marky89
|
|
September 10, 2015, 01:37:20 AM |
|
so core devs control all the nodes and miners now Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run. This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization. Right. So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias. At least in my opinion. This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it.
|
|
|
|
knight22
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
--------------->¿?
|
|
September 10, 2015, 01:43:02 AM |
|
so core devs control all the nodes and miners now Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run. This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization. Right. So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias. At least in my opinion. This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it. If Core doesn't scale expect a divorce at some point. Even if it means forking at 50%. I will personally be fine with it.
|
|
|
|
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
|
|
September 10, 2015, 01:50:39 AM |
|
so core devs control all the nodes and miners now Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run. This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization. Right. So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias. At least in my opinion. This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it. The current consensus of the protocol has a certain entrenchment by virtue of the core repository. That is why there is a status quo bias of the protocol rules.
|
|
|
|
brg444 (OP)
|
|
September 10, 2015, 02:43:32 AM |
|
so core devs control all the nodes and miners now Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run. This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization. Right. So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias. At least in my opinion. This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it. If Core doesn't scale expect a divorce at some point. Even if it means forking at 50%. I will personally be fine with it. Enjoy your 0.50$ bitcoin then.
|
"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
|
|
|
knight22
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
--------------->¿?
|
|
September 10, 2015, 02:46:43 AM |
|
so core devs control all the nodes and miners now Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run. This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization. Right. So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias. At least in my opinion. This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it. If Core doesn't scale expect a divorce at some point. Even if it means forking at 50%. I will personally be fine with it. Enjoy your 0.50$ bitcoin then. I wonder which coin will worth 0.50$. The one that scales and is useful or the one that doesn't and is useless? Please advice.
|
|
|
|
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
|
|
September 10, 2015, 02:50:24 AM |
|
so core devs control all the nodes and miners now Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run. This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization. Right. So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias. At least in my opinion. This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it. If Core doesn't scale expect a divorce at some point. Even if it means forking at 50%. I will personally be fine with it. Enjoy your 0.50$ bitcoin then. I wonder which coin will worth 0.50$. The one that scales and is useful or the one that doesn't and is useless? Please advice. the one that is truly decentralized? Or the one that relies on lightning network 'trusted super nodes' ?
|
|
|
|
brg444 (OP)
|
|
September 10, 2015, 02:51:50 AM |
|
so core devs control all the nodes and miners now Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run. This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization. Right. So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias. At least in my opinion. This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it. If Core doesn't scale expect a divorce at some point. Even if it means forking at 50%. I will personally be fine with it. Enjoy your 0.50$ bitcoin then. I wonder which coin will worth 0.50$. The one that scales and is useful or the one that doesn't and is useless? Please advice. If Bitcoin is forked by 50% the trust in cryptocurrency in general will be destroyed. You really are clueless about what a hardfork entails heh?
|
"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
|
|
|
brg444 (OP)
|
|
September 10, 2015, 02:52:35 AM |
|
|
"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
|
|
|
knight22
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
--------------->¿?
|
|
September 10, 2015, 02:55:15 AM |
|
so core devs control all the nodes and miners now Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run. This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization. Right. So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias. At least in my opinion. This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it. If Core doesn't scale expect a divorce at some point. Even if it means forking at 50%. I will personally be fine with it. Enjoy your 0.50$ bitcoin then. I wonder which coin will worth 0.50$. The one that scales and is useful or the one that doesn't and is useless? Please advice. If Bitcoin is forked by 50% the trust in cryptocurrency in general will be destroyed. You really are clueless about what a hardfork entails heh? Meh. The bitcoin that scales will make its way to the mainstream while nobody (expect bitcointalk.org) will ever know about this silly episode on bitcoin history.
|
|
|
|
knight22
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
--------------->¿?
|
|
September 10, 2015, 02:57:00 AM |
|
This article doesn't address scaling at all nor propose anything in that way so I couldn't care less.
|
|
|
|
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
|
|
September 10, 2015, 02:58:15 AM |
|
A hard fork would be bad for bitcoin, I would agree to that. I don't think it will come to that.
|
|
|
|
RGBKey
|
|
September 10, 2015, 02:59:35 AM |
|
A hard fork would be bad for bitcoin, I would agree to that. I don't think it will come to that.
I agree with you here, if we see a hard fork, or really any drastic change, I think that the market will almost certainly reflect that negatively.
|
|
|
|
knight22
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
--------------->¿?
|
|
September 10, 2015, 03:01:26 AM |
|
A hard fork would be bad for bitcoin, I would agree to that. I don't think it will come to that.
I agree with you here, if we see a hard fork, or really any drastic change, I think that the market will almost certainly reflect that negatively. That would be a bump in the road in the grand scheme of things.
|
|
|
|
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
|
|
September 10, 2015, 03:01:39 AM |
|
so core devs control all the nodes and miners now Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run. This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization. Right. So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias. At least in my opinion. Your opinion is completely wrong. Organofcorti exhaustively demonstrated why (given the presence of spoofed nodes) 75% is the most unreasonable, optimally bad number possible. And why are you still pretending XT/101 has any chance of happening? 101 is the 'red uniform' BIP. It's dead, Jim.
|
██████████ ██████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████ ██████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████ ██████████ Monero
|
| "The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." David Chaum 1996 "Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect." Adam Back 2014
|
| | |
|
|
|
knight22
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
--------------->¿?
|
|
September 10, 2015, 03:04:40 AM |
|
so core devs control all the nodes and miners now Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run. This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization. Right. So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias. At least in my opinion. This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it. If Core doesn't scale expect a divorce at some point. Even if it means forking at 50%. I will personally be fine with it. Enjoy your 0.50$ bitcoin then. I wonder which coin will worth 0.50$. The one that scales and is useful or the one that doesn't and is useless? Please advice. the one that is truly decentralized? Or the one that relies on lightning network 'trusted super nodes' ? Good enough decentralization will be good enough. With or without lightning network that doesn't yet exist.
|
|
|
|
brg444 (OP)
|
|
September 10, 2015, 03:05:30 AM |
|
so core devs control all the nodes and miners now Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run. This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization. Right. So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias. At least in my opinion. This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it. If Core doesn't scale expect a divorce at some point. Even if it means forking at 50%. I will personally be fine with it. Enjoy your 0.50$ bitcoin then. I wonder which coin will worth 0.50$. The one that scales and is useful or the one that doesn't and is useless? Please advice. If Bitcoin is forked by 50% the trust in cryptocurrency in general will be destroyed. You really are clueless about what a hardfork entails heh? Meh. The bitcoin that scales will make its way to the mainstream while nobody (expect bitcointalk.org) will ever know about this silly episode on bitcoin history. you redditards and your mainstream. you'd sell your soul to the devil if that could fulfill your wet dreams of moon
|
"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
|
|
|
knight22
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
--------------->¿?
|
|
September 10, 2015, 03:09:35 AM |
|
so core devs control all the nodes and miners now Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run. This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization. Right. So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias. At least in my opinion. This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it. If Core doesn't scale expect a divorce at some point. Even if it means forking at 50%. I will personally be fine with it. Enjoy your 0.50$ bitcoin then. I wonder which coin will worth 0.50$. The one that scales and is useful or the one that doesn't and is useless? Please advice. If Bitcoin is forked by 50% the trust in cryptocurrency in general will be destroyed. You really are clueless about what a hardfork entails heh? Meh. The bitcoin that scales will make its way to the mainstream while nobody (expect bitcointalk.org) will ever know about this silly episode on bitcoin history. you redditards and your mainstream. you'd sell your soul to the devil if that could fulfill your wet dreams of moon Sorry if I see the potential of whole new business models and area of commerce bitcoin could bring while you don't. Bitcoin that doesn't scale doesn't fit that vision and that vision will happen without bitcoin that doesn't scale.
|
|
|
|
brg444 (OP)
|
|
September 10, 2015, 03:15:58 AM |
|
so core devs control all the nodes and miners now Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run. This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization. Right. So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias. At least in my opinion. This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it. If Core doesn't scale expect a divorce at some point. Even if it means forking at 50%. I will personally be fine with it. Enjoy your 0.50$ bitcoin then. I wonder which coin will worth 0.50$. The one that scales and is useful or the one that doesn't and is useless? Please advice. If Bitcoin is forked by 50% the trust in cryptocurrency in general will be destroyed. You really are clueless about what a hardfork entails heh? Meh. The bitcoin that scales will make its way to the mainstream while nobody (expect bitcointalk.org) will ever know about this silly episode on bitcoin history. you redditards and your mainstream. you'd sell your soul to the devil if that could fulfill your wet dreams of moon Sorry if I see the potential of whole new business models and area of commerce bitcoin could bring while you don't. Bitcoin that doesn't scale doesn't fit that vision and that vision will happen without bitcoin that doesn't scale. Your vision for Bitcoin is, quite honestly, pathetic. Step outside for a minute and realise there are things more important to disrupt then "commerce". I guess that's the consumer in you speaking...Don't worry, we'll have a sidechain for you to buy your lattes.
|
"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
|
|
|
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
|
|
September 10, 2015, 03:16:52 AM |
|
Your opinion is completely wrong. Organofcorti exhaustively demonstrated why (given the presence of spoofed nodes) 75% is the most unreasonable, optimally bad number possible. And why are you still pretending XT/101 has any chance of happening? 101 is the 'red uniform' BIP. It's dead, Jim. Its not nodes. Its mined blocks. derp.
|
|
|
|
knight22
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
--------------->¿?
|
|
September 10, 2015, 03:21:33 AM Last edit: September 10, 2015, 03:49:26 AM by knight22 |
|
-snip- Sorry if I see the potential of whole new business models and area of commerce bitcoin could bring while you don't. Bitcoin that doesn't scale doesn't fit that vision and that vision will happen without bitcoin that doesn't scale.
Your vision for Bitcoin is, quite honestly, pathetic. Step outside for a minute and realise there are things more important to disrupt then "commerce". I guess that's the consumer in you speaking...Don't worry, we'll have a sidechain for you to buy your lattes. And how sidechains solve the scaling exactly? It just moves the bloat elsewhere where people will have to run full bloat sidechain nodes. It's a pathetic solution that complicates everything for almost no gain.
|
|
|
|
|