Why Bitcoin Core needs to die

[achow101]

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.

[jonald_fyookball]

People would be pro-XT if they delivered a better solution, but they don't and they want to put all those dodgy "features" against privacy, thats why XT must die and not Core. Core is not perfect but with time Bitcoin will improve. We don't need to rush bigger blocks at all.

Yes we do.

[Lauda]

People would be pro-XT if they delivered a better solution, but they don't and they want to put all those dodgy "features" against privacy, thats why XT must die and not Core. Core is not perfect but with time Bitcoin will improve. We don't need to rush bigger blocks at all.

Yes we do.
-snip-

I'm going to ask you nicely to stop spreading misinformation and deceiving the people around us. There is no urgent need for increasing the block size limit.
The network only has problems:

• during some peak times
• during a spam attack/stress test

The average block size is not even 0.5 MB.

Bitcoin Core does not need to die. People are very weird when it comes to this debate. They talk about centralized control, but how is taking the power from a group of people and giving it to 2 individuals progress?

[adamstgBit]

People would be pro-XT if they delivered a better solution, but they don't and they want to put all those dodgy "features" against privacy, thats why XT must die and not Core. Core is not perfect but with time Bitcoin will improve. We don't need to rush bigger blocks at all.

Yes we do.
-snip-

I'm going to ask you nicely to stop spreading misinformation and deceiving the people around us. There is no urgent need for increasing the block size limit.
The network only has problems:

• during some peak times
• during a spam attack/stress test

The average block size is not even 0.5 MB.

Bitcoin Core does not need to die. People are very weird when it comes to this debate. They talk about centralized control, but how is taking the power from a group of people and giving it to 2 individuals progress?

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

its not a problem that there are problems because the problems only happen some of the time, of course the problem will become bigger problems in a few months but thats not a problem!

[Peter R]

I'm going to ask you nicely to stop spreading misinformation and deceiving the people around us. There is no urgent need for increasing the block size limit.
...

I think it's easy to show that this claim is false.  For example, if the average block size continues to grow at its historical rate, then we will bump into the limit right around the earliest activation date for BIP101:



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

[Lauda]

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.

[meono]

...snip...

I think we should wait until shit hits the fan.

I disagree of using future growth pattern but i like to use the word "sustainable" purely pulled out of my ass.

Quite a display of logic you got there.

[Zarathustra]

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.

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

[Velkro]

By me core don't need to die. It is really well handled. They will adapt changes slower than other clients, but they will

[jonald_fyookball]

People would be pro-XT if they delivered a better solution, but they don't and they want to put all those dodgy "features" against privacy, thats why XT must die and not Core. Core is not perfect but with time Bitcoin will improve. We don't need to rush bigger blocks at all.

Yes we do.
-snip-

I'm going to ask you nicely to stop spreading misinformation and deceiving the people around us. There is no urgent need for increasing the block size limit.
The network only has problems:

• during some peak times
• during a spam attack/stress test

The average block size is not even 0.5 MB.

Bitcoin Core does not need to die. People are very weird when it comes to this debate. They talk about centralized control, but how is taking the power from a group of people and giving it to 2 individuals progress?

I just posted the current front page of Blockchain.  How's that misinformation?

If the average blocks are already half full thats too much already,
since we are fast growing plus there will always be peaks.  In addition,
it takes a long time to roll out the block increase.  Thankfully its already
started and pools are voting to increase rather than listening to people
who are brainwashed by the BS (blockstream) monopoly.

Furthermore, the argument of "8mb might not be enough" is
an all-or-nothing fallacy that makes no sense in reality.

[Snorek]

If this is the way every bitcoin changes in the future will be held and 'proposed' with major war between everyone. I don't know if bitcoin has bright future ahead.
In the beginning of bitcoin there was only one person who shaped everything, gave it form. Now we have many people screaming different things and we CAN'T decide anything.
Imagine the future when much more serious change will be needed. Bitcoin does not need any external enemies - it will kill itself.

[DooMAD]

If this is the way every bitcoin changes in the future will be held and 'proposed' with major war between everyone. I don't know if bitcoin has bright future ahead.
In the beginning of bitcoin there was only one person who shaped everything, gave it form. Now we have many people screaming different things and we CAN'T decide anything.
Imagine the future when much more serious change will be needed. Bitcoin does not need any external enemies - it will kill itself.

Doubtful.  It doesn't matter what drama is going on in the community, the network itself doesn't care.  It will continue to spit out new blocks roughly every 10 minutes.  This will be the case whether the fork happens or not.  As usual, people just need to chill out and have a little faith.  One way or another, we'll have an answer to this little quarrel at some point and the network will keep churning out blocks regardless.

[guddu raj]

The so-called “Lightning network”
that is being pushed as an
alternative to Satoshi’s design does
not exist. The paper describing it
was only published earlier this year.
If implemented, it would represent a
vast departure from the Bitcoin we
all know and love. To pick just one
difference amongst many, Bitcoin
addresses wouldn’t work. What
they’d be replaced with has not been
worked out (because nobody knows).
There are many other surprising
gotchas, which I published an article
about. It’s deeply unclear that
whatever is finally produced would
be better than the Bitcoin we have
now.

[Ingatqhvq]

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.

Sure you can enjoy your own block.
If the XT really gain more than 75% support, then it is the really bitcoin.
You just run an altercoin.
bitcoin is not control by anyone. people have the freedom to support XT or against it. 
100% consensus is ridiculous.

[Sourgummies]

Besides bigger blocks that we can debate are needed, what is XT on about?
I trust core more than I will ever trust a group that has already attempte shady tactics. Or keeps spreading gospel that few are interested in.
Why follow a team that has already manipulated its follwers with a backdoor?

[silkylove]

I don't think core should be dissolved.  All the members have a ton of experience.  I do think there needs to be a massive overhaul though.  Their current model of leadership is broken IMO.

[tadakaluri]

If Bitcoin Core is dead, All remaining coins are Altcoins including Bitcoin XT and there is no value for them (because all altcoins valued with BTC Price).

[VirosaGITS]

Bitcoin Core just need easier modification path with a miner vote system. Switching to XT is definitely not the answer.

Core need to develop an interface with suggested modification, open a debate and then vote Y/N with a signed script from miners/pool with their hashrate. If the vote% is over a certain amount for 1 month then everyone jump.

Maybe in a way that take power away from the minority but.. meh. Just a way to go at it i guess.

[Muhammed Zakir]

People would be pro-XT if they delivered a better solution, but they don't and they want to put all those dodgy "features" against privacy, thats why XT must die and not Core. Core is not perfect but with time Bitcoin will improve. We don't need to rush bigger blocks at all.

Yes we do.
-snip-

I'm going to ask you nicely to stop spreading misinformation and deceiving the people around us. There is no urgent need for increasing the block size limit.
The network only has problems:

• during some peak times
• during a spam attack/stress test

The average block size is not even 0.5 MB.

Bitcoin Core does not need to die. People are very weird when it comes to this debate. They talk about centralized control, but how is taking the power from a group of people and giving it to 2 individuals progress?

I just posted the current front page of Blockchain.  How's that misinformation?

If the average blocks are already half full thats too much already,
since we are fast growing plus there will always be peaks.  In addition,
it takes a long time to roll out the block increase.  Thankfully its already
started and pools are voting to increase rather than listening to people
who are brainwashed by the BS (blockstream) monopoly.

Furthermore, the argument of "8mb might not be enough" is
an all-or-nothing fallacy that makes no sense in reality.

You seem to have been spreading "size is not increasing because of BlockStream." Why? What about Gavin's & Mike's XT development and implementing BIP 101 way before it got consensus? This is very biased or is misinformed or is disinformation/FUD. By comparing your previous posts and behavior, this seems lot like your are misinformed or you are spreading misinformation. No offence.

[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.