a competitive salary. But some of them chose to do certain things in order to get a "fat" paycheck by BlockStream.

[dothebeats]

Well I don't agree on BIP 101 becoming the main client. There are other good implementations from other BIPs, so why not get a mixture of them?

There is a silver lining on the horizon - BIP 100 from Mr Garzik. Looks like a good compromise to me.

BIP 100:

Protocol changes proposed: http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf

        -Hard fork, to
        -Remove static 1MB block size limit.
        -Simultaneously, add a new floating block size limit, set to 1MB.
        -The historical 32MB limit remains.
        -Schedule the hard fork on testnet for September 1, 2015.
        -Schedule the hard fork on bitcoin main chain for January 11, 2016.
        -Changing the 1MB limit is accomplished in a manner similar to BIP 34, a one­way lock­in upgrade with a 12,000 block (3 month) threshold by 90% of the blocks.
        -Limit increase or decrease may not exceed 2x in any one step.
        -Miners vote by encoding ‘BV’+BlockSizeRequestValue into coinbase scriptSig, e.g. “/BV8000000/” to vote for 8M. Votes are evaluated by dropping bottom 20% and top 20%, and then the most common floor (minimum) is chosen.



i would be happy if such thing would be adopted...and after that - Bitcoin to da Space   !  

Reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1161622.0

[Muhammed Zakir]

-snip-

The Bitcoin Core developer are already getting paid by the bitcoin foundation and MIT, the developers receive a competitive salary. But some of them chose to do certain things in order to get a "fat" paycheck by BlockStream.

Except speculations, do you have valid proofs to say so?

[ashour]

-snip-

The Bitcoin Core developer are already getting paid by the bitcoin foundation and MIT, the developers receive a competitive salary. But some of them chose to do certain things in order to get a "fat" paycheck by BlockStream.

Except speculations, do you have valid proofs to say so?

Yes I have various sources that bring links between the core developers and BlockStream

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hksre/blockstream_employee_asking_to_remove_gavin_from/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2moq3o/theres_been_a_lot_of_talk_lately_of_blockstream/?ref=search_posts
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hh0qg/blockstream_working_on_making_bitcoin_more/?ref=search_posts

[Muhammed Zakir]

-snip-

The Bitcoin Core developer are already getting paid by the bitcoin foundation and MIT, the developers receive a competitive salary. But some of them chose to do certain things in order to get a "fat" paycheck by BlockStream.

Except speculations, do you have valid proofs to say so?

Yes I have various sources that bring links between the core developers and BlockStream

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hksre/blockstream_employee_asking_to_remove_gavin_from/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2moq3o/theres_been_a_lot_of_talk_lately_of_blockstream/?ref=search_posts
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hh0qg/blockstream_working_on_making_bitcoin_more/?ref=search_posts

I could do the same by searching. Easier is to just go to their website and look at team members. This only prove they are working in Blockstream and not the FUD, "Blockstream is controlling them."

[SebastianJu]

Bitcoin Core is not a democracy thank God.

I would prefer it being a democracy. Unfortunately there is no way to really make it democratic. I mean at the moment the mining corporations have some kind of "Vote" though those would only be a couple of (rich) individuals who would have the right to vote. That's nothing near a demo-cracy which translates to "ruling of the citizens" or so.

I can not imagine how you could make a voting system that can not be exploited. It would even be easier to create a real world voting system for political parties since there you would know the people that have voting rights.

Though bitcoin can't solve all problems. One step at a time.

[SebastianJu]

I'm inclined to believe that they support XT and BIP101 simply because it is the only production code available that implements big blocks, which they all support. If someone creates different code that also implements big blocks (such as BIP 100) then we would have both more choice and that these companies would not stick to XT.

Agreed!  I'd like to see the Core Team create a branch that includes BIP101; let their user base decide which to run.

Exactly. Even Gavin could have done this instead merging with hearn and his dangerous ideas.

It would be a lot more democratic that way. Though you never know how many people would still use the old version out of laziness. And at the end miners decide, not the community. :/

[SebastianJu]

how can you say : There no urgent need for increasing the block size limit.
and then follow with: The network only has problems

Because:

• 8 MB blocks might not be enough during future peak times
• 8 MB blocks are not enough to handle a stress test either

Essentially, almost nothing will be resolved. Learn the definition of the word urgent. Having a problem constantly would result in this being a urgent change, which it is not.

I think it's easy to show that this claim is false.
-snip-

By using a estimate of the future growth pattern? This is not evidence and will most likely be wrong.

In my opinion, a credible plan to increase the block size limit was urgent several months ago.  

Yes, a sustainable one was. A doubling every two years is not sustainable.
Update:

Around the last halving (Spring 12 - Spring13) the number of transactions increased tenfold.

You're expecting this to happen again. We shall see.

It surely would be way harder to fill 8 megabyte blocks.

Though i agree with you that the limit is not very bitcoinish. It should be removed completely and spam attacks should be handled with an intelligent fee system. Though i don't see someone spamming 8MB locks now that they are not even at 1MB. It would be way too expensive and would make no sense in any way.