Thoughts from Russia on the block size situation and Blockstream

[Har01d]

×

[1715466511]

1715466511

[1715466511]

1715466511

[knight22]

The big question is, how big payment processors and market makers will react. They have a lot of weight and they already have made a firm stance on BIP101 for the obvious reason that it gives them predictable room for growth.

Bitcoin won't be ruined. They is an incentive to prevent that.

[Har01d]

knight22, I can't agree more about market makers, but I have many doubts that miners will listen to them.

BIP100 gives miners total control of the transaction rate in the blockchain, whilst BIP101, as you say, "gives everyone predictable room for growth".
The mathematical problem for the miners is to calculate what's more profitable for them in the long run. Since it's almost unreal to solve this problem, because no one can look 10 years ahead, we have devolved to political issues.

[aztecminer]

blockstream train:

[knight22]

knight22, I can't agree more about market makers, but I have many doubts that miners will listen to them.

BIP100 gives miners total control of the transaction rate in the blockchain, whilst BIP101, as you say, "gives everyone predictable room for growth".
The mathematical problem for the miners is to calculate what's more profitable for them in the long run. Since it's almost unreal to solve this problem, because no one can look 10 years ahead, we have devolved to political issues.

Miners will have to listen to them one way or the other because it is these businesses that create the most value to the coins. Without them, bitcoin would not be where it is now in term of value and usefulness. There is no good incentives for miners to mine coins that an industry doesn't want or can't even use properly.

[Har01d]

Well, as I expected, this post has been deleted from /r/Bitcoin.
More than that, I have seen a link post from another redditor who had linked here, but it also has been deleted.
This is kind of interesting how even a little piece of $21M cake turns so-called crypto-anarchists into watchdogs.

[jonald_fyookball]

Well, as I expected, this post has been deleted from /r/Bitcoin.
More than that, I have seen a link post from another redditor who had linked here, but it also has been deleted.
This is kind of interesting how even a little piece of $21M cake turns so-called crypto-anarchists into watchdogs.

it really is amazing what money can do.  I think those guys got into blockstream with the best of intentions but then became trapped by their assumptions and pressure to make good with their investors.  I'm sure I don't know the half of what's going on but something ain't right with the whole stonewalling thing. doesn't look like the community will allow their small block vision though.

[aztecminer]

Well, as I expected, this post has been deleted from /r/Bitcoin.
More than that, I have seen a link post from another redditor who had linked here, but it also has been deleted.
This is kind of interesting how even a little piece of $21M cake turns so-called crypto-anarchists into watchdogs.

it really is amazing what money can do.  I think those guys got into blockstream with the best of intentions but then became trapped by their assumptions and pressure to make good with their investors.  I'm sure I don't know the half of what's going on but something ain't right with the whole stonewalling thing. doesn't look like the community will allow their small block vision though.

some people call it corruption ..

[jonald_fyookball]

Well, as I expected, this post has been deleted from /r/Bitcoin.
More than that, I have seen a link post from another redditor who had linked here, but it also has been deleted.
This is kind of interesting how even a little piece of $21M cake turns so-called crypto-anarchists into watchdogs.

it really is amazing what money can do.  I think those guys got into blockstream with the best of intentions but then became trapped by their assumptions and pressure to make good with their investors.  I'm sure I don't know the half of what's going on but something ain't right with the whole stonewalling thing. doesn't look like the community will allow their small block vision though.

some people call it corruption ..

Corruption is shocking by its very nature as it can involve people that were once very
honest taking a different course.  It is hard for us to imagine that some of the guys
who worked so hard to make Bitcoin what it is today, to do anything that isn't the absolute
best interest of Bitcoin.  

I don't think the Blockstream guys have sunk into overt dishonesty, but I can imagine
them now thinking along the lines of: "How can we do good for Bitcoin while also
doing good for our company.". I would be thinking the same way.  That's the nature of
a conflict of interest.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Now it’s not surprising that investors must be puzzled about what’s going on now with all this FUD, because they weren’t told that there were other solutions. And that’s exactly why there is so many censorship on the main Bitcoin boards nowadays: if the investors realize that people don’t want to use sidechains, they will not invest more money. Since the Blockstream team consists of the Core’s developers… It’s that simple.

I'm sure the presentations deliberately played down the key risks to the blockstream strategy. Its up to due diligence on the part of investors to confirm these. This debate serves to highlight them. A controversy like this can leave even the most carefully crafted value proposition in tatters.

The attempts to subdue the debate with threats (NotXT - nice one, Adam Back), blatant censorship and plain misinformation will further damage Blockstreams standing and ability to secure funding.

[brg444]

I rarely post anything on the forums because I don’t speak English as fluently as I want, but this situation is an extraordinary case, so I think I can’t resist the temptation to write about it in my broken English

What happened with all this Blockstream, BIPs & XT mess is just a solid presentation of Bitcoin’s weakest sides and flaws.

Here are three main problems that I see:

1. Blockstream is a cancer for Bitcoin

Personally, I can’t (or I don’t want to) believe that just $21M, which Blockstream has got from a bunch of investors, will actually ruin Bitcoin as we know it now. The problem is that many people just don’t understand the simplest thing: if someone has invested the money in something, they want to get it back in the future. So one way or another, Blockstream is a commercial company, which wants to benefit from the Lightning Network (or the sidechains).

It is absolutely obvious that the smaller the block size is, the more money Blockstream will make. Let’s theorize for a moment, that BIP100 has been implemented and miners have voted for 1 KB blocks, so 1 block = 1 transaction. That would be the perfect situation for Blockstream, because as they can take fees in the LN, they would be the only entity who is economically motivated to pay a very big fee for creating a clearing transaction in the blockchain. So the entire blockchain from this moment would consist of single clearing transactions.

Now let’s get back to the ground and suppose that we will have 1 MB or 2 MB, or even 10 MB blocks implemented by BIP100, but this size will not rise in the future. Well, now it all depends on how big will Bitcoin grow. If in 2020 we will have 1.000.000 transactions each 10 minutes and the same 1 MB blocks, the calculation is simple and not really different from 1 KB blocks. Let’s suppose that Blockstream will get $0.05 for each transaction on the LN as a fee, so for a million LN-transactions the total fee would be $50.000. Now, if Blockstream will use the blockchain for the clearing transactions, they could use the entire 1 MB (~1.500 transactions) for this purpose. $50.000 / 1.500 transactions = $33 per transaction. So no one will have an incentive to push a transaction for $33 in the blockchain while there will be an option to use a sidechain for $0.05. I understand that these calculations are awfully approximate, but this is the economic model of Blockstream. And this is the end of Bitcoin’s “be your own bank” as we know it know, because Blockstream is a centralized thing, you know: “Sorry, you are banned from the Lightning Network because you haven’t verified your ID”.

And I have another thought about Blockstream I can’t stop think about. How in the world do you think they have convinced the investors (who merely understand technical details of Bitcoin protocol) that sidechains is what is needed for Bitcoin? Right, they said exactly the following: “Bitcoin has a flow: the block size is limited and can’t be increased, because it’s hardcoded. We solve this problem!”. Now it’s not surprising that investors must be puzzled about what’s going on now with all this FUD, because they weren’t told that there were other solutions. And that’s exactly why there is so many censorship on the main Bitcoin boards nowadays: if the investors realize that people don’t want to use sidechains, they will not invest more money. Since the Blockstream team consists of the Core’s developers… It’s that simple.

2. It is not that obvious who decides the future for Bitcoin. Despite the fact that in theory it is the “economic majority” who should decide the future for Bitcoin, miners still can destroy it in the process

Many people theorize that the majority of miners will not do anything stupid (like accepting 1 KB block size limit or raising the 21M bitcoins limit) because “the price will momentarily go down to zero and the miners will lose their money”. Yes, they will. And you will too. Or may be they do something stupid and the price will just slightly go down. The global problem is if for any reason in the world the majority would want to “commit a suicide”, they actually could do it. For example, they could be confused by the greedy guys like Blockstream… Anything. And there is literally nothing anyone could do to stop them.

3. The censorship on top of the fact that many people don’t understand how Bitcoin (and the Bitcoin consensus in particular) works

Well, I was very confused when I got to know that Theymos was banning all the “irrelevant” discussions. I don’t know whether he is paid by Blockstream or he isn’t, but that’s not the problem. The problem is that here in the Russian section there are almost no discussions about the Blockstream problem at all! Everybody just thinks that “Bitcoin XT will ruin Bitcoin, because it is a fork, so the best option is to sit still and have 1 MB blocks”. That’s all. And that’s because all articles here in the Russian section are translated from the western media. So the people who doesn’t speak English just can’t dig into the problem.

And, in my opinion, the problem is not with the Russian section. I believe that there can be a similar problem in the Chinese one. And this problem is a real one, because all top miners are from China.

I don’t know what can I do about it

Well, I believe if XT won’t succeed and Blockstream’s solution will get accepted, I will have only one option: to sell my coins, as it is the only way I can “vote”. That’s sad, but I don’t believe that sidechains are the true Bitcoin.

And as the conclusion, I’d like to say that it’s all about corruption. Well, here we have corrupted Core developers, who develop a commercial project on top of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was invented as a replacement for traditional money to “fix” some economical problems. If you look at the big picture, it would be interesting to think, that at some point in time, fiat money (which were backed by gold) were invented to “fix” some problems too. And in time, some people corrupted the idea of fiat money with the current banking system. My point is that if Bitcoin can be broken by corrupted people, it will inevitably be broken. And my biggest fear it has already happened.

Hi Harold, greetings from Canada!

Let me clear up a little bit of your misconceptions since its evident truth hasn't made its way to your homeland yet!

About Blockstream:

1. They are currently participating on a voluntary basis to the development of the Lightning network. The lightning network being an open source development they have no proprietary advantage over its monetization. In fact, you should know the theory behind this protocol was NOT invented by Blockstream whose incorporation and 21 million $ funding round predates the announcement of the Lightning network by a full year. It was only recently following the hiring of developer Rusty Russel that Blockstream began their involvement with lightning development seeing as Rusty had shown previous interest in payment networks (he was working on a micro-transaction network before being hired). Out of a team of probably a dozen developers Rusty is the only one involved with Lightning work at Blockstream. You can find here the lightning development mailing list where you should realise a couple of different developers outside of Blockstream are collaborating to the development progress of this network : http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/. All this to say that Blockstream's economic model is evidently not based on the Lightning network and this development will not centralize the utility model of Bitcoin to their advantage.

2. On sidechains, you will find that they were scarcely advertised as a scaling solution for very good reason: they don't scale particularly well in their existing form. In fact, a little research should reveal to you that transactions between sidechains and the mainchains compete with regular transactions for space in blocks. It follows then that bigger blocks are advantageous to the development of sidechains and their scale. You should understand this particular bit of information defeats your argument.

[knight22]

I rarely post anything on the forums because I don’t speak English as fluently as I want, but this situation is an extraordinary case, so I think I can’t resist the temptation to write about it in my broken English

What happened with all this Blockstream, BIPs & XT mess is just a solid presentation of Bitcoin’s weakest sides and flaws.

Here are three main problems that I see:

1. Blockstream is a cancer for Bitcoin

Personally, I can’t (or I don’t want to) believe that just $21M, which Blockstream has got from a bunch of investors, will actually ruin Bitcoin as we know it now. The problem is that many people just don’t understand the simplest thing: if someone has invested the money in something, they want to get it back in the future. So one way or another, Blockstream is a commercial company, which wants to benefit from the Lightning Network (or the sidechains).

It is absolutely obvious that the smaller the block size is, the more money Blockstream will make. Let’s theorize for a moment, that BIP100 has been implemented and miners have voted for 1 KB blocks, so 1 block = 1 transaction. That would be the perfect situation for Blockstream, because as they can take fees in the LN, they would be the only entity who is economically motivated to pay a very big fee for creating a clearing transaction in the blockchain. So the entire blockchain from this moment would consist of single clearing transactions.

Now let’s get back to the ground and suppose that we will have 1 MB or 2 MB, or even 10 MB blocks implemented by BIP100, but this size will not rise in the future. Well, now it all depends on how big will Bitcoin grow. If in 2020 we will have 1.000.000 transactions each 10 minutes and the same 1 MB blocks, the calculation is simple and not really different from 1 KB blocks. Let’s suppose that Blockstream will get $0.05 for each transaction on the LN as a fee, so for a million LN-transactions the total fee would be $50.000. Now, if Blockstream will use the blockchain for the clearing transactions, they could use the entire 1 MB (~1.500 transactions) for this purpose. $50.000 / 1.500 transactions = $33 per transaction. So no one will have an incentive to push a transaction for $33 in the blockchain while there will be an option to use a sidechain for $0.05. I understand that these calculations are awfully approximate, but this is the economic model of Blockstream. And this is the end of Bitcoin’s “be your own bank” as we know it know, because Blockstream is a centralized thing, you know: “Sorry, you are banned from the Lightning Network because you haven’t verified your ID”.

And I have another thought about Blockstream I can’t stop think about. How in the world do you think they have convinced the investors (who merely understand technical details of Bitcoin protocol) that sidechains is what is needed for Bitcoin? Right, they said exactly the following: “Bitcoin has a flow: the block size is limited and can’t be increased, because it’s hardcoded. We solve this problem!”. Now it’s not surprising that investors must be puzzled about what’s going on now with all this FUD, because they weren’t told that there were other solutions. And that’s exactly why there is so many censorship on the main Bitcoin boards nowadays: if the investors realize that people don’t want to use sidechains, they will not invest more money. Since the Blockstream team consists of the Core’s developers… It’s that simple.

2. It is not that obvious who decides the future for Bitcoin. Despite the fact that in theory it is the “economic majority” who should decide the future for Bitcoin, miners still can destroy it in the process

Many people theorize that the majority of miners will not do anything stupid (like accepting 1 KB block size limit or raising the 21M bitcoins limit) because “the price will momentarily go down to zero and the miners will lose their money”. Yes, they will. And you will too. Or may be they do something stupid and the price will just slightly go down. The global problem is if for any reason in the world the majority would want to “commit a suicide”, they actually could do it. For example, they could be confused by the greedy guys like Blockstream… Anything. And there is literally nothing anyone could do to stop them.

3. The censorship on top of the fact that many people don’t understand how Bitcoin (and the Bitcoin consensus in particular) works

Well, I was very confused when I got to know that Theymos was banning all the “irrelevant” discussions. I don’t know whether he is paid by Blockstream or he isn’t, but that’s not the problem. The problem is that here in the Russian section there are almost no discussions about the Blockstream problem at all! Everybody just thinks that “Bitcoin XT will ruin Bitcoin, because it is a fork, so the best option is to sit still and have 1 MB blocks”. That’s all. And that’s because all articles here in the Russian section are translated from the western media. So the people who doesn’t speak English just can’t dig into the problem.

And, in my opinion, the problem is not with the Russian section. I believe that there can be a similar problem in the Chinese one. And this problem is a real one, because all top miners are from China.

I don’t know what can I do about it

Well, I believe if XT won’t succeed and Blockstream’s solution will get accepted, I will have only one option: to sell my coins, as it is the only way I can “vote”. That’s sad, but I don’t believe that sidechains are the true Bitcoin.

And as the conclusion, I’d like to say that it’s all about corruption. Well, here we have corrupted Core developers, who develop a commercial project on top of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was invented as a replacement for traditional money to “fix” some economical problems. If you look at the big picture, it would be interesting to think, that at some point in time, fiat money (which were backed by gold) were invented to “fix” some problems too. And in time, some people corrupted the idea of fiat money with the current banking system. My point is that if Bitcoin can be broken by corrupted people, it will inevitably be broken. And my biggest fear it has already happened.

Hi Harold, greetings from Canada!

Let me clear up a little bit of your misconceptions since its evident truth hasn't made its way to your homeland yet!

About Blockstream:

1. They are currently participating on a voluntary basis to the development of the Lightning network. The lightning network being an open source development they have no proprietary advantage over its monetization. In fact, you should know the theory behind this protocol was NOT invented by Blockstream whose incorporation and 21 million $ funding round predates the announcement of the Lightning network by a full year. It was only recently following the hiring of developer Rusty Russel that Blockstream began their involvement with lightning development seeing as Rusty had shown previous interest in payment networks (he was working on a micro-transaction network before being hired). Out of a team of probably a dozen developers Rusty is the only one involved with Lightning work at Blockstream. You can find here the lightning development mailing list where you should realise a couple of different developers outside of Blockstream are collaborating to the development progress of this network : http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/. All this to say that Blockstream's economic model is evidently not based on the Lightning network and this development will not centralize the utility model of Bitcoin to their advantage.

2. On sidechains, you will find that they were scarcely advertised as a scaling solution for very good reason: they don't scale particularly well in their existing form. In fact, a little research should reveal to you that transactions between sidechains and the mainchains compete with regular transactions for space in blocks. It follows then that bigger blocks are advantageous to the development of sidechains and their scale. You should understand this particular bit of information defeats your argument.

You are so funny. Here some cold truth for you.

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

[brg444]

You are so funny. Here some cold truth for you.

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

Do you have any argument? Let me adjust that list for you to make it... shall we say... a little more honest?

Developer	Employer	In favor of
Gavin Andresen	MIT, Coinbase	8mb+
Mike Hearn	Google, now Vinumeris, Circle	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
Nick Szabo	N/A	1mb
Alex Morcos	Chaincode Labs	1mb
Suhas Daftuar	Chaincode Labs	1mb
Eric Lombrozo	Ciphrex	1mb
Jorge Timon	N/A	1mb
Bram Cohen	Bittorrent	1mb

[knight22]

You are so funny. Here some cold truth for you.

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

Do you have any argument? Let me adjust that list for you to make it... shall we say... a little more honest?

Developer	Employer	In favor of
Gavin Andresen	MIT, Coinbase	8mb+
Mike Hearn	Google, now Vinumeris, Circle	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
Nick Szabo	N/A	1mb
Alex Morcox	Chaincode Labs	1mb
Suhas Daftuar	Chaincode Labs	1mb
Eric Lombrozo	Ciphrex	1mb
Jorge Timon	N/A	1mb
Bram Cohen	Bittorrent	1mb

You don't seem to grasp the confilct of interest between blocksteam and Core development. I doubt you someday will because you don't seem to know what a conflict of interest actually is. That's OK.

[brg444]

You don't seem to grasp the confilct of interest between blocksteam and Core development. I doubt you someday will because you don't seem to know what a conflict of interest actually is. That's OK.

I do understand it but from the list above you should understand, if you actually care about honesty, that there is a load of conflicts of interests to share between all Bitcoin developers. Conflict of interest does not imply ill intentions. You have to prove them. So far you trolls haven't done such a good job at providing factual information to back up your claims. Maybe... try harder?

[acquafredda]

Thank you Har01d.
I think you said something very intelligent here. Don't be so shy: your English is good.
You made your point very clear to me. And I?m really sorry about your post being deleted... but that's how it goes.

Post more often...

[knight22]

You don't seem to grasp the confilct of interest between blocksteam and Core development. I doubt you someday will because you don't seem to know what a conflict of interest actually is. That's OK.

I do understand it but from the list above you should understand, if you actually care about honesty, that there is a load of conflicts of interests to share between all Bitcoin developers. Conflict of interest does not imply ill intentions. You have to prove them. So far you trolls haven't done such a good job at providing factual information to back up your claims. Maybe... try harder?

Nope that's not how it works. Do you know that the opinion of experts in a position of conflict of interest are automatically disregarded in a court trial? The reason is simple, there is no way to prove if an intention is ill or not so they ate considered as ill by default.

Core devs shouldn't have put themselves in the position of working for Core and a private company in the first place. In no ways it should be considered as acceptable.

[tvbcof]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9K796cnJ5o

[brg444]

You don't seem to grasp the confilct of interest between blocksteam and Core development. I doubt you someday will because you don't seem to know what a conflict of interest actually is. That's OK.

I do understand it but from the list above you should understand, if you actually care about honesty, that there is a load of conflicts of interests to share between all Bitcoin developers. Conflict of interest does not imply ill intentions. You have to prove them. So far you trolls haven't done such a good job at providing factual information to back up your claims. Maybe... try harder?

Nope that's not how it works. Do you know that the opinion of experts in a position of conflict of interest are automatically disregarded in a court trial? The reason is simple, there is no way to prove if an intention is ill or not so they ate considered as ill by default.

Core devs shouldn't have put themselves in the position of working for Core and a private company in the first place. In no ways it should be considered as acceptable.

Scientific papers are published every day with stated conflicts of interest by their authors. It's nothing new really.

Moreover, core devs have to get paid somehow. You expect them to put in these types of hours for free? Do you happen to know under what model Blockstream was incorporated and what their stated goals are?

It's really curious and quite honestly hypocritical for you to rail against the Blockstream paid core devs but make no mentions of Gavin's tie to MIT, Coinbase & Mike's work with Circle or Jeff Garzik & BitPay. I suppose that "doesn't count" right?

Maybe... try harder?

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

I do understand it but from the list above you should understand, if you actually care about honesty, that there is a load of conflicts of interests to share between all Bitcoin developers. Conflict of interest does not imply ill intentions. You have to prove them. So far you trolls haven't done such a good job at providing factual information to back up your claims. Maybe... try harder?

You are the one who needs to try harder. You're basic strategy of insults, lies and quick changes of course don't fool anyone ( unless they want to be fooled)

Honesty does not rest easy with you. But you are willing to blag your way through, in the vain hope that sufficient volume will make up for lack of wisdom.

[jonald_fyookball]

You are so funny. Here some cold truth for you.

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

Do you have any argument? Let me adjust that list for you to make it... shall we say... a little more honest?

Developer	Employer	In favor of
Gavin Andresen	MIT, Coinbase	8mb+
Mike Hearn	Google, now Vinumeris, Circle	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
Nick Szabo	N/A	1mb
Alex Morcos	Chaincode Labs	1mb
Suhas Daftuar	Chaincode Labs	1mb
Eric Lombrozo	Ciphrex	1mb
Jorge Timon	N/A	1mb
Bram Cohen	Bittorrent	1mb

But this is not accurate.

For example, Nick Szabo  said that "a rapid block size
increase is a huge security risk" and thought
Bip 103 type solution was more reasonable.

Jorge Timon drafted a consensus based block
size retargeting algorithm.

(Neither of them said we need to keep the
blocks at 1mb.)

Those are two just examples I bothered to
research just now.

You seem to be twisting facts.

You seem to be in denial about the fact
there's a problem (conflict of interest
or otherwise) with the leadership of
Bitcoin development under the blockstream
core devs.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

It's really curious and quite honestly hypocritical for you to rail against the Blockstream paid core devs but make no mentions of Gavin's tie to MIT, Coinbase & Mike's work with Circle or Jeff Garzik & BitPay. I suppose that "doesn't count" right?

Cool defense - They are all doing it, so why can't we?  This is the best example yet of your ideological bankruptcy.  

[brg444]

You are so funny. Here some cold truth for you.

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

Do you have any argument? Let me adjust that list for you to make it... shall we say... a little more honest?

Developer	Employer	In favor of
Gavin Andresen	MIT, Coinbase	8mb+
Mike Hearn	Google, now Vinumeris, Circle	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
Nick Szabo	N/A	1mb
Alex Morcos	Chaincode Labs	1mb
Suhas Daftuar	Chaincode Labs	1mb
Eric Lombrozo	Ciphrex	1mb
Jorge Timon	N/A	1mb
Bram Cohen	Bittorrent	1mb

But this is not accurate.

For example, Nick Szabo  said that "a rapid block size
increase is a huge security risk" and thought
Bip 103 type solution was more reasonable.

Jorge Timon drafted a consensus based block
size retargeting algorithm.

(Neither of them said we need to keep the
blocks at 1mb.)

Those are two just examples I bothered to
research just now.

You seem to be twisting facts.

You seem to be in denial about the fact
there's a problem (conflict of interest
or otherwise) with the leadership of
Bitcoin development under the blockstream
core devs.

I am merely re-using the list that was provided. I entirely agree that the "1mb" position ascribed is too simple and not quite accurate.

In fact it can be stated that most if not all the people on this list agree to a block size increase but differ on the approach and the actual size of the increase.

As far as twisting facts or denial of them I am not sure exactly what you are referring to  

If you have a problem with the Blockstream developers involvement in Bitcoin core development then you need to provide arguments that do not ignore facts and explain why exactly it is a problem and not just your opinion. I'm waiting.

[mallard]

I rarely post anything on the forums because I don’t speak English as fluently as I want

Your English is great. 

[jonald_fyookball]

You are so funny. Here some cold truth for you.

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

Do you have any argument? Let me adjust that list for you to make it... shall we say... a little more honest?

Developer	Employer	In favor of
Gavin Andresen	MIT, Coinbase	8mb+
Mike Hearn	Google, now Vinumeris, Circle	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
Nick Szabo	N/A	1mb
Alex Morcos	Chaincode Labs	1mb
Suhas Daftuar	Chaincode Labs	1mb
Eric Lombrozo	Ciphrex	1mb
Jorge Timon	N/A	1mb
Bram Cohen	Bittorrent	1mb

But this is not accurate.

For example, Nick Szabo  said that "a rapid block size
increase is a huge security risk" and thought
Bip 103 type solution was more reasonable.

Jorge Timon drafted a consensus based block
size retargeting algorithm.

(Neither of them said we need to keep the
blocks at 1mb.)

Those are two just examples I bothered to
research just now.

You seem to be twisting facts.

You seem to be in denial about the fact
there's a problem (conflict of interest
or otherwise) with the leadership of
Bitcoin development under the blockstream
core devs.

I am merely re-using the list that was provided. I entirely agree that the "1mb" position ascribed is too simple and not quite accurate.

In fact it can be stated that most if not all the people on this list agree to a block size increase but differ on the approach and the actual size of the increase.

As far as twisting facts or denial of them I am not sure exactly what you are referring to  

If you have a problem with the Blockstream developers involvement in Bitcoin core development then you need to provide arguments that do not ignore facts and explain why exactly it is a problem and not just your opinion. I'm waiting.

Blocks are already half full, and transactions have
doubled since a year ago, which means in another year,
we'll be completely out of blockspace. 

And since it takes many months to roll out the blocksize
increase, and since peaks occur, it means we will be
having more problems sooner rather than later with backlogs.

Therefore, I agree with Gavin when he says its an urgent
problem. 

Despite this, the other guys (who mostly work for blockstream)
couldn't manage to come to a consensus.  They want to dilly,
dally, delay, ponder, debate, nitpick, stonewall, whatever...

I get the fact we want to be careful and make the right
decision, but this has gone on for years.

They're not getting the job done, plain and simple.

They're not rolling out a scalability solution in
a timely manner. 

That's why its come down to Gavin and Mike Hearn to bring leadership.  It's
taken mining pools to sign blocks in support of bigger blocks.
Its taken joint statements from industry leaders.

[Har01d]

Sidechains are not a proposal for scalability - don't you mean Lightning?

I've seen many definitions of sidechains, so maybe we use different terminology. What I mean is I'm against using the blockchain for clearing transactions only, it doesn't matter whether this would be the Lightning Network or the sidechains.

About Blockstream:

1. They are currently participating on a voluntary basis to the development of the Lightning network. The lightning network being an open source development they have no proprietary advantage over its monetization. In fact, you should know the theory behind this protocol was NOT invented by Blockstream whose incorporation and 21 million $ funding round predates the announcement of the Lightning network by a full year. It was only recently following the hiring of developer Rusty Russel that Blockstream began their involvement with lightning development seeing as Rusty had shown previous interest in payment networks (he was working on a micro-transaction network before being hired). Out of a team of probably a dozen developers Rusty is the only one involved with Lightning work at Blockstream. You can find here the lightning development mailing list where you should realise a couple of different developers outside of Blockstream are collaborating to the development progress of this network : http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/. All this to say that Blockstream's economic model is evidently not based on the Lightning network and this development will not centralize the utility model of Bitcoin to their advantage.

First of all, I'd like to clarify that I don't think there is something really that bad about the Lightning Network itself. It may be a good idea for microtransactions or something like that. But it definitely should not finally replace traditional blockchain transactions. Blockstream developers have some very interesting ideas too, but that's off-topic here.

Can you answer one simple question for me? Because I've been reading materials on the topic for over 2 weeks now, but I haven't found the answer.
If, as you say, Blockstream's economic model won't be based on the fees coming from the LN, then it will based on what? How do investors plan to profit from "voluntary development"? I believe you have no answer. Even if the things are not as bad as I described, there is absolutely clear conflict of interests.

The next question is why if the LN and BIP101 8 Mb (or even Gb) blocks can coexist, and, as you say, Blockstream won't profit from the LN, there is so much censorship about it? Who is behind the censorship in the "open-source peer-to-peer without-needing-an-intermediary" community? Everyone agrees that block size should be increased. Well, even if someone is afraid that Mr. Anderson and Mr. Hearn may become "evil", why not to implement BIP101 into the Core? As for me, the answer is clear. BIP101 implementation with its 1 Gb blocks obviously will be not as profitable for Blockstream as if it were 1 Mb blocks. That's why we have this BIP100 nonsense.

Thank you Har01d.
I think you said something very intelligent here. Don't be so shy: your English is good.
You made your point very clear to me. And I?m really sorry about your post being deleted... but that's how it goes.

Post more often...

I rarely post anything on the forums because I don’t speak English as fluently as I want

Your English is great.  

Thank you

[knight22]

You don't seem to grasp the confilct of interest between blocksteam and Core development. I doubt you someday will because you don't seem to know what a conflict of interest actually is. That's OK.

I do understand it but from the list above you should understand, if you actually care about honesty, that there is a load of conflicts of interests to share between all Bitcoin developers. Conflict of interest does not imply ill intentions. You have to prove them. So far you trolls haven't done such a good job at providing factual information to back up your claims. Maybe... try harder?

Nope that's not how it works. Do you know that the opinion of experts in a position of conflict of interest are automatically disregarded in a court trial? The reason is simple, there is no way to prove if an intention is ill or not so they ate considered as ill by default.

Core devs shouldn't have put themselves in the position of working for Core and a private company in the first place. In no ways it should be considered as acceptable.

Scientific papers are published every day with stated conflicts of interest by their authors. It's nothing new really.

Moreover, core devs have to get paid somehow. You expect them to put in these types of hours for free? Do you happen to know under what model Blockstream was incorporated and what their stated goals are?

It's really curious and quite honestly hypocritical for you to rail against the Blockstream paid core devs but make no mentions of Gavin's tie to MIT, Coinbase & Mike's work with Circle or Jeff Garzik & BitPay. I suppose that "doesn't count" right?

Maybe... try harder?

Another thing you don't seem to grasp is that before XT blockstream developers was in position to block any Core development about the block size incentivised by their conflic of interest. This situation is so obvious to everyone but you. Funny isn't it?

[brg444]

First of all, I'd like to clarify that I don't think there is something really that bad about the Lightning Network itself. It may be a good idea for microtransactions or something like that. But it definitely should not finally replace traditional blockchain transactions. Blockstream developers have some very interesting ideas too, but that's off-topic here.

Can you answer one simple question for me? Because I've been reading materials on the topic for over 2 weeks now, but I haven't found the answer.
If, as you say, Blockstream's economic model won't be based on the fees coming from the LN, then it will based on what? How do investors plan to profit from "voluntary development"? I believe you have no answer. Even if the things are not as bad as I described, there is absolutely clear conflict of interests.

Blockstream's business plan is of course not out in the open as is the case for a majority of early-stage companies, that would be a little misguided  . Still, a little knowledge about what they plan to offer and the various business model in the open-source world should give you a clear hint of what their venture is about. To put it quite simply it seems apparent they would like to follow the long lineage of very successful businesses such as Red Hat, SUSE, the Mozilla Corporation by leveraging their expertise in Bitcoin development and sidechains to become these companies' equivalent for the Bitcoin ecosystem.

The next question is why if the LN and BIP101 8 Mb (or even Gb) blocks can coexist, and, as you say, Blockstream won't profit from the LN, there is so much censorship about it? Who is behind the censorship in the "open-source peer-to-peer without-needing-an-intermediary" community? Everyone agrees that block size should be increased. Well, even if someone is afraid that Mr. Anderson and Mr. Hearn may become "evil", why not to implement BIP101 into the Core? As for me, the answer is clear. BIP101 implementation with its 1 Gb blocks obviously will be not as profitable for Blockstream as if it were 1 Mb blocks. That's why we have this BIP100 nonsense.

I won't comment on the censorship issues other than to mention it is the product of only a couple of reddit & bitcointalk mods and that so far I have yet to see any developer sponsor or condone it.

Maybe "everyone agrees block size should be increased" although some people will raise their hands and claim the opposite. What is not clear amongst the proponents of a block size increase is what model of block "growth" should be adopted and under what parameters should this increase proceed.

You should understand that Lightning actually scales better with larger block and that the appeal of it is not only volume but efficiency. Lightning, unlike the Bitcoin blockchain (whatever size the blocks are) can accomodate micro or instant transactions in a safe and reliable manner.

Hope that helps!

[brg444]

You don't seem to grasp the confilct of interest between blocksteam and Core development. I doubt you someday will because you don't seem to know what a conflict of interest actually is. That's OK.

I do understand it but from the list above you should understand, if you actually care about honesty, that there is a load of conflicts of interests to share between all Bitcoin developers. Conflict of interest does not imply ill intentions. You have to prove them. So far you trolls haven't done such a good job at providing factual information to back up your claims. Maybe... try harder?

Nope that's not how it works. Do you know that the opinion of experts in a position of conflict of interest are automatically disregarded in a court trial? The reason is simple, there is no way to prove if an intention is ill or not so they ate considered as ill by default.

Core devs shouldn't have put themselves in the position of working for Core and a private company in the first place. In no ways it should be considered as acceptable.

Scientific papers are published every day with stated conflicts of interest by their authors. It's nothing new really.

Moreover, core devs have to get paid somehow. You expect them to put in these types of hours for free? Do you happen to know under what model Blockstream was incorporated and what their stated goals are?

It's really curious and quite honestly hypocritical for you to rail against the Blockstream paid core devs but make no mentions of Gavin's tie to MIT, Coinbase & Mike's work with Circle or Jeff Garzik & BitPay. I suppose that "doesn't count" right?

Maybe... try harder?

Another thing you don't seem to grasp is that before XT blockstream developers was in position to block any Core development about the block size incentivised by their conflic of interest. This situation is so obvious to everyone but you. Funny isn't it?

Absolutely not what happened. You can read about it here.

In short, Blockstream developers (and others by the way) blocked Gavin's implementation of bigger blocks considering its lack of safe and sound technical backing. As far as I know they have never unequivocally shut the down on a block size increase. Unless you can point me to proofs of your assertions?

For someone who accuses me of "not grasping" things you sound quite ignorant and misinformed..

[jonald_fyookball]

You don't seem to grasp the confilct of interest between blocksteam and Core development. I doubt you someday will because you don't seem to know what a conflict of interest actually is. That's OK.

I do understand it but from the list above you should understand, if you actually care about honesty, that there is a load of conflicts of interests to share between all Bitcoin developers. Conflict of interest does not imply ill intentions. You have to prove them. So far you trolls haven't done such a good job at providing factual information to back up your claims. Maybe... try harder?

Nope that's not how it works. Do you know that the opinion of experts in a position of conflict of interest are automatically disregarded in a court trial? The reason is simple, there is no way to prove if an intention is ill or not so they ate considered as ill by default.

Core devs shouldn't have put themselves in the position of working for Core and a private company in the first place. In no ways it should be considered as acceptable.

Scientific papers are published every day with stated conflicts of interest by their authors. It's nothing new really.

Moreover, core devs have to get paid somehow. You expect them to put in these types of hours for free? Do you happen to know under what model Blockstream was incorporated and what their stated goals are?

It's really curious and quite honestly hypocritical for you to rail against the Blockstream paid core devs but make no mentions of Gavin's tie to MIT, Coinbase & Mike's work with Circle or Jeff Garzik & BitPay. I suppose that "doesn't count" right?

Maybe... try harder?

Another thing you don't seem to grasp is that before XT blockstream developers was in position to block any Core development about the block size incentivised by their conflic of interest. This situation is so obvious to everyone but you. Funny isn't it?

Absolutely not what happened. You can read about it here.

In short, Blockstream developers (and others by the way) blocked Gavin's implementation of bigger blocks considering its lack of safe and sound technical backing. As far as I know they have never unequivocally shut the down on a block size increase. Unless you can point me to proofs of your assertions?

For someone who accuses me of "not grasping" things you sound quite ignorant and misinformed..

You can argue who is to blame, Gavin or Greg Maxwell.
But consider this:  One of them ultimately made a scalability solution available,
the other didn't.





 

[brg444]

You don't seem to grasp the confilct of interest between blocksteam and Core development. I doubt you someday will because you don't seem to know what a conflict of interest actually is. That's OK.

I do understand it but from the list above you should understand, if you actually care about honesty, that there is a load of conflicts of interests to share between all Bitcoin developers. Conflict of interest does not imply ill intentions. You have to prove them. So far you trolls haven't done such a good job at providing factual information to back up your claims. Maybe... try harder?

Nope that's not how it works. Do you know that the opinion of experts in a position of conflict of interest are automatically disregarded in a court trial? The reason is simple, there is no way to prove if an intention is ill or not so they ate considered as ill by default.

Core devs shouldn't have put themselves in the position of working for Core and a private company in the first place. In no ways it should be considered as acceptable.

Scientific papers are published every day with stated conflicts of interest by their authors. It's nothing new really.

Moreover, core devs have to get paid somehow. You expect them to put in these types of hours for free? Do you happen to know under what model Blockstream was incorporated and what their stated goals are?

It's really curious and quite honestly hypocritical for you to rail against the Blockstream paid core devs but make no mentions of Gavin's tie to MIT, Coinbase & Mike's work with Circle or Jeff Garzik & BitPay. I suppose that "doesn't count" right?

Maybe... try harder?

Another thing you don't seem to grasp is that before XT blockstream developers was in position to block any Core development about the block size incentivised by their conflic of interest. This situation is so obvious to everyone but you. Funny isn't it?

Absolutely not what happened. You can read about it here.

In short, Blockstream developers (and others by the way) blocked Gavin's implementation of bigger blocks considering its lack of safe and sound technical backing. As far as I know they have never unequivocally shut the down on a block size increase. Unless you can point me to proofs of your assertions?

For someone who accuses me of "not grasping" things you sound quite ignorant and misinformed..

You can argue who is to blame, Gavin or Greg Maxwell.
But consider this:  One of them ultimately made a scalability solution available,
the other didn't

You are really simple heh 

Anyone could've patched core with an block size increase picked out of a chinese fortune cookie. There's a reason no one did: it's stupid. A broken solution is no better than no solution at all.

No one's arguing who's to blame. If one had to point fingers I'd start with you and your disappointing tendency to spread falsehoods and ignorance when you had previously be shown truth and facts.

[knight22]

You don't seem to grasp the confilct of interest between blocksteam and Core development. I doubt you someday will because you don't seem to know what a conflict of interest actually is. That's OK.

I do understand it but from the list above you should understand, if you actually care about honesty, that there is a load of conflicts of interests to share between all Bitcoin developers. Conflict of interest does not imply ill intentions. You have to prove them. So far you trolls haven't done such a good job at providing factual information to back up your claims. Maybe... try harder?

Nope that's not how it works. Do you know that the opinion of experts in a position of conflict of interest are automatically disregarded in a court trial? The reason is simple, there is no way to prove if an intention is ill or not so they ate considered as ill by default.

Core devs shouldn't have put themselves in the position of working for Core and a private company in the first place. In no ways it should be considered as acceptable.

Scientific papers are published every day with stated conflicts of interest by their authors. It's nothing new really.

Moreover, core devs have to get paid somehow. You expect them to put in these types of hours for free? Do you happen to know under what model Blockstream was incorporated and what their stated goals are?

It's really curious and quite honestly hypocritical for you to rail against the Blockstream paid core devs but make no mentions of Gavin's tie to MIT, Coinbase & Mike's work with Circle or Jeff Garzik & BitPay. I suppose that "doesn't count" right?

Maybe... try harder?

Another thing you don't seem to grasp is that before XT blockstream developers was in position to block any Core development about the block size incentivised by their conflic of interest. This situation is so obvious to everyone but you. Funny isn't it?

Absolutely not what happened. You can read about it here.

In short, Blockstream developers (and others by the way) blocked Gavin's implementation of bigger blocks considering its lack of safe and sound technical backing. As far as I know they have never unequivocally shut the down on a block size increase. Unless you can point me to proofs of your assertions?

For someone who accuses me of "not grasping" things you sound quite ignorant and misinformed..

You can argue who is to blame, Gavin or Greg Maxwell.
But consider this:  One of them ultimately made a scalability solution available,
the other didn't

You are really simple heh 

Anyone could've patched core with an block size increase picked out of a chinese fortune cookie. There's a reason no one Core devs employed by Blockstream did : it's stupid not good for Blockstream business. A broken solution is no better than no solution at all.

No one's arguing who's to blame. If one had to point fingers I'd start with you and your disappointing tendency to spread falsehoods and ignorance when you had previously be shown truth and facts.

FTFY

[brg444]

You don't seem to grasp the confilct of interest between blocksteam and Core development. I doubt you someday will because you don't seem to know what a conflict of interest actually is. That's OK.

I do understand it but from the list above you should understand, if you actually care about honesty, that there is a load of conflicts of interests to share between all Bitcoin developers. Conflict of interest does not imply ill intentions. You have to prove them. So far you trolls haven't done such a good job at providing factual information to back up your claims. Maybe... try harder?

Nope that's not how it works. Do you know that the opinion of experts in a position of conflict of interest are automatically disregarded in a court trial? The reason is simple, there is no way to prove if an intention is ill or not so they ate considered as ill by default.

Core devs shouldn't have put themselves in the position of working for Core and a private company in the first place. In no ways it should be considered as acceptable.

Scientific papers are published every day with stated conflicts of interest by their authors. It's nothing new really.

Moreover, core devs have to get paid somehow. You expect them to put in these types of hours for free? Do you happen to know under what model Blockstream was incorporated and what their stated goals are?

It's really curious and quite honestly hypocritical for you to rail against the Blockstream paid core devs but make no mentions of Gavin's tie to MIT, Coinbase & Mike's work with Circle or Jeff Garzik & BitPay. I suppose that "doesn't count" right?

Maybe... try harder?

Another thing you don't seem to grasp is that before XT blockstream developers was in position to block any Core development about the block size incentivised by their conflic of interest. This situation is so obvious to everyone but you. Funny isn't it?

Absolutely not what happened. You can read about it here.

In short, Blockstream developers (and others by the way) blocked Gavin's implementation of bigger blocks considering its lack of safe and sound technical backing. As far as I know they have never unequivocally shut the down on a block size increase. Unless you can point me to proofs of your assertions?

For someone who accuses me of "not grasping" things you sound quite ignorant and misinformed..

You can argue who is to blame, Gavin or Greg Maxwell.
But consider this:  One of them ultimately made a scalability solution available,
the other didn't

You are really simple heh 

Anyone could've patched core with an block size increase picked out of a chinese fortune cookie. There's a reason no one Core devs employed by Blockstream did : it's stupid not good for Blockstream business. A broken solution is no better than no solution at all.

No one's arguing who's to blame. If one had to point fingers I'd start with you and your disappointing tendency to spread falsehoods and ignorance when you had previously be shown truth and facts.

FTFY

Show me the receipts. Until then keep your paranoia to yourself, it's really making you look desperate.

One last time:

Does bigger blocks benefit Lightning? Yes
Does bigger blocks benefit Sidechains? Yes

Does bigger blocks benefit Blockstream? Yes!

[Muhammed Zakir]

I am asking one thing to Jonald, knight22 and whoever else who is saying Core developers hired by Blockstream is only for 1 MB block size limit. Did all these Core developers actually say it?

[jonald_fyookball]

You don't seem to grasp the confilct of interest between blocksteam and Core development. I doubt you someday will because you don't seem to know what a conflict of interest actually is. That's OK.

I do understand it but from the list above you should understand, if you actually care about honesty, that there is a load of conflicts of interests to share between all Bitcoin developers. Conflict of interest does not imply ill intentions. You have to prove them. So far you trolls haven't done such a good job at providing factual information to back up your claims. Maybe... try harder?

Nope that's not how it works. Do you know that the opinion of experts in a position of conflict of interest are automatically disregarded in a court trial? The reason is simple, there is no way to prove if an intention is ill or not so they ate considered as ill by default.

Core devs shouldn't have put themselves in the position of working for Core and a private company in the first place. In no ways it should be considered as acceptable.

Scientific papers are published every day with stated conflicts of interest by their authors. It's nothing new really.

Moreover, core devs have to get paid somehow. You expect them to put in these types of hours for free? Do you happen to know under what model Blockstream was incorporated and what their stated goals are?

It's really curious and quite honestly hypocritical for you to rail against the Blockstream paid core devs but make no mentions of Gavin's tie to MIT, Coinbase & Mike's work with Circle or Jeff Garzik & BitPay. I suppose that "doesn't count" right?

Maybe... try harder?

Another thing you don't seem to grasp is that before XT blockstream developers was in position to block any Core development about the block size incentivised by their conflic of interest. This situation is so obvious to everyone but you. Funny isn't it?

Absolutely not what happened. You can read about it here.

In short, Blockstream developers (and others by the way) blocked Gavin's implementation of bigger blocks considering its lack of safe and sound technical backing. As far as I know they have never unequivocally shut the down on a block size increase. Unless you can point me to proofs of your assertions?

For someone who accuses me of "not grasping" things you sound quite ignorant and misinformed..

You can argue who is to blame, Gavin or Greg Maxwell.
But consider this:  One of them ultimately made a scalability solution available,
the other didn't

You are really simple heh  

Anyone could've patched core with an block size increase picked out of a chinese fortune cookie. There's a reason no one did: it's stupid. A broken solution is no better than no solution at all.

No one's arguing who's to blame. If one had to point fingers I'd start with you and your disappointing tendency to spread falsehoods and ignorance when you had previously be shown truth and facts.

I try to keep it simple and to the point because
you keep circling back around and dancing around the issue, which is why I previously
said you seem to be twisting facts and in denial, which you just confirmed.

1. Again:  This was debated for 3 years.   Gavin was forced to release something with Mike Hearn
because Greg and the kids on the blockstream wouldn't play ball.   If they really wanted to
release something, they would have worked with Gavin so the solution is more to their preferences.  Either
their interests in Blockstream prevented that, or they lack leadership/communication/team
skills.  Either way is a problem.  I think when you boil it down, they just don't see the urgency
as Gavin does.  Maybe that's because of their other solutions like the lightening network.
Maybe they are willing to stall Bitcoin and take bigger risks.  They don't want to take technical
risks purportedly, but they are willing to risk slowing down adoption.  There is a risk/reward.
and part of their reward is blockstream business activities.  This is what you seem to deny.

2.  This leads to the next point.  Gavin says a fix is urgently needed.
I say an imperfect fix IS better than no solution.  Gavin
essentially said "Core devs won't agree, but we need bigger blocks,
so I'm going to do the best thing I can and release Bip 101 on Mike's fork."
No one ever said Bip 101 was perfect, but who are you to say its "broken"
and its worse than no solution?  I guess you know more about bitcoin than
Gavin so we should listen to you.  
---

The only way your position even makes sense is if you truly believe its not
important to have bigger blocks asap.  It must mean you agree with the devs
who aren't ready to raise the limit. Somehow it doesn't scare you.  You're not
worried about scalability.  Again, risk/reward.  But you won't be getting the
rewards that blockstream and its investors get by taking their side.    

@ MZ: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability_FAQ

[Lauda]

Here we go again. Another round of false information, FUD, ad hominem and whatnot. Blockstream is not cancer. What if someone told you that you were cancer for calling them cancer? (for the record, I'm not stating this; some might try to abuse this). This is not how you discuss. This is not how you move forward.

Just because some people started a company, we should ignore both sidechains and the lightning network? This is not how everything works. As people have told me (when discussing XT) that nobody can force you to run Hearn's changes, then nobody can force you to use any solution from Blockstream.
There is no censorship. This is a privately owned forum. If you do not like the rules, start a new one and convince people to join it. Nobody can force you to be here either, can they?

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

I will not go deep into blockstream because I don't know exactly how that will be managed, but what i know for a fact, if you think XT was the solution to this you have no idea what you are talking about. With XT the nodes would become centralized which is an huge tradegy for Bitcoin. So keep looking for solutions.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

One last time:

Does bigger blocks benefit Lightning? Yes
Does bigger blocks benefit Sidechains? Yes

Does bigger blocks benefit Blockstream? Yes!

Then why do they fight so hard against them? Why do you fight so hard against them?

You are now entering the Orwellian phase of your argument. You go from chanting "4 legs good, 2 legs bad" to "4 legs good, 2 legs Better!!"

Fact remains that the core desire towards a fee market is to facilitate the use of off-chain solutions such as sidechains/LN or whatever your having yourself.

[knight22]

Here we go again. Another round of false information, FUD, ad hominem and whatnot. Blockstream is not cancer. What if someone told you that you were cancer for calling them cancer? (for the record, I'm not stating this; some might try to abuse this). This is not how you discuss. This is not how you move forward.

Just because some people started a company, we should ignore both sidechains and the lightning network? This is not how everything works. As people have told me (when discussing XT) that nobody can force you to run Hearn's changes, then nobody can force you to use any solution from Blockstream.
There is no censorship. This is a privately owned forum. If you do not like the rules, start a new one and convince people to join it. Nobody can force you to be here either, can they?

Enough with this hyprocrisy. You are free to choose but not to talk about it on the main forums right?

Give us a break.

[Lauda]

Enough with this hyprocrisy. You are free to choose but not to talk about it on the main forum right?

Give us a break.

I'm pretty sure that anyone calling out for censorship has no idea what that is. You are not free to talk about it? Name me a single person who got punished for talking about XT? Because this is what censorship is.
You get killed (hello North Korea) for doing things that are not allowed. XT discussions are allowed in this forum, in the altcoin section. This was never, and is never going to be censorship.

[knight22]

Enough with this hyprocrisy. You are free to choose but not to talk about it on the main forum right?

Give us a break.

I'm pretty sure that anyone calling out for censorship has no idea what that is. You are not free to talk about it? Name me a single person who got punished for talking about XT? Because this is what censorship is.
You get killed (hello North Korea) for doing things that are not allowed. XT discussions are allowed in this forum, in the altcoin section. This was never, and is never going to be censorship.

I am banned from /r/bitcoin for this very reason so yeah give me a break and STFU.

[VeritasSapere]

Here we go again. Another round of false information, FUD, ad hominem and whatnot. Blockstream is not cancer. What if someone told you that you were cancer for calling them cancer? (for the record, I'm not stating this; some might try to abuse this). This is not how you discuss. This is not how you move forward.

Just because some people started a company, we should ignore both sidechains and the lightning network? This is not how everything works. As people have told me (when discussing XT) that nobody can force you to run Hearn's changes, then nobody can force you to use any solution from Blockstream.
There is no censorship. This is a privately owned forum. If you do not like the rules, start a new one and convince people to join it. Nobody can force you to be here either, can they?

If we do not increase the blocksize and there is a significant increase in adoption then transacting on the main chain would become prohibitively expensive. At this point the only alternative which would provide sufficient scale is using third parties on top of Bitcoin, or you could just use another cryptocurrency.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0

[turvarya]

Enough with this hyprocrisy. You are free to choose but not to talk about it on the main forum right?

Give us a break.

I'm pretty sure that anyone calling out for censorship has no idea what that is. You are not free to talk about it? Name me a single person who got punished for talking about XT? Because this is what censorship is.
You get killed (hello North Korea) for doing things that are not allowed. XT discussions are allowed in this forum, in the altcoin section. This was never, and is never going to be censorship.

Really? You are putting out the "but North Korea is worse"-card? You must be really desperate.
Fact is, threads r/bitcoin got deleted. That is censorship. If it is a private forum, doesn't matter at all in the definition of censorship. Look it up at at Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

So, could you please don't change the definition of words, just because it suits your agenda?

[meono]

Enough with this hyprocrisy. You are free to choose but not to talk about it on the main forum right?

Give us a break.

I'm pretty sure that anyone calling out for censorship has no idea what that is. You are not free to talk about it? Name me a single person who got punished for talking about XT? Because this is what censorship is.
You get killed (hello North Korea) for doing things that are not allowed. XT discussions are allowed in this forum, in the altcoin section. This was never, and is never going to be censorship.

Really? You are putting out the "but North Korea is worse"-card? You must be really desperate.
Fact is, threads r/bitcoin got deleted. That is censorship. If it is a private forum, doesn't matter at all in the definition of censorship. Look it up at at Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

So, could you please don't change the definition of words, just because it suits your agenda?

I wish i can invite Lauda to my house one day for a cup of tea. We can talk all kind of stuff. But as soon as she/he mention bip100, i will slap his/her face. Ask a question why? another slap to the face.... keep going with the topic and i will kick her/his bottoms so hard , she/he can barely work.

Its not censorship at all you know.
 

[knight22]

Enough with this hyprocrisy. You are free to choose but not to talk about it on the main forum right?

Give us a break.

I'm pretty sure that anyone calling out for censorship has no idea what that is. You are not free to talk about it? Name me a single person who got punished for talking about XT? Because this is what censorship is.
You get killed (hello North Korea) for doing things that are not allowed. XT discussions are allowed in this forum, in the altcoin section. This was never, and is never going to be censorship.

Really? You are putting out the "but North Korea is worse"-card? You must be really desperate.
Fact is, threads r/bitcoin got deleted. That is censorship. If it is a private forum, doesn't matter at all in the definition of censorship. Look it up at at Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

So, could you please don't change the definition of words, just because it suits your agenda?

I wish i can invite Lauda to my house one day for a cup of tea. We can talk all kind of stuff. But as soon as she/he mention bip100, i will slap his/her face. Ask a question why? another slap to the face.... keep going with the topic and i will kick her/his bottoms so hard , she/he can barely work.

Its not censorship at all you know.
 

Of course not. It's your house 

[VeritasSapere]

Enough with this hyprocrisy. You are free to choose but not to talk about it on the main forum right?

Give us a break.

I'm pretty sure that anyone calling out for censorship has no idea what that is. You are not free to talk about it? Name me a single person who got punished for talking about XT? Because this is what censorship is.
You get killed (hello North Korea) for doing things that are not allowed. XT discussions are allowed in this forum, in the altcoin section. This was never, and is never going to be censorship.

Really? You are putting out the "but North Korea is worse"-card? You must be really desperate.
Fact is, threads r/bitcoin got deleted. That is censorship. If it is a private forum, doesn't matter at all in the definition of censorship. Look it up at at Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

So, could you please don't change the definition of words, just because it suits your agenda?

I wish i can invite Lauda to my house one day for a cup of tea. We can talk all kind of stuff. But as soon as she/he mention bip100, i will slap his/her face. Ask a question why? another slap to the face.... keep going with the topic and i will kick her/his bottoms so hard , she/he can barely work.

Its not censorship at all you know.
 

Of course not. It's your house 

There is a big difference to when a government commits censorship compared to when a private entity does. However even though a private entity has the right to censor its own space, in the same way that you could do so in your own home. It does not however follow that such action is justified, it is not. It is the wrong thing to do even if you have the right to do it.

[meono]

Enough with this hyprocrisy. You are free to choose but not to talk about it on the main forum right?

Give us a break.

I'm pretty sure that anyone calling out for censorship has no idea what that is. You are not free to talk about it? Name me a single person who got punished for talking about XT? Because this is what censorship is.
You get killed (hello North Korea) for doing things that are not allowed. XT discussions are allowed in this forum, in the altcoin section. This was never, and is never going to be censorship.

Really? You are putting out the "but North Korea is worse"-card? You must be really desperate.
Fact is, threads r/bitcoin got deleted. That is censorship. If it is a private forum, doesn't matter at all in the definition of censorship. Look it up at at Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

So, could you please don't change the definition of words, just because it suits your agenda?

I wish i can invite Lauda to my house one day for a cup of tea. We can talk all kind of stuff. But as soon as she/he mention bip100, i will slap his/her face. Ask a question why? another slap to the face.... keep going with the topic and i will kick her/his bottoms so hard , she/he can barely work.

Its not censorship at all you know.
 

Of course not. It's your house 

There is a big difference to when a government commits censorship compared to when a private entity does. However even though a private entity has the right to censor its own space, in the same way that you could do so in your own home. It does not however follow that such action is justified, it is not. It is the wrong thing to do even if you have the right to do it.

Thats exactly the point.

Go around and tell ppl, thats not censorship because its private property is absurdly dumb,

[brg444]

1. Again:  This was debated for 3 years.   Gavin was forced to release something with Mike Hearn
because Greg and the kids on the blockstream wouldn't play ball.   If they really wanted to
release something, they would have worked with Gavin so the solution is more to their preferences.  Either
their interests in Blockstream prevented that, or they lack leadership/communication/team
skills.  Either way is a problem.  I think when you boil it down, they just don't see the urgency
as Gavin does.  Maybe that's because of their other solutions like the lightening network.
Maybe they are willing to stall Bitcoin and take bigger risks.  They don't want to take technical
risks purportedly, but they are willing to risk slowing down adoption.  There is a risk/reward.
and part of their reward is blockstream business activities.  This is what you seem to deny.

Absolutely not what happened. You can read about it here.

As far as the rest of the post your are just making an ass of yourself again making all kinds of disingenuous assumptions.

2.  This leads to the next point.  Gavin says a fix is urgently needed.
I say an imperfect fix IS better than no solution.  Gavin
essentially said "Core devs won't agree, but we need bigger blocks,
so I'm going to do the best thing I can and release Bip 101 on Mike's fork."
No one ever said Bip 101 was perfect, but who are you to say its "broken"
and its worse than no solution?  I guess you know more about bitcoin than
Gavin so we should listen to you.  
---  

That you fell into the "urgency" trap does not mean everyone is stupid enough to do so.

You can find various explanations on the web as to why it is broken. In short: an arbitrary limit (8MB) picked out of a chinese fortune cookie and an absolutely irresponsible activation threshold (75%)

The only way your position even makes sense is if you truly believe its not
important to have bigger blocks asap.  It must mean you agree with the devs
who aren't ready to raise the limit. Somehow it doesn't scare you.  You're not
worried about scalability.  Again, risk/reward.  But you won't be getting the
rewards that blockstream and its investors get by taking their side. 

Have you taken a looked at the average block size recently? We've been averaging less than 500kb for most of the year. Considering this, I indeed fail to see the need for "bigger blocks asap"

But you won't be getting the rewards that blockstream and its investors get by taking their side. 

 

[jonald_fyookball]

I cant change your beliefs that we dont need bigger blocks but fortunately the miners are already voting on bigger blocks so I really dont care.

[iCEBREAKER]

You don't seem to grasp the confilct of interest between blocksteam and Core development. I doubt you someday will because you don't seem to know what a conflict of interest actually is. That's OK.

Repeating the 'Vast Blockstream Conspiracy' rumor won't make it true.

Blockstream is scaling Bitcoin in ways far more effective than XT's naive, ham-fisted, derpy 'duh just make the block moar big' approach.

Their Scaling Bitcoin workshops represent the proper way to gather information, share expertise, compare notes, find common ground, identify irreconcilable differences, and ultimately begin to move *with consensus* toward the goal of supporting more transactions, without sacrificing Bitcoin's unique distinguishing features.

Like it or not, at present Dr. Backamoto is effectively Bitcoin's CTO just as gmax is Bitcoin's Chief Scientist.  

While Gavin and Hearn are busy splitting the community into mutually-destructive warring factions, Blockstream is doing amazing things at the frontier of computer science and cryptography.

EG, https://blockstream.com/2015/08/24/treesignatures/

[knight22]

You don't seem to grasp the confilct of interest between blocksteam and Core development. I doubt you someday will because you don't seem to know what a conflict of interest actually is. That's OK.

Repeating the 'Vast Blockstream Conspiracy' rumor won't make it true.

Blockstream is scaling Bitcoin in ways far more effective than XT's naive, ham-fisted, derpy 'duh just make the block moar big' approach.

Their Scaling Bitcoin workshops represent the proper way to gather information, share expertise, compare notes, find common ground, identify irreconcilable differences, and ultimately begin to move *with consensus* toward the goal of supporting more transactions, without sacrificing Bitcoin's unique distinguishing features.

Like it or not, at present Dr. Backamoto is effectively Bitcoin's CTO just as gmax is Bitcoin's Chief Scientist.   

While Gavin and Hearn are busy splitting the community into warring factions, Blockstream is doing amazing things at the frontier of computer science and cryptography.

EG, https://blockstream.com/2015/08/24/treesignatures/

Breadwallet just disagree with you:

https://twitter.com/breadwalletapp/status/636548340595843072

I hope you don't use it! 

[jonald_fyookball]

You don't seem to grasp the confilct of interest between blocksteam and Core development. I doubt you someday will because you don't seem to know what a conflict of interest actually is. That's OK.

Repeating the 'Vast Blockstream Conspiracy' rumor won't make it true.

Blockstream is scaling Bitcoin in ways far more effective than XT's naive, ham-fisted, derpy 'duh just make the block moar big' approach.

Their Scaling Bitcoin workshops represent the proper way to gather information, share expertise, compare notes, find common ground, identify irreconcilable differences, and ultimately begin to move *with consensus* toward the goal of supporting more transactions, without sacrificing Bitcoin's unique distinguishing features.

Like it or not, at present Dr. Backamoto is effectively Bitcoin's CTO just as gmax is Bitcoin's Chief Scientist.   

While Gavin and Hearn are busy splitting the community into warring factions, Blockstream is doing amazing things at the frontier of computer science and cryptography.

EG, https://blockstream.com/2015/08/24/treesignatures/

They are brilliant guys for sure.  However, your post is just an ad hominem that has nothing to do with the conflict of interest issue.

[johnyj]

As long as there is fiat money, people will always first spend it since it is inflationary, so the scenario that bitcoin used for daily spending at large scale will never realize

Then the major usage left are long term saving and international remittance, both happens at very large size (over $100) and very low frequency (once a week/month)

In fact, majority of the transactions today in bitcoin network are pools paying miners and speculators deposit/withdraw from exchanges/gambling sites.

Gambling sites could occupy large amount of transaction capacity of the blockchain, how to move their large amount of traffic offline is a challenge, maybe they should cooperate with bitcoin exchanges and do internal settlement without direct receiving coins from individual users

[brg444]

As long as there is fiat money, people will always first spend it since it is inflationary, so the scenario that bitcoin used for daily spending at large scale will never realize

Then the major usage left are long term saving and international remittance, both happens at very large size (over $100) and very low frequency (once a week/month)

In fact, majority of the transactions today in bitcoin network are pools paying miners and speculators deposit/withdraw from exchanges/gambling sites.

Gambling sites could occupy large amount of transaction capacity for blockchain, how to move their large amount of traffic offline is a challenge, maybe they should cooperate with bitcoin exchanges and do internal settlement without direct receiving coins from individual users

Fantastic post! Absolutely lucid and rational for once.

[knight22]

As long as there is fiat money, people will always first spend it since it is inflationary, so the scenario that bitcoin used for daily spending at large scale will never realize

Then the major usage left are long term saving and international remittance, both happens at very large size (over $100) and very low frequency (once a week/month)

In fact, majority of the transactions today in bitcoin network are pools paying miners and speculators deposit/withdraw from exchanges/gambling sites.

Gambling sites could occupy large amount of transaction capacity for blockchain, how to move their large amount of traffic offline is a challenge, maybe they should cooperate with bitcoin exchanges and do internal settlement without direct receiving coins from individual users

And what case do you make about decentralized app that will rely on the blockchain? i.e. OpenBazaar and Joystream?

Crippling the blockchain would just cripple what you can build on top of it. 

[johnyj]

As long as there is fiat money, people will always first spend it since it is inflationary, so the scenario that bitcoin used for daily spending at large scale will never realize

Then the major usage left are long term saving and international remittance, both happens at very large size (over $100) and very low frequency (once a week/month)

In fact, majority of the transactions today in bitcoin network are pools paying miners and speculators deposit/withdraw from exchanges/gambling sites.

Gambling sites could occupy large amount of transaction capacity for blockchain, how to move their large amount of traffic offline is a challenge, maybe they should cooperate with bitcoin exchanges and do internal settlement without direct receiving coins from individual users

And what case do you make about decentralized app that will rely on the blockchain? i.e. OpenBazaar and Joystream?

Crippling the blockchain would just cripple what you can build on top of it. 

IMO, decentralized trading platform has been promoted for some years but never gained enough traction. This is largely due to the fact that no one want to send the money/goods first, and there are many complex scam/theft schemes in payments, which makes the dispute impossible without the involvement of authorities, but when you have authorities that can rely on, you don't really need decentralized trading anymore

[brg444]

As long as there is fiat money, people will always first spend it since it is inflationary, so the scenario that bitcoin used for daily spending at large scale will never realize

Then the major usage left are long term saving and international remittance, both happens at very large size (over $100) and very low frequency (once a week/month)

In fact, majority of the transactions today in bitcoin network are pools paying miners and speculators deposit/withdraw from exchanges/gambling sites.

Gambling sites could occupy large amount of transaction capacity for blockchain, how to move their large amount of traffic offline is a challenge, maybe they should cooperate with bitcoin exchanges and do internal settlement without direct receiving coins from individual users

And what case do you make about decentralized app that will rely on the blockchain? i.e. OpenBazaar and Joystream?

Crippling the blockchain would just cripple what you can build on top of it. 

Sounds like the logic of a crippled brain   How dare you reply to such a brilliant post with such a bland comment?

If OpenBazaar behave they can get a private, anonymity supported sidechain straight out of Blockstream Labs and run their own Lightning hub  

 

[knight22]

As long as there is fiat money, people will always first spend it since it is inflationary, so the scenario that bitcoin used for daily spending at large scale will never realize

Then the major usage left are long term saving and international remittance, both happens at very large size (over $100) and very low frequency (once a week/month)

In fact, majority of the transactions today in bitcoin network are pools paying miners and speculators deposit/withdraw from exchanges/gambling sites.

Gambling sites could occupy large amount of transaction capacity for blockchain, how to move their large amount of traffic offline is a challenge, maybe they should cooperate with bitcoin exchanges and do internal settlement without direct receiving coins from individual users

And what case do you make about decentralized app that will rely on the blockchain? i.e. OpenBazaar and Joystream?

Crippling the blockchain would just cripple what you can build on top of it. 

Sounds like the logic of a crippled brain   How dare you reply to such a brilliant post with such a bland comment?

If OpenBazaar behave they can get a private, anonymity supported sidechain straight out of Blockstream Labs and run their own Lightning hub  

 

That's really cool but the fact is OpenBazaar will deliver much faster than blockstream will.

[brg444]

As long as there is fiat money, people will always first spend it since it is inflationary, so the scenario that bitcoin used for daily spending at large scale will never realize

Then the major usage left are long term saving and international remittance, both happens at very large size (over $100) and very low frequency (once a week/month)

In fact, majority of the transactions today in bitcoin network are pools paying miners and speculators deposit/withdraw from exchanges/gambling sites.

Gambling sites could occupy large amount of transaction capacity for blockchain, how to move their large amount of traffic offline is a challenge, maybe they should cooperate with bitcoin exchanges and do internal settlement without direct receiving coins from individual users

And what case do you make about decentralized app that will rely on the blockchain? i.e. OpenBazaar and Joystream?

Crippling the blockchain would just cripple what you can build on top of it.  

Sounds like the logic of a crippled brain   How dare you reply to such a brilliant post with such a bland comment?

If OpenBazaar behave they can get a private, anonymity supported sidechain straight out of Blockstream Labs and run their own Lightning hub  

 

That's really cool but the fact is OpenBazaar will deliver much faster than blockstream will.

I would imagine since they got a jump start from code they didn't write  

I also imagine you are convince hordes of consumers will rush to use OpenBazaar as soon as they officially launch, right?

[knight22]

As long as there is fiat money, people will always first spend it since it is inflationary, so the scenario that bitcoin used for daily spending at large scale will never realize

Then the major usage left are long term saving and international remittance, both happens at very large size (over $100) and very low frequency (once a week/month)

In fact, majority of the transactions today in bitcoin network are pools paying miners and speculators deposit/withdraw from exchanges/gambling sites.

Gambling sites could occupy large amount of transaction capacity for blockchain, how to move their large amount of traffic offline is a challenge, maybe they should cooperate with bitcoin exchanges and do internal settlement without direct receiving coins from individual users

And what case do you make about decentralized app that will rely on the blockchain? i.e. OpenBazaar and Joystream?

Crippling the blockchain would just cripple what you can build on top of it. 

IMO, decentralized trading platform has been promoted for some years but never gained enough traction. This is largely due to the fact that no one want to send the money/goods first, and there are many complex scam/theft schemes in payments, which makes the dispute impossible without the involvement of authorities, but when you have authorities that can rely on, you don't really need decentralized trading anymore

This is not a valid point. first decentralized trading platform have never been fully implemented before. You should read more about OpenBazaar, they received 1M$ investment and launching this fall. Joystream is another different beast where you point really don't stand.

[Eastwind]

Block chain size has to increase to accommodate large transaction by people. If somebody wants faster transition, they can sidechain.

[knight22]

As long as there is fiat money, people will always first spend it since it is inflationary, so the scenario that bitcoin used for daily spending at large scale will never realize

Then the major usage left are long term saving and international remittance, both happens at very large size (over $100) and very low frequency (once a week/month)

In fact, majority of the transactions today in bitcoin network are pools paying miners and speculators deposit/withdraw from exchanges/gambling sites.

Gambling sites could occupy large amount of transaction capacity for blockchain, how to move their large amount of traffic offline is a challenge, maybe they should cooperate with bitcoin exchanges and do internal settlement without direct receiving coins from individual users

And what case do you make about decentralized app that will rely on the blockchain? i.e. OpenBazaar and Joystream?

Crippling the blockchain would just cripple what you can build on top of it.  

Sounds like the logic of a crippled brain   How dare you reply to such a brilliant post with such a bland comment?

If OpenBazaar behave they can get a private, anonymity supported sidechain straight out of Blockstream Labs and run their own Lightning hub  

 

That's really cool but the fact is OpenBazaar will deliver much faster than blockstream will.

I would imagine since they got a jump start from code they didn't write  

I also imagine you are convince hordes of consumers will rush to use OpenBazaar as soon as they officially launch, right?

And you think people will rush into unproven concept / untested sidechains right from their launch?  

[brg444]

As long as there is fiat money, people will always first spend it since it is inflationary, so the scenario that bitcoin used for daily spending at large scale will never realize

Then the major usage left are long term saving and international remittance, both happens at very large size (over $100) and very low frequency (once a week/month)

In fact, majority of the transactions today in bitcoin network are pools paying miners and speculators deposit/withdraw from exchanges/gambling sites.

Gambling sites could occupy large amount of transaction capacity for blockchain, how to move their large amount of traffic offline is a challenge, maybe they should cooperate with bitcoin exchanges and do internal settlement without direct receiving coins from individual users

And what case do you make about decentralized app that will rely on the blockchain? i.e. OpenBazaar and Joystream?

Crippling the blockchain would just cripple what you can build on top of it.  

Sounds like the logic of a crippled brain   How dare you reply to such a brilliant post with such a bland comment?

If OpenBazaar behave they can get a private, anonymity supported sidechain straight out of Blockstream Labs and run their own Lightning hub  

 

That's really cool but the fact is OpenBazaar will deliver much faster than blockstream will.

I would imagine since they got a jump start from code they didn't write  

I also imagine you are convince hordes of consumers will rush to use OpenBazaar as soon as they officially launch, right?

And you think people will rush into unproven concept / untested sidechains right from their launch?  

I don't see where I said that? I'd be much more interested in an anonymous sidechain than crypto-ebay though to be honest...

The issue is the premise of your argument is that Open Bazaar hugely popular market place might get choked out of transaction room.

I advise your to get rid of these disease that is trying to satisfy inexisting demand because "I swear" mass adoption is coming. To quote:

But this mass thing is so not going to happen anyway, even if you "scale it" in advance. Sry but wake up, in its current form, bitcoin is out of the reach of regular sheeple.

People are too much anticipating, buying the fake dreams of them Antonopoulos, Gavin, Hearn et al., saving the planet with free insta-frappucinos.

[johnyj]

IMO, decentralized trading platform has been promoted for some years but never gained enough traction. This is largely due to the fact that no one want to send the money/goods first, and there are many complex scam/theft schemes in payments, which makes the dispute impossible without the involvement of authorities, but when you have authorities that can rely on, you don't really need decentralized trading anymore

This is not a valid point. first decentralized trading platform have never been fully implemented before. You should read more about OpenBazaar, they received 1M$ investment and launching this fall. Joystream is another different beast where you point really don't stand.

A simple example: Someone bought 1 bitcoin from you on OpenBazaar, paid $230 to your bank account, you release the coin to him. The next day, you found out that your bank account is frozen and police called you for an investigation, because the money is hacked from another bank account

How can you mitigate such kind of risk? You must make sure the money is sent from the users own account by asking him to upload his account screenshot together with his ID card. But normally users will refuse to show their ID card to a stranger on a decentralized platform, they would only show it to a well known registered finance institution which have strict rules for customer privacy protection

[knight22]

As long as there is fiat money, people will always first spend it since it is inflationary, so the scenario that bitcoin used for daily spending at large scale will never realize

Then the major usage left are long term saving and international remittance, both happens at very large size (over $100) and very low frequency (once a week/month)

In fact, majority of the transactions today in bitcoin network are pools paying miners and speculators deposit/withdraw from exchanges/gambling sites.

Gambling sites could occupy large amount of transaction capacity for blockchain, how to move their large amount of traffic offline is a challenge, maybe they should cooperate with bitcoin exchanges and do internal settlement without direct receiving coins from individual users

And what case do you make about decentralized app that will rely on the blockchain? i.e. OpenBazaar and Joystream?

Crippling the blockchain would just cripple what you can build on top of it.  

Sounds like the logic of a crippled brain   How dare you reply to such a brilliant post with such a bland comment?

If OpenBazaar behave they can get a private, anonymity supported sidechain straight out of Blockstream Labs and run their own Lightning hub  

 

That's really cool but the fact is OpenBazaar will deliver much faster than blockstream will.

I would imagine since they got a jump start from code they didn't write  

I also imagine you are convince hordes of consumers will rush to use OpenBazaar as soon as they officially launch, right?

And you think people will rush into unproven concept / untested sidechains right from their launch?  

I don't see where I said that? I'd be much more interested in an anonymous sidechain than crypto-ebay though to be honest...

The issue is the premise of your argument is that Open Bazaar hugely popular market place might get choked out of transaction room.

I advise your to get rid of these disease that is trying to satisfy inexisting demand because "I swear" mass adoption is coming. To quote:

But this mass thing is so not going to happen anyway, even if you "scale it" in advance. Sry but wake up, in its current form, bitcoin is out of the reach of regular sheeple.

People are too much anticipating, buying the fake dreams of them Antonopoulos, Gavin, Hearn et al., saving the planet with free insta-frappucinos.

I never made the claim that mainstream was coming by tomorrow. The thing is that you and I don't know exactly from where it will come and when. Will it come from a killer app? A monetary crisis? A mass marketeer campaign by the big boys? We don't know. What I do know though is that it will NEVER happen before we let enough room for it to happen.

[knight22]

IMO, decentralized trading platform has been promoted for some years but never gained enough traction. This is largely due to the fact that no one want to send the money/goods first, and there are many complex scam/theft schemes in payments, which makes the dispute impossible without the involvement of authorities, but when you have authorities that can rely on, you don't really need decentralized trading anymore

This is not a valid point. first decentralized trading platform have never been fully implemented before. You should read more about OpenBazaar, they received 1M$ investment and launching this fall. Joystream is another different beast where you point really don't stand.

A simple example: Someone bought 1 bitcoin from you on OpenBazaar, paid $230 to your bank account, you release the coin to him. The next day, you found out that your bank account is frozen and police called you for an investigation, because the money is hacked from another bank account

How can you mitigate such kind of risk? You must make sure the money is sent from the users own account by asking him to upload his account screenshot together with his ID card. But normally users will refuse to show their ID card to a stranger on a decentralized platform, they would only show it to a well known registered finance institution which have strict rules for customer privacy protection

OpenBazaar is not a trading platform to exchange fiat (although you could with fairly high risk). It is a decentralized platform to sell good and services being paid off with bitcoin with 3 optional kind of decentralized escrow system.

[iCEBREAKER]

You don't seem to grasp the confilct of interest between blocksteam and Core development. I doubt you someday will because you don't seem to know what a conflict of interest actually is. That's OK.

Repeating the 'Vast Blockstream Conspiracy' rumor won't make it true.

Blockstream is scaling Bitcoin in ways far more effective than XT's naive, ham-fisted, derpy 'duh just make the block moar big' approach.

Their Scaling Bitcoin workshops represent the proper way to gather information, share expertise, compare notes, find common ground, identify irreconcilable differences, and ultimately begin to move *with consensus* toward the goal of supporting more transactions, without sacrificing Bitcoin's unique distinguishing features.

Like it or not, at present Dr. Backamoto is effectively Bitcoin's CTO just as gmax is Bitcoin's Chief Scientist.   

While Gavin and Hearn are busy splitting the community into warring factions, Blockstream is doing amazing things at the frontier of computer science and cryptography.

EG, https://blockstream.com/2015/08/24/treesignatures/

They are brilliant guys for sure.  However, your post is just an ad hominem that has nothing to do with the conflict of interest issue.

Accusing Blockstream devs of conflicting interests is an ad hominem attack, especially given their years of contributions in scaling Bitcoin to 1MB.

My posts demonstrates a confluence of interests between Blockstream and Bitcoin, which dispels OP's fuzzy evidence-free accusations of impropriety.

[knight22]

You don't seem to grasp the confilct of interest between blocksteam and Core development. I doubt you someday will because you don't seem to know what a conflict of interest actually is. That's OK.

Repeating the 'Vast Blockstream Conspiracy' rumor won't make it true.

Blockstream is scaling Bitcoin in ways far more effective than XT's naive, ham-fisted, derpy 'duh just make the block moar big' approach.

Their Scaling Bitcoin workshops represent the proper way to gather information, share expertise, compare notes, find common ground, identify irreconcilable differences, and ultimately begin to move *with consensus* toward the goal of supporting more transactions, without sacrificing Bitcoin's unique distinguishing features.

Like it or not, at present Dr. Backamoto is effectively Bitcoin's CTO just as gmax is Bitcoin's Chief Scientist.  

While Gavin and Hearn are busy splitting the community into warring factions, Blockstream is doing amazing things at the frontier of computer science and cryptography.

EG, https://blockstream.com/2015/08/24/treesignatures/

They are brilliant guys for sure.  However, your post is just an ad hominem that has nothing to do with the conflict of interest issue.

Accusing Blockstream devs of conflicting interests is an ad hominem attack, especially given their years of contributions in scaling Bitcoin to 1MB.

My posts demonstrates a confluence of interests between Blockstream and Bitcoin, which dispels OP's fuzzy evidence-free accusations of impropriety.

You can't accuse someone for being in conflict of interest. It is simply a position someone is in. It doesn't tell if that person is ill intended or not and will abuse of that position or not. Therefore exposing a conflict of interest is not an ad hominem attack. It is simply a matter of fact. You can choose to trust that person or not.

In this case you choose to trust blockstream while some here don't. Let me ask you: why should we trust them in the first place?

[jonald_fyookball]

Icebreaker,

"ad hominem" means relating to a specific person.  We were talking about whether
people who are core devs have an conflict of interest with a private VC backed
company.  THAT is the issue.  You were the one who started praising 'Backamoto'
and 'gmax' while bashing Gavin and Hearn.  so those comments were ad hominem
and have nothing to do with the issue.

For the record, I greatly respect Greg Maxwell, Adam, and all those guys.  However,
they are not great communicators and have not been very transparent about Blockstream.
Maybe they have expressed some opinions on some dev mailing list or IRC but certainly
nothing clear that I've seen.   As a general member of the Bitcoin community,
I haven't heard much from them.  Maybe they don't care.
On the other hand, I've seen very clear and cogent videos
and articles from both Gavin and Mike Hearn.  

Therefore it shouldn't be surprising that
 I'm utterly unconvinced about this 'confluence of interests' of which you speak,
given their lack of communication and apparent stonewalling of the blocksize increase
(which has been discussed to death).

If you are convinced, great.  More power to you.

[johnyj]

A simple example: Someone bought 1 bitcoin from you on OpenBazaar, paid $230 to your bank account, you release the coin to him. The next day, you found out that your bank account is frozen and police called you for an investigation, because the money is hacked from another bank account

How can you mitigate such kind of risk? You must make sure the money is sent from the users own account by asking him to upload his account screenshot together with his ID card. But normally users will refuse to show their ID card to a stranger on a decentralized platform, they would only show it to a well known registered finance institution which have strict rules for customer privacy protection

OpenBazaar is not a trading platform to exchange fiat (although you could with fairly high risk). It is a decentralized platform to sell good and services being paid off with bitcoin with 3 optional kind of decentralized escrow system.

It's the same, you bought something stolen, or some one were cheated to pay bitcoin to you and never get any delivery, while the scammer get goods delivered from you. Man-in-the-middle attack will be very popular on this kind of platform when there is no central authority make sure the legitimacy of each transaction

[knight22]

A simple example: Someone bought 1 bitcoin from you on OpenBazaar, paid $230 to your bank account, you release the coin to him. The next day, you found out that your bank account is frozen and police called you for an investigation, because the money is hacked from another bank account

How can you mitigate such kind of risk? You must make sure the money is sent from the users own account by asking him to upload his account screenshot together with his ID card. But normally users will refuse to show their ID card to a stranger on a decentralized platform, they would only show it to a well known registered finance institution which have strict rules for customer privacy protection

OpenBazaar is not a trading platform to exchange fiat (although you could with fairly high risk). It is a decentralized platform to sell good and services being paid off with bitcoin with 3 optional kind of decentralized escrow system.

It's the same, you bought something stolen, or some one were cheated to pay bitcoin to you and never get any delivery, while the scammer get goods delivered from you. Man-in-the-middle attack will be very popular on this kind of platform when there is no central authority make sure the legitimacy of each transaction

Everything have been discussed in length about the escrow and reputation system to ensure an E-Bay like security. I invite you to read more about OB. Of course it won't be risk free, nor is E-Bay.

[iCEBREAKER]

Breadwallet just disagree with you:

https://twitter.com/breadwalletapp/status/636548340595843072

I hope you don't use it! 

Is Breadwallet willing to be the first to defect from Core and start accepting XTcoins?

No?  Then they are useless posers, typical of XT's 'mile-wide but inch-deep' crowd of fair weather first world armchair insurgents.

None of them are willing to go first.  They all want somebody else to take that risk.

Also, Breadwallet's popular appeals to "support among bitcoin users and service providers" is not merely irrelevant but also betrays their lack of understanding w/r/t how Bitcoin works.

Has it escaped your attention that Slush is spoofing BIP101 blocks, and to date *ZERO* actual XT/NotXT nodes have mined a block?

XT/BIP101 are dead.  Szaboshi just put them out of their misery:

#R3KT

[knight22]

Breadwallet just disagree with you:

https://twitter.com/breadwalletapp/status/636548340595843072

I hope you don't use it! 

Is Breadwallet willing to be the first to defect from Core and start accepting XTcoins?

No?  Then they are useless posers, typical of XT's 'mile-wide but inch-deep' crowd of fair weather first world armchair insurgents.

None of them are willing to go first.  They all want somebody else to take that risk.

Also, Breadwallet's popular appeals to "support among bitcoin users and service providers" is not merely irrelevant but also betrays their lack of understanding w/r/t how Bitcoin works.

Has it escaped your attention that Slush is spoofing BIP101 blocks, and to date *ZERO* actual XT/NotXT nodes have mined a block?

XT/BIP101 are dead.  Szaboshi just put them out of their misery:

#R3KT

This is the most stupidest answer I could ever imagine about the block size. The block size in not exchangeable. The block size as no value per se.

Hey icebreaker, want to trade some block size? 

[iCEBREAKER]

You were the one who started praising 'Backamoto' and 'gmax' while bashing Gavin and Hearn.  so those comments were ad hominem and have nothing to do with the issue.

I am praising the actions (IE HashCash/sidechains/lightning/tree sigs/CT) of Backamoto and gmax (and pwuille).

Recognizing their demonstrated (via those actions) expertise is not the same as 'gee aren't they swell guys' ad hom.

The same goes for gavin@tla.mit.gov and hearn@sigint.google.mil.  I DGAF about their personalities because I'm too busy being amused and entertained by their ill-advised shitlord fail-clown antics (and thus demonstrated lack of expertise relative to Blockstream).

[tvbcof]

This is the most stupidest answer I could ever imagine about the block size. The block size in not exchangeable. The block size as no value per se.

Hey icebreaker, want to trade some block size? 

I do.  Fork the motherfucker and I'll split my coins and sell off the XTcoin's ASAP.  If I can find anyone dumb enough to take them and the market doesn't take to big a dump before I can get in the game.

XT has one chance:  The govt mandates its' use as part of a crypto-currency license.  In that case all of the corporate vendors and Coinbase's and such will have no real choice to comply or close shop.  This is not outside the realm of possibility actually.  To save us all from them evil terrorists and Chinese miners and so on.  Unfortunately a lot of people would swallow that one hook-line-and-sinker I'll bet.

[jonald_fyookball]

You were the one who started praising 'Backamoto' and 'gmax' while bashing Gavin and Hearn.  so those comments were ad hominem and have nothing to do with the issue.

I am praising the actions (IE HashCash/sidechains/lightning/tree sigs/CT) of Backamoto and gmax (and pwuille).

Recognizing their demonstrated (via those actions) expertise is not the same as 'gee aren't they swell guys' ad hom.

The same goes for gavin@tla.mit.gov and hearn@sigint.google.mil.  I DGAF about their personalities because I'm too busy being amused and entertained by their ill-advised shitlord fail-clown antics (and thus demonstrated lack of expertise relative to Blockstream).

I seriously doubt you are qualified to make a technical judgement about Hearn's or Gavin's technical abilities.  
I may not be either, but I know they both have concrete technical accomplishments in the Bitcoin space, so you sound foolish.  ....And this still has nothing to do with the issue.

Go argue with someone else please.

[tvbcof]

I seriously doubt you are qualified to make a technical judgement about Hearn's or Gavin's technical abilities.  
I may not be either, but I know they both have concrete technical accomplishments in the Bitcoin space, so you sound foolish.  ....And this still has nothing to do with the issue.
...

Examples?

[jonald_fyookball]

I seriously doubt you are qualified to make a technical judgement about Hearn's or Gavin's technical abilities.  
I may not be either, but I know they both have concrete technical accomplishments in the Bitcoin space, so you sound foolish.  ....And this still has nothing to do with the issue.
...

Examples?

I'm just shaking my head here that you would even ask that.
For starters, Gavin has more code commits on Bitcoin core
than Greg Maxwell, Peter Todd, Jeff Garzik, and Luke Jr
combined.

Debating you on this would be moronic and I'm not going to do it.

[megadeth]

I seriously doubt you are qualified to make a technical judgement about Hearn's or Gavin's technical abilities.  
I may not be either, but I know they both have concrete technical accomplishments in the Bitcoin space, so you sound foolish.  ....And this still has nothing to do with the issue.
...

Examples?

Rough recollection after reading reddit/fora (I could be wrong).
Mike: Adding levelDB, implementing bitcoinJ
Gavin: Relay network proposal?, counting codes on blocks to trigger fork in xt
For both: Code reviewing a lot of core code  

[iCEBREAKER]

You were the one who started praising 'Backamoto' and 'gmax' while bashing Gavin and Hearn.  so those comments were ad hominem and have nothing to do with the issue.

I am praising the actions (IE HashCash/sidechains/lightning/tree sigs/CT) of Backamoto and gmax (and pwuille).

Recognizing their demonstrated (via those actions) expertise is not the same as 'gee aren't they swell guys' ad hom.

The same goes for gavin@tla.mit.gov and hearn@sigint.google.mil.  I DGAF about their personalities because I'm too busy being amused and entertained by their ill-advised shitlord fail-clown antics (and thus demonstrated lack of expertise relative to Blockstream).

I seriously doubt you are qualified to make a technical judgement about Hearn's or Gavin's technical abilities.  
I may not be either, but I know they both have concrete technical accomplishments in the Bitcoin space, so you sound foolish.  ....And this still has nothing to do with the issue.

Go argue with someone else please.

jonald_fyookball   Date Registered:    March 02, 2014

I seriously doubt you are qualified to make a technical judgement about my technical judgement abilities.

Go assclown somewhere else please.  I hear voat/v/bitcoinxt is looking for new members, as is bitco.in's tiny disgruntled splinter group.   

#R3KT

[knight22]

You were the one who started praising 'Backamoto' and 'gmax' while bashing Gavin and Hearn.  so those comments were ad hominem and have nothing to do with the issue.

I am praising the actions (IE HashCash/sidechains/lightning/tree sigs/CT) of Backamoto and gmax (and pwuille).

Recognizing their demonstrated (via those actions) expertise is not the same as 'gee aren't they swell guys' ad hom.

The same goes for gavin@tla.mit.gov and hearn@sigint.google.mil.  I DGAF about their personalities because I'm too busy being amused and entertained by their ill-advised shitlord fail-clown antics (and thus demonstrated lack of expertise relative to Blockstream).

I seriously doubt you are qualified to make a technical judgement about Hearn's or Gavin's technical abilities.  
I may not be either, but I know they both have concrete technical accomplishments in the Bitcoin space, so you sound foolish.  ....And this still has nothing to do with the issue.

Go argue with someone else please.

jonald_fyookball   Date Registered:    March 02, 2014

I seriously doubt you are qualified to make a technical judgement about my technical judgement abilities.

Go assclown somewhere else please.  I hear voat/v/bitcoinxt is looking for new members, as is bitco.in's tiny disgruntled splinter group.   

#R3KT

What does that change exactly?

[jonald_fyookball]

"Don’t argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." 

[tvbcof]

I seriously doubt you are qualified to make a technical judgement about Hearn's or Gavin's technical abilities.  
I may not be either, but I know they both have concrete technical accomplishments in the Bitcoin space, so you sound foolish.  ....And this still has nothing to do with the issue.
...

Examples?

Rough recollection after reading reddit/fora (I could be wrong).
Mike: Adding levelDB, implementing bitcoinJ
Gavin: Relay network proposal?, counting codes on blocks to trigger fork in xt
For both: Code reviewing a lot of core code  

I was running bitcoind at the time of the levelDB fork.  I agree that it was a helpful and necessary thing.  For a long while I credited Hearn as the driving force behind this but later I ran across info that called this into question.  I'll go ahead and leave him with the credit though.

As we know, the levelDB/BDB swap created a hard-fork accidentally.  I lay the blame for this on whoever neglected to ever even try to run Bitcoin BDB up to the point when the mis-config would have been detected.  I see that as the 'principle scientist's job.  I in fact suggested this to Gavin in person back in 2011 and he just sort of looked at me like I was from Mars.

I do credit Gavin with making the decisions necessary to get the hard-fork resolved nicely.  I had a gut sense that Hearn pushed him to 'not let a good crisis go to waste' and do something (associated with block size IIRC) which would have complicated recover and Gavin resisted.  I don't remember the full details, but that was my take-away.

I got in before QT was fully developed.  There was a primitive GUI prior based on WX iirc.  I thought that development effort would be better put toward certain other things in these early times while it was still more practical (pruning in particular.)  I've never used any GUI so it didn't matter to me very much that QT was a focus.  Ultimately I will concede that Gavin was right and I was wrong and that Bitcoin actually did need to get some more people sucked in.  The various 'sales pitches' used at the time always bothered me though as there were several mutually exclusive ones which were used simultaneously.  Now in 2015 with the latest round of block size debates this is becoming more clear.  For my part, I only recommended Bitcoin to people who had Phd's in computer science and I was perfectly up-front about the theoretical problems that lay on the horizon so my conscience is clear...at least in my mind.

One you missed was the effort to simplify addresses via x.509.  I thought that was a dreadful idea due to how certs are issued and ultimately it exposed us to the OpenSSL heartbleed bug.

Since I have NEVER seen Bitcoin as something which would scale to serve the masses or should grow beyond what could realistically be supportable in the face of global network provider attacks of the most vicious kind, I don't have any use for IBLT's (I suppose is what you mean by 'relay') and am not terribly wild about SPV anything so bitcoinj doesn't do much for me.

In general, I would say that from a mile-high view, Gavin's primary focus has been on end-user stuff which I jokingly refer to as 'talking paperclip class' stuff.  I simply don't agree with this priority.  As someone pointed out not to long ago, Hearn has had a lot of ideas but many of them seem to be of the 'redlisting class' and nearly universally despised by most of the core devs so his input has been quite modest.

That's just my take on things.  I will say that even Hearn's contribution to Bitcoin has been infinitely more significant than my own.

[megadeth]

I seriously doubt you are qualified to make a technical judgement about Hearn's or Gavin's technical abilities.  
I may not be either, but I know they both have concrete technical accomplishments in the Bitcoin space, so you sound foolish.  ....And this still has nothing to do with the issue.
...

Examples?

<snip>

I was running <snip>

Yeah I missed the bloom filtering stuff. Don't know what to think of the recent changes with wanting to making it optional on core clients.
Concur with you regarding Gavin's pro mainstream/masses features/thinking.
Mike's remains the firebrand proposing polarizing ideas. (redlisting class as you put it). I figure someone needs to step up with their learnings from a modern bigco software shop and try to apply it to Bitcoin development.

[tvbcof]

...
Mike's remains the firebrand proposing polarizing ideas. (redlisting class as you put it). I figure someone needs to step up with their learnings from a modern bigco software shop and try to apply it to Bitcoin development.

There are plenty of people 'in the wild' now who have experience with so-called 'big data.'

One of Mikes famous quotes is that Bitcoin could run just fine with 4 or 6 copies of the blockchain worldwide.  (I should find the quote and figure out if it was 4 or 6.)  This is fully true.  If/when that happens, the small integer number of entities running Bitcoin would likely set up back-channels between themselves.  Bitcoin could then easily and reliable offer real-time service.  The whole idea of a blockchain structure which is actually quite inefficient would probably be quietly abandoned as well, and at that point, who would know or care?

The question is not whether these things are possible and I am confident to say that they are.  The question is, is it a good idea for Bitcoin?

[Muhammed Zakir]

-snip-
1. Again:  This was debated for 3 years.

There was no continuous discussion. It popups and goes down. Besides, earlier, it was not important as it is now.

Gavin was forced to release something with Mike Hearn

First of all, read https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ilbit/mike_hearn_responds_to_xt_critics/cuhpil1.

Mike Hearn proposed a hardfork without consensus.

-snip-
As nothing that has been proposed so far (Lightning, merge mined chains,
extension blocks etc) has much chance of actual deployment any time soon,
that leaves raising the block size limit as the only possible path left.
Which is why there will soon be a fork that does it.

because Greg and the kids on the blockstream wouldn't play ball.   If they really wanted to
release something, they would have worked with Gavin so the solution is more to their preferences. 

Core developers said Gavin's 20 MB block size limit increase were not a good idea. They didn't say don't increase block size limit. And, it was Gavin and Mike who did not accept proposals other than Gavin's.

Either
their interests in Blockstream prevented that,

"Either Mike's and Gavin's Coinbase/Circle involvement made them do it or lack of communication/team skills." FTFY. I don't believe this though. FWIW, I am not choosing any side now.

or they lack leadership/communication/team
skills.

Mike and Gavin are the two people who in the middle of discussion proposed a hardfork without consensus.

Either way is a problem.  I think when you boil it down, they just don't see the urgency
as Gavin does.  Maybe that's because of their other solutions like the lightening network.

Urgency does not mean we should implement a bad solution of Gavin's. Applying Moore's law but it doesn't... You know what I mean!

Maybe they are willing to stall Bitcoin and take bigger risks.

But they are making progress and how can that be stalling?

They don't want to take technical
risks purportedly, but they are willing to risk slowing down adoption.

Purportedly?

Taking a technical risk is better and willing to risk slowing down adoption is better than not willing to risk slowing adoption and not taking technical risk. We should make our technical stuff better before going for adoption. Nonetheless, waiting for a solution for sometime does not slow down adoption.

There is a risk/reward.
and part of their reward is blockstream business activities.  This is what you seem to deny.

They will get their reward for working them and we, at least me, don't deny it. What I(we) deny is you telling they don't want an increase because of Blockstream. Both are false because Core developers didn't say they did not want an increase and Blockstream works work better in higher block size.

2.  This leads to the next point.

Above points are just your or other XT-supporters creation. So it does not leads to "next" point of yours.

Gavin says a fix is urgently needed.
I say an imperfect fix IS better than no solution.

I don't think we can come with a "perfect" solution but at least, we should come with a good solution. Not a solution with doubling every two years and hint Moore's law. Moore's law is not applicable anymore and it is not good to implement without proper testing.

Gavin
essentially said "Core devs won't agree, but we need bigger blocks,
so I'm going to do the best thing I can and release Bip 101 on Mike's fork."

You are right. Core developers don't agree to Gavin's solution but does that mean they are against block size limit increase? No.

No one ever said Bip 101 was perfect, but who are you to say its "broken"
and its worse than no solution?

Because Gavin used Moore's law but it is not applicable anymore.

I guess you know more about bitcoin than
Gavin so we should listen to you. 
---

Certainly not!

The only way your position even makes sense is if you truly believe its not
important to have bigger blocks asap.

Its important to have bigger block size limit but we should not implemented a bad solution.

It must mean you agree with the devs

Not really. I agree with the developers that Gavin's solution is not a good one.

who aren't ready to raise the limit.

They will implement a good solution. We will get higher block size limit soon! Miners are voting...

Somehow it doesn't scare you.

It scares me when you and others say to implement Gavin's solution.

You're not
worried about scalability.

I am worried about Bitcoin's long-term success.

Again, risk/reward.  But you won't be getting the
rewards that blockstream and its investors get by taking their side.   

I certainly get a reward. Bitcoin.

@ MZ: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability_FAQ

Sorry but I don't see any relevant answer in it. Maybe you can post here with references.

I am asking one thing to Jonald, knight22 and whoever else who is saying Core developers hired by Blockstream is only for 1 MB block size limit. Did all these Core developers actually say it?

By the way, block size or bigger blocks is not equal to bigger block size limit.

[jonald_fyookball]

@MZ,  I'm not really interested in debating a dozen points with you, as I've already expressed my views/concerns/opinions/theories/observations about these issues in this and numerous threads.
Im burned out on this whole topic and not much of anything new that I feel I can comment on. 

There are threads discussing bip 100 vs 101 in the tech section you may be interested in.

The wiki states the core devs don't strictly oppose 1mb but I still call stonewalling here given the context.  You may disagree and that's fine.  Cheers, JF

[Muhammed Zakir]

@MZ,  I'm not really interested in debating a dozen points with you, as I've already expressed my views/concerns/opinions/theories/observations about these issues in this and numerous threads.
Im burned out on this whole topic and not much of anything new that I feel I can comment on. 

There are threads discussing bip 100 vs 101 in the tech section you may be interested in.

The wiki states the core devs don't strictly oppose 1mb but I still call stonewalling here given the context.  You may disagree and that's fine.  Cheers, JF

Okay. Understood. Thank you and goog luck!

[Lauda]

I am banned from /r/bitcoin for this very reason so yeah give me a break and STFU.

Who was talking about reddit? Stop diverting the argument. I was solely talking about the forum.

Fact is, threads r/bitcoin got deleted. That is censorship. If it is a private forum, doesn't matter at all in the definition of censorship.

Read the above mentioned, and stop mentioning irrelevant information.
Update: Read bolded part. Please stop commenting my character/view directly, this is not how you discuss.

It is the wrong thing to do even if you have the right to do it.

It might be wrong because you've been taught that it is wrong. Until someone gets punished here for mentioning XT, there is no problem. If someone doesn't like it, then they are free to leave.

If we do not increase the blocksize and there is a significant increase in adoption then transacting on the main chain would become prohibitively expensive. At this point the only alternative which would provide sufficient scale is using third parties on top of Bitcoin, or you could just use another cryptocurrency.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0

I never said that the blocksize should not be increased. I'm definitely aware of this 'problem' and the potential solutions. However, someone registered the OP's account solely to talk bad about Blockstream.
Interestingly, a month back I was seeing a lot of:"XT is cancer.", everywhere.

[iCEBREAKER]

  Im burned out on this whole topic and not much of anything new that I feel I can comment on  

Oh poor you.  It must be exhausting trying to defend indefensible ideas like XT's governance coup and technically ill-advised >>1MB blocks.

Why don't you bugger off to a less strenuous knitting circle or Oprah book club, and leave this difficult topic to those of us capable of (and indeed used to) multiscale modeling the involved cryptography, systems theory, computer science, economics, and politics?

[knight22]

[img]-snip-[img]

  Im burned out on this whole topic and not much of anything new that I feel I can comment on  

Oh poor you.  It must be exhausting trying to defend indefensible ideas like XT's governance coup and technically ill-advised >>1MB blocks.

Why don't you bugger off to a less strenuous knitting circle or Oprah book club, and leave this difficult topic to those of us capable of (and indeed used to) multiscale modeling the involved cryptography, systems theory, computer science, economics, and politics?

Are you trying to make an argument? Because I don't see any.

[Peter R]

It is the wrong thing to do even if you have the right to do it.

It might be wrong because you've been taught that it is wrong. Until someone gets punished here for mentioning XT, there is no problem. If someone doesn't like it, then they are free to leave.

Cypherdoc's thread was locked after the discussion turned heavily towards XT.  A Forum Administrator claimed the reason for locking the thread was that it was too broad in scope, so maybe you won't count this as "punished here for mentioning XT":

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1157185.msg12199651#msg12199651

Anyways, he's had to relocate his thread to a new location:  

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/

[iCEBREAKER]

Anyways, he's had to relocate his thread to a new location: 

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/

Could you possibly be any more melodramatic?  "Had to relocate" makes it sound like Frap.doc was chased out (with only the clothes on his back) by violent men bearing assault rifles and German Shepards.

Frap.doc was welcome to continue his XT cheerleader thread in the proper altcoin sub.

But that wasn't good enough for him; he demanded it remain in place on the main board.

So it was locked, because there is no 'Frap.doc exemption' to the rules against altcoin shilling in the Bitcoin forum.

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/

Forum Statistics

Discussions:    22

Messages:    148

Members:    70

LOL, so much for Frap.doc's blather about network effects, Metcalfe's Law, and how altcoins are all doooomed because they dare defect from BTC's longstanding all-powerful majority.

Serves him right!   

[uxgpf]

[img]-snip-[img]

  Im burned out on this whole topic and not much of anything new that I feel I can comment on  

Oh poor you.  It must be exhausting trying to defend indefensible ideas like XT's governance coup and technically ill-advised >>1MB blocks.

Why don't you bugger off to a less strenuous knitting circle or Oprah book club, and leave this difficult topic to those of us capable of (and indeed used to) multiscale modeling the involved cryptography, systems theory, computer science, economics, and politics?

Are you trying to make an argument? Because I don't see any.

No. He's just trolling and trying to bait.

ICEBREAKER is a well known XMR troll who goes to threads of other coins to spread FUD and do personal attacks.
I'm invested in Monero, but I think his actions cause much more harm than good. (By hurting the image of that community)

[tvbcof]

Anyways, he's had to relocate his thread to a new location: 

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/

Could you possibly be any more melodramatic?  "Had to relocate" makes it sound like Frap.doc was chased out (with only the clothes on his back) by violent men bearing assault rifles and German Shepards.

Frap.doc was welcome to continue his XT cheerleader thread in the proper altcoin sub.

But that wasn't good enough for him; he demanded it remain in place on the main board.

So it was locked, because there is no 'Frap.doc exemption' to the rules against altcoin shilling in the Bitcoin forum.

Although we all delight in the lulz provided by the piteous wailings of the Gavanistas, I must voice my opposition to closing cypherdoc's epic gold thread.

 - For one, the thread was not on the 'main' board.  It was on speculation which always has been a wasteland beyond any redemption.  Even by trolltalk standards.

 - For two, that thread in particular had a long history of drifting way way way off-topic.  It was noted back in the low double digits of it's ultimate 1500 pages.

 - For three, ya, some people were shilling (probably...or at least heavily cheerleading) for XT and other alts.  Other's were countering.

 - For four, there always was a smattering of completely on-topic conversation through the long life of the thread.  It simply waxed and wained depending on how boring gold/btc prices were and how many more interesting things were on the threat board.

I myself have had a post revoked for drifting off-topic recently.  Admittedly it was the case compared to the OP, but it was relevant to the thread of conversation which was associated with shilling and possible state involvement.  I would suggest to ~theymos that one of the most compelling things about his board is that it is damn difficult to end up being censored and I imagine that a lot of people feel that way.  Some of his mods might indeed be getting a bit heavy handed.

[turvarya]

I am banned from /r/bitcoin for this very reason so yeah give me a break and STFU.

Who was talking about reddit? Stop diverting the argument. I was solely talking about the forum.

Fact is, threads r/bitcoin got deleted. That is censorship. If it is a private forum, doesn't matter at all in the definition of censorship.

Read the above mentioned, and stop mentioning irrelevant information.

It is the wrong thing to do even if you have the right to do it.

It might be wrong because you've been taught that it is wrong. Until someone gets punished here for mentioning XT, there is no problem. If someone doesn't like it, then they are free to leave.

If we do not increase the blocksize and there is a significant increase in adoption then transacting on the main chain would become prohibitively expensive. At this point the only alternative which would provide sufficient scale is using third parties on top of Bitcoin, or you could just use another cryptocurrency.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0

I never said that the blocksize should not be increased. I'm definitely aware of this 'problem' and the potential solutions. However, someone registered the OP's account solely to talk bad about Blockstream.
Interestingly, a month back I was seeing a lot of:"XT is cancer.", everywhere.

So, you are not going into, that you just used a propaganda-tactic(propaganda is not a word, that I use lightly) by changing the meaning of a word to suit your agenda?
There is also censorship in this forum, like was mentioned before. Censorship on r/bitcoin was just worse, but it was executed by the same person. So, yes, it is relevant. But you already showed, that your biased view, just doesn't allow facts, that don't suit you agenda, so, i guess, discussing with you is pointless.

[uxgpf]

Anyways, he's had to relocate his thread to a new location: 

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/

Could you possibly be any more melodramatic?  "Had to relocate" makes it sound like Frap.doc was chased out (with only the clothes on his back) by violent men bearing assault rifles and German Shepards.

Frap.doc was welcome to continue his XT cheerleader thread in the proper altcoin sub.

But that wasn't good enough for him; he demanded it remain in place on the main board.

So it was locked, because there is no 'Frap.doc exemption' to the rules against altcoin shilling in the Bitcoin forum.

Although we all delight in the lulz provided by the piteous wailings of the Gavanistas

Why do you have to resort in name calling?

We could have much more constructive discussion without all this hate and vitriol. People obiviously have different views on this subject and it doesn't help if you label everyone that disagrees with you as Gavinista or altcoiner.

I for example support a block size increase, preferably in predictable way, which is what BIP 101 provides. Whatever fork will accomplish that is good enough for me. I don't care who leads development teams or what developers personal views are, because it simply doesn't matter. Code is what matters and I will choose accordingly. I hope you can also make your choice whatever it is without attacking the people who choose differently.

[tvbcof]

Although we all delight in the lulz provided by the piteous wailings of the Gavanistas

Why do you have to resort in name calling?
...

I don't 'have to', and it would not be fair to characterize it as 'resorting' to.  Most of the time I just do it for personal pleasure and for the amusement of my comrades.  iCEBREAKER is a tough act to follow for statements exemplified by the quoted.

[Andre#]

Oh poor you.  It must be exhausting trying to defend indefensible ideas like XT's governance coup and technically ill-advised >>1MB blocks.

Why don't you bugger off to a less strenuous knitting circle or Oprah book club, and leave this difficult topic to those of us capable of (and indeed used to) multiscale modeling the involved cryptography, systems theory, computer science, economics, and politics?

Can you be any more childish? Gosh...

[Zarathustra]

Anyways, he's had to relocate his thread to a new location: 

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/

Could you possibly be any more melodramatic?  "Had to relocate" makes it sound like Frap.doc was chased out (with only the clothes on his back) by violent men bearing assault rifles and German Shepards.

Frap.doc was welcome to continue his XT cheerleader thread in the proper altcoin sub.

But that wasn't good enough for him; he demanded it remain in place on the main board.

So it was locked, because there is no 'Frap.doc exemption' to the rules against altcoin shilling in the Bitcoin forum.

Exemption? Why do you write such BS? This forum is full of unrelocated XT threads.

[meono]

[img]-snip-[img]

  Im burned out on this whole topic and not much of anything new that I feel I can comment on  

Oh poor you.  It must be exhausting trying to defend indefensible ideas like XT's governance coup and technically ill-advised >>1MB blocks.

Why don't you bugger off to a less strenuous knitting circle or Oprah book club, and leave this difficult topic to those of us capable of (and indeed used to) multiscale modeling the involved cryptography, systems theory, computer science, economics, and politics?

Are you trying to make an argument? Because I don't see any.

No. He's just trolling and trying to bait.

ICEBREAKER is a well known XMR troll who goes to threads of other coins to spread FUD and do personal attacks.
I'm invested in Monero, but I think his actions cause much more harm than good. (By hurting the image of that community)

He was also the biggest shill for the mining fraud, Hashfast.

The dude literally thinks everyone here would take him seriously.

pity for him.

[Zarathustra]

Anyways, he's had to relocate his thread to a new location:  

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/

Could you possibly be any more melodramatic?  "Had to relocate" makes it sound like Frap.doc was chased out (with only the clothes on his back) by violent men bearing assault rifles and German Shepards.

Frap.doc was welcome to continue his XT cheerleader thread in the proper altcoin sub.

But that wasn't good enough for him; he demanded it remain in place on the main board.

So it was locked, because there is no 'Frap.doc exemption' to the rules against altcoin shilling in the Bitcoin forum.

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/

Forum Statistics

Discussions:    22

Messages:    148

Members:    70

LOL, so much for Frap.doc's blather about network effects, Metcalfe's Law, and how altcoins are all doooomed because they dare defect from BTC's longstanding all-powerful majority.

Serves him right!  

Cypherdoc's new Gold thread: 2818 views
iCEBREAKER's Szabo Thread: 370 views

LOL, so much about network effects

[jonald_fyookball]

intereting. I just looked at the last page and

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-5

accusations against Greg Maxwell.

Oh geez, maybe the almighty core dev isn't as perfect
as some people think.

[Lauda]

intereting. I just looked at the last page and

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-5

accusations against Greg Maxwell.

Oh geez, maybe the almighty core dev isn't as perfect
as some people think.

This is interesting. While XT was winning, the attacks were mostly directed towards Hearn and Gavin (until this "censorship" incident occured). Now after XT is being completely ignored by the miners and partially by the industry, people have started attacking developers from the other side. Here's a fine example:

gmax has this bad habit of lying and just making stuff up

After quickly evaluating the emails that were posted publicly, I do not see a problem (not he technical parts) with them? I do see a problem with making them public, unless the other party agreed to it.
Update:

Completely ignored by the industry???

Corrected it.

[Zarathustra]

intereting. I just looked at the last page and

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-5

accusations against Greg Maxwell.

Oh geez, maybe the almighty core dev isn't as perfect
as some people think.

This is interesting. While XT was winning, the attacks were mostly directed towards Hearn and Gavin (until this "censorship" incident occured). Now after XT is being completely ignored by the miners and the industry,

Completely ignored by the industry???

[jonald_fyookball]

intereting. I just looked at the last page and

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-5

accusations against Greg Maxwell.

Oh geez, maybe the almighty core dev isn't as perfect
as some people think.

This is interesting. While XT was winning, the attacks were mostly directed towards Hearn and Gavin (until this "censorship" incident occured). Now after XT is being completely ignored by the miners and the industry, people have started attacking developers from the other side. Here's a fine example:

gmax has this bad habit of lying and just making stuff up

After quickly evaluating the emails that were posted publicly, I do not see a problem (not he technical parts) with them? I do see a problem with making them public, unless the other party agreed to it.

I think that was the issue.  I'm not even saying Greg was wrong or right...just pointing out the possibilities
that folks have biases that may not be always accurate.

[Muhammed Zakir]

It is the wrong thing to do even if you have the right to do it.

It might be wrong because you've been taught that it is wrong. Until someone gets punished here for mentioning XT, there is no problem. If someone doesn't like it, then they are free to leave.

Cypherdoc's thread was locked after the discussion turned heavily towards XT.  A Forum Administrator claimed the reason for locking the thread was that it was too broad in scope, so maybe you won't count this as "punished here for mentioning XT":

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1157185.msg12199651#msg12199651

 -snip-

Definitely, not! The thread was about Gold vs Bitcoin and thread was filled with XT discussions. You do know that off-topic posts are against forum rules, right? You are acting like a stupid person to support XT and you don't strike me as a fool, Peter!

Edit:

intereting. I just looked at the last page and

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-5

accusations against Greg Maxwell.

Oh geez, maybe the almighty core dev isn't as perfect
as some people think.

This is interesting. While XT was winning, the attacks were mostly directed towards Hearn and Gavin (until this "censorship" incident occured). Now after XT is being completely ignored by the miners and the industry, people have started attacking developers from the other side. Here's a fine example:

gmax has this bad habit of lying and just making stuff up

After quickly evaluating the emails that were posted publicly, I do not see a problem (not he technical parts) with them? I do see a problem with making them public, unless the other party agreed to it.

I think that was the issue.  I'm not even saying Greg was wrong or right...just pointing out the possibilities
that folks have biases that may not be always accurate.

Your posts don't seem like you are pointing possibilities but facts. Please correct from now on if you are just pointing possibilities!

[jonald_fyookball]

It is the wrong thing to do even if you have the right to do it.

It might be wrong because you've been taught that it is wrong. Until someone gets punished here for mentioning XT, there is no problem. If someone doesn't like it, then they are free to leave.

Cypherdoc's thread was locked after the discussion turned heavily towards XT.  A Forum Administrator claimed the reason for locking the thread was that it was too broad in scope, so maybe you won't count this as "punished here for mentioning XT":

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1157185.msg12199651#msg12199651

 -snip-

Definitely, not! The thread was about Gold vs Bitcoin and thread was filled with XT discussions. You do know that off-topic posts are against forum rules, right? You are acting like a stupid person to support XT and you don't strike me as a fool, Peter!

Edit:

intereting. I just looked at the last page and

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-5

accusations against Greg Maxwell.

Oh geez, maybe the almighty core dev isn't as perfect
as some people think.

This is interesting. While XT was winning, the attacks were mostly directed towards Hearn and Gavin (until this "censorship" incident occured). Now after XT is being completely ignored by the miners and the industry, people have started attacking developers from the other side. Here's a fine example:

gmax has this bad habit of lying and just making stuff up

After quickly evaluating the emails that were posted publicly, I do not see a problem (not he technical parts) with them? I do see a problem with making them public, unless the other party agreed to it.

I think that was the issue.  I'm not even saying Greg was wrong or right...just pointing out the possibilities
that folks have biases that may not be always accurate.

Your posts don't seem like you are pointing possibilities but facts. Please correct from now on if you are just pointing possibilities!

Huh?  I said maybe the almighty core dev isn't as perfect as some people think.
To me that sounds like expressing a possibility rather than a fact.

My posts probably just seem like facts because I'm usually on the right side of reality.   
 

 

[SirChiko]

blockstream train:

Gotta agree with this picture...what's so hard to understand on that satoshi wanted bitcoin DECENTRALISED and it's the whole idea of it!!!

[cypherdoc]

Cypherdoc's thread was locked after the discussion turned heavily towards XT.  A Forum Administrator claimed the reason for locking the thread was that it was too broad in scope, so maybe you won't count this as "punished here for mentioning XT":

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1157185.msg12199651#msg12199651

 -snip-

Definitely, not! The thread was about Gold vs Bitcoin and thread was filled with XT discussions. You do know that off-topic posts are against forum rules, right? You are acting like a stupid person to support XT and you don't strike me as a fool, Peter!

then maybe you can explain why this troll take off thread on mine which has 0 posts on gold is allowed to continue?  it's filled with nothing more than anti XT troll posts:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1091654.0

[Westin Landon Cox]

One last time:

Does bigger blocks benefit Lightning? Yes
Does bigger blocks benefit Sidechains? Yes

Does bigger blocks benefit Blockstream? Yes!

Then why do they fight so hard against them?

The reasons the core devs associated with Blockstream have opposed proposals to raise the block size are most likely the reasons they've given -- the same reasons some of them gave even predating the formation of Blockstream. I'm assuming everyone has been reading both sides of this debate and knows what those reasons are, right?

I don't agree at all that Blockstream or the associated core devs are a "cancer" for Bitcoin. But if that's how the XT supporters really feel, maybe it's time for a divorce. I'd rather not be in a community with people who always think "evil conspiracy" when they hear the word "profit."

[Westin Landon Cox]

blockstream XT train:

Gotta agree with this picture...what's so hard to understand on that satoshi wanted bitcoin DECENTRALISED and it's the whole idea of it!!!

If the plan is to keep bitcoin decentralized by making Mike Hearn its benevolent dictator, then I think you might need to rethink your plan.

[Peter R]

It is the wrong thing to do even if you have the right to do it.

It might be wrong because you've been taught that it is wrong. Until someone gets punished here for mentioning XT, there is no problem. If someone doesn't like it, then they are free to leave.

Cypherdoc's thread was locked after the discussion turned heavily towards XT.  A Forum Administrator claimed the reason for locking the thread was that it was too broad in scope, so maybe you won't count this as "punished here for mentioning XT":

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1157185.msg12199651#msg12199651

 -snip-

Definitely, not! The thread was about Gold vs Bitcoin and thread was filled with XT discussions. You do know that off-topic posts are against forum rules, right? You are acting like a stupid person to support XT and you don't strike me as a fool, Peter!

Let me make my position clear:

(1) I view the block size limit as an anti-spam measure and I support increasing it.

(2) I believe Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization is presently in development and I support measures to reduce this centralization.

By supporting XT, I help push for both larger block sizes and help move us away from our dependency on Bitcoin Core.  

If another credible team forks Bitcoin Core into a third implementation that also supports larger blocks, I will support that implementation too.  

[knight22]

blockstream XT train:

Gotta agree with this picture...what's so hard to understand on that satoshi wanted bitcoin DECENTRALISED and it's the whole idea of it!!!

If the plan is to keep bitcoin decentralized by making Mike Hearn its benevolent dictator, then I think you might need to rethink your plan.

Benevolent dictator of open source code that any body can fork if they disagree with it like they just did? Really?

[knight22]

It is the wrong thing to do even if you have the right to do it.

It might be wrong because you've been taught that it is wrong. Until someone gets punished here for mentioning XT, there is no problem. If someone doesn't like it, then they are free to leave.

Cypherdoc's thread was locked after the discussion turned heavily towards XT.  A Forum Administrator claimed the reason for locking the thread was that it was too broad in scope, so maybe you won't count this as "punished here for mentioning XT":

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1157185.msg12199651#msg12199651

 -snip-

Definitely, not! The thread was about Gold vs Bitcoin and thread was filled with XT discussions. You do know that off-topic posts are against forum rules, right? You are acting like a stupid person to support XT and you don't strike me as a fool, Peter!

Let me make my position clear:

(1) I view the block size limit as an anit-spam measure and I support increasing it.

(2) I believe Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization is presently in development and I support measures to reduce this centralization.

By supporting XT, I help push for both larger block sizes and help move us away from our dependency on Bitcoin Core.  

If another credible team forks Bitcoin Core into a third implementation that also supports larger blocks, I will support that implementation too.  

I'm in the exact same position. I really don't understand why some people are so attached to Core. What makes it so special? Centralized development goes against every principles that make bitcoin a robust system in the fist place. Core = central point of failure until XT came into existence. No matter the outcome XT opened a Pandora's box for future development and implementations. I guess it takes time for people to accept this new reality.

[tvbcof]

then maybe you can explain why this troll take off thread on mine which has 0 posts on gold is allowed to continue?  it's filled with nothing more than anti XT troll posts:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1091654.0

Why looky here; Cypherdoc (Generalissimo of the Free Shit Nation) is back from the dead!  ...and reincarnated as YAWLC [yet another whiny little cunt.]  Lulz lovers everywhere rejoice!

[cypherdoc]

i'm pretty sure ppl can see who the major trolls are in these discussions.

[Westin Landon Cox]

blockstream XT train:

Gotta agree with this picture...what's so hard to understand on that satoshi wanted bitcoin DECENTRALISED and it's the whole idea of it!!!

If the plan is to keep bitcoin decentralized by making Mike Hearn its benevolent dictator, then I think you might need to rethink your plan.

Benevolent dictator of open source code that any body can fork if they disagree with it like they just did? Really?

Forking the code without changing the protocol rules isn't a big deal. XT wasn't much of an issue before it changed the protocol rules (yes, conditionally, but even a conditional change is a change). If XT ends up with a big block protocol, it will be very hard for someone to fork XT and change the protocol again -- just like it's hard for XT to do it against Core now. On the other hand, if Hearn decides to implement more protocol changes in XT (and it's completely up to him), I strongly suspect people will be inclined to just go along with it.

Why do I think people will go along with it? I've been following this for a while.

Before BIP101, people were saying "oh, there won't be a hard fork unless there's 90% of miner agreement." Yes, 90%. I read that over and over. Then BIP101 came out and it said 75%. And supporters just switched to saying 75% instead of 90%. I won't be shocked at all if 75% gets dropped lower.

Then when it became clear XT would be released with BIP101, supporters were saying that Mike Hearn would make Gavin Andresen the main committer (or benevolent dictator). There was never any signal this would happen, but people (cypherdoc?) said he would "have to." Well, Hearn clearly intends to keep that role himself. Has this driven XT supporters away? Not that I've seen. They just accept it.

Would they accept it if Hearn adds blacklisting redlisting? If Hearn dropped support for Tor altogether? If Hearn added a condition that a block is only valid if the rewards are paid out to mining addresses registered with an official government agency? Well, let's just say I haven't been impressed by XT supporters being willing to stand up to Mike Hearn. He'll get whatever he wants. And you'll like it.

[knight22]

blockstream XT train:

Gotta agree with this picture...what's so hard to understand on that satoshi wanted bitcoin DECENTRALISED and it's the whole idea of it!!!

If the plan is to keep bitcoin decentralized by making Mike Hearn its benevolent dictator, then I think you might need to rethink your plan.

Benevolent dictator of open source code that any body can fork if they disagree with it like they just did? Really?

Forking the code without changing the protocol rules isn't a big deal. XT wasn't much of an issue before it changed the protocol rules (yes, conditionally, but even a conditional change is a change). If XT ends up with a big block protocol, it will be very hard for someone to fork XT and change the protocol again -- just like it's hard for XT to do it against Core now. On the other hand, if Hearn decides to implement more protocol changes in XT (and it's completely up to him), I strongly suspect people will be inclined to just go along with it.

Why do I think people will go along with it? I've been following this for a while.

Before BIP101, people were saying "oh, there won't be a hard fork unless there's 90% of miner agreement." Yes, 90%. I read that over and over. Then BIP101 came out and it said 75%. And supporters just switched to saying 75% instead of 90%. I won't be shocked at all if 75% gets dropped lower.

Then when it became clear XT would be released with BIP101, supporters were saying that Mike Hearn would make Gavin Andresen the main committer (or benevolent dictator). There was never any signal this would happen, but people (cypherdoc?) said he would "have to." Well, Hearn clearly intends to keep that role himself. Has this driven XT supporters away? Not that I've seen. They just accept it.

Would they accept it if Hearn adds blacklisting redlisting? If Hearn dropped support for Tor altogether? If Hearn added a condition that a block is only valid if the rewards are paid out to mining addresses registered with an official government agency? Well, let's just say I haven't been impressed by XT supporters being willing to stand up to Mike Hearn. He'll get whatever he wants. And you'll like it.

I get your point but I don't think Mike Hearn could easily make that kind of modification to the protocol and gain a lot of support behind. In that kind of scenario, if Mike introduce blocks that fits the agenda of a US government agency, it has good chances to be outright rejected by most international businesses and they will fork the code just like Mike and Gavin did. Also, what guarantees you have that Core won't do such a thing? There is none actually (I don't trust Mike as much as I don't trust Core team). The best guarantee we have is the ability to fork the code.

[cypherdoc]

The best guarantee we have is the ability to fork the code.

this really is the bottom line that is fundamental to open source coding and one which Bitcoin should not reject out of hand just b/c core dev spins a consensus mechanism as the ultimate goal to maintain control.

[brg444]

The best guarantee we have is the ability to fork the code.

this really is the bottom line that is fundamental to open source coding and one which Bitcoin should not reject out of hand just b/c core dev spins a consensus mechanism as the ultimate goal to maintain control.

That's all well with us. Fork away and enjoy your authoritarian alt coin 

[tvbcof]

i'm pretty sure ppl can see who the major trolls are in these discussions.

I considered creating a new sock-puppet name "Leonid Trolstoy" the other day.  Ultimately I almost never use the sock puppets I have so it was not worth the bother.

[knight22]

The best guarantee we have is the ability to fork the code.

this really is the bottom line that is fundamental to open source coding and one which Bitcoin should not reject out of hand just b/c core dev spins a consensus mechanism as the ultimate goal to maintain control.

That's all well with us. Fork away and enjoy your authoritarian alt coin 

Speaking about authoritarianism, you don't seem to give a bat about being under the authority of Core devs no matter what they could decide. Pardon me but I fail to see your logic.

[brg444]

The best guarantee we have is the ability to fork the code.

this really is the bottom line that is fundamental to open source coding and one which Bitcoin should not reject out of hand just b/c core dev spins a consensus mechanism as the ultimate goal to maintain control.

That's all well with us. Fork away and enjoy your authoritarian alt coin 

Speaking about authoritarianism, you don't seem to give a bat about being under the authority of Core devs no matter what they could decide. Pardon me but I fail to see your logic.

I am not under the authority of any core dev but their historically reliable consensus development process. Its track record speaks for itself, having successfully ousted generally bad or harmful ideas out of contention for a push into the consensus code.

On the other hand you're trying to sell us into a top-down, outright authoritarian leadership of the development process  I know which one sits right with me and which one doesn't.

[Muhammed Zakir]

It is the wrong thing to do even if you have the right to do it.

It might be wrong because you've been taught that it is wrong. Until someone gets punished here for mentioning XT, there is no problem. If someone doesn't like it, then they are free to leave.

Cypherdoc's thread was locked after the discussion turned heavily towards XT.  A Forum Administrator claimed the reason for locking the thread was that it was too broad in scope, so maybe you won't count this as "punished here for mentioning XT":

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1157185.msg12199651#msg12199651

 -snip-

Definitely, not! The thread was about Gold vs Bitcoin and thread was filled with XT discussions. You do know that off-topic posts are against forum rules, right? You are acting like a stupid person to support XT and you don't strike me as a fool, Peter!

Let me make my position clear:

(1) I view the block size limit as an anit-spam measure and I support increasing it.

(2) I believe Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization is presently in development and I support measures to reduce this centralization.

By supporting XT, I help push for both larger block sizes and help move us away from our dependency on Bitcoin Core. 

If another credible team forks Bitcoin Core into a third implementation that also supports larger blocks, I will support that implementation too. 

I'm in the exact same position. I really don't understand why some people are so attached to Core. What makes it so special? Centralized development goes against every principles that make bitcoin a robust system in the fist place. Core = central point of failure until XT came into existence. No matter the outcome XT opened a Pandora's box for future development and implementations. I guess it takes time for people to accept this new reality.

That's a good stand!

@Peter: I am not saying you shouldn't support XT, I am saying some of your posts which essentially is for showing support to XT seems a bit stupid and you don't strike me as a stupid to me.

P.S. Before supporting any clients, make sure it is safe by checking source codes thoroughly.

* Edited.

[Lauda]

That's a good stand!

@Peter: I am not saying you shouldn't support XT, I am saying some of your posts which essentially is for showing support to XT seems a bit stupid and you don't strike me as a stupid to me.

P.S. Before supporting any clients, make sure it is safe by checking source codes thoroughly.

I agree, however what a group of people was doing is against the rules. Actually the staff let you guys off easy. Instead of punishing everyone for repetitive behavior (i.e. breaking the rule multiple times) they have decided to lock the thread. This is also off topic for this thread, and yet people are lucky (incl. me) that nobody is being punished for this behavior.

I considered creating a new sock-puppet name "Leonid Trolstoy" the other day.  Ultimately I almost never use the sock puppets I have so it was not worth the bother.

Please don't. The whole block size debate and now the 'blockstream is bad' debate has had enough of those. People need to cool down. Less threads need to be opened, and discussions should be focused in the appropriate threads.

[brg444]

It is the wrong thing to do even if you have the right to do it.

It might be wrong because you've been taught that it is wrong. Until someone gets punished here for mentioning XT, there is no problem. If someone doesn't like it, then they are free to leave.

Cypherdoc's thread was locked after the discussion turned heavily towards XT.  A Forum Administrator claimed the reason for locking the thread was that it was too broad in scope, so maybe you won't count this as "punished here for mentioning XT":

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1157185.msg12199651#msg12199651

 -snip-

Definitely, not! The thread was about Gold vs Bitcoin and thread was filled with XT discussions. You do know that off-topic posts are against forum rules, right? You are acting like a stupid person to support XT and you don't strike me as a fool, Peter!

Let me make my position clear:

(1) I view the block size limit as an anti-spam measure and I support increasing it.

(2) I believe Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization is presently in development and I support measures to reduce this centralization.

By supporting XT, I help push for both larger block sizes and help move us away from our dependency on Bitcoin Core.  

If another credible team forks Bitcoin Core into a third implementation that also supports larger blocks, I will support that implementation too.  

Peter, the way you're biting every worm Hearn casts toward you is very disturbing.

This newly created issue of "developer centralization" is completely disingenuous and grounded in plain ignorance. Of course I am especially tired of seeing you rehashing the same tired concern (I imagine that's how GMax felt when you kept publicly supporting the false and misguiding conclusions of your paper) so allow me to quote myself again.

You absolutely don't understand or are being willingly misleading about this "centralization" issue. There is quite simply no other choice but for us to support a centralized (read unique) consensus code. That's pretty much the only way Bitcoin works. It happens that the core developers have historically been the one trusted with maintaining this code and updating it. Several implementations have been built around this consensus code. Most of them have little support for very valid reason: their implementation is generally considered less tested and therefore potentially less secure than core implementation. Now should we blame core for attracting the most competent developers in the space? Would it be rational to ask of them to each start dividing their work between different implementations just for the sake of "decentralization"?

The centralization issue you refer to is nothing more than a lack of man power. That is, only a scarce amount of people are reliable and technically able enough to handle the highly fragile development of Bitcoin. It is no wonder the guys currently leading core are some of the world's most advanced experts in their own field. This expertise cannot be easily replaced or dismissed "because decentralization". It is absolutely unproductive and irresponsible to try to advance decentralization of Bitcoin development by encouraging incapable people to start messing around with their own implementations and risk breaking consensus.

[brg444]

What makes it so special?

Let me see... you mean beside the fact it is the most rigorously tested implementation out there maintained by a majority of the most recognized, experienced experts in the field?

[jonald_fyookball]

There is quite simply no other choice but for us to support a centralized (read unique) consensus code.

What is the basis for that assertion?

As mentioned long ago by Gavin, there can certainly be different implementations of the original reference code.  Even hard forks are possible without a centralized authority as we are witnessing now.

[knight22]

What makes it so special?

Let me see... you mean beside the fact it is the most rigorously tested implementation out there maintained by a majority of the most recognized, experienced experts in the field?

Maybe but I don't see why it couldn't change.

[cypherdoc]

This is the old myth that the devs are who shape Bitcoin, rather than the market. They think that without their wise guidance, investors would be lost in the woods. Dev input is taken into account by investors, but not just that of the Core devs or Core committers.


Gmax even seems to believe - as the unstated logical endpoint of some of his reasoning - that without Core committers' veto power, soon the market would go wild and lift the 21M coin limit, too! This shows a total misunderstanding of the implications of Bitcoin being open source. Some big investors could bid up BTC in a fork where the 21M limit was removed, and make it worth more than Bitcoin - at least temporarily - if they have deep enough pockets, but unless that change somehow turned out to be value-enhancing, that fork would eventually fall in price and be eclipsed by classic Bitcoin again.


For the same reasons, investors will not support a fork that results in centralization. Or even if some investors do, there will be plenty that won't and the rest of us can just ignore the ill-fated fork. In fact, with all forks being on the market, anyone astute stands to make big money trading these forks, selling their coins in the value-damaging forks and buying coins in the most value-enhancing one (which will almost certainly be the one that doesn't change the crucial parameters, of course (if you think small blocksize caps really are crucial, go ahead and make your money by selling off your coins in the bigger block forks)). This will ensure that the full wisdom of the community is marshalled toward determining the most valuable changes. Like how a prediction market distills the wisdom of crowds in such a strikingly effective manner.

http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-5

[brg444]

There is quite simply no other choice but for us to support a centralized (read unique) consensus code.

What is the basis for that assertion?

As mentioned long ago by Gavin, there can certainly be different implementations of the original reference code.  Even hard forks are possible without a centralized authority as we are witnessing now.

Seriously?

Go back to your homeworks. We can't have a proper discussion about Bitcoin development if you can't understand there should only be one consensus code

[jonald_fyookball]

There is quite simply no other choice but for us to support a centralized (read unique) consensus code.

What is the basis for that assertion?

As mentioned long ago by Gavin, there can certainly be different implementations of the original reference code.  Even hard forks are possible without a centralized authority as we are witnessing now.

Seriously?

Go back to your homeworks. We can't have a proper discussion about Bitcoin development if you can't understand there should only be one consensus code

If you can't explain your reasoning, you fail.  Are you afraid I might see a flaw in your logic?

Yes, there must be the rule set which all participants must agree on (that's what consensus means).
It doesn't necessarily imply there must only be one centralized code repository.

[Iman E. Vilsok]

then maybe you can explain why this troll take off thread on mine which has 0 posts on gold is allowed to continue?  it's filled with nothing more than anti XT troll posts:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1091654.0

Why looky here; Cypherdoc (Generalissimo of the Free Shit Nation) is back from the dead!  ...and reincarnated as YAWLC [yet another whiny little cunt.]  Lulz lovers everywhere rejoice!

---

i'm pretty sure ppl can see who the major trolls are in these discussions.

---

Oh, I almost forgot:  Could you ask ~justusranvier to come back out of hiding at the next strategy con-call?  We lovers of lulz would appreciate it.  He probably feels that he has 'burnt his books', but I am sure that there are a lot more newbies and simps out there who would be amenable to his brand of shtick.

edit: quotes

[brg444]

What makes it so special?

Let me see... you mean beside the fact it is the most rigorously tested implementation out there maintained by a majority of the most recognized, experienced experts in the field?

Maybe but I don't see why it couldn't change.

It could! And I'm not against it but this is an especially hard problem because the pool of people competent enough to handle these consensus critical code is very, very small. To quote:

The centralization issue you refer to is nothing more than a lack of man power. That is, only a scarce amount of people are reliable and technically able enough to handle the highly fragile development of Bitcoin. It is no wonder the guys currently leading core are some of the world's most advanced experts in their own field. This expertise cannot be easily replaced or dismissed "because decentralization". It is absolutely unproductive and irresponsible to try to advance decentralization of Bitcoin development by encouraging incapable people to start messing around with their own implementations and risk breaking consensus.

[knight22]

then maybe you can explain why this troll take off thread on mine which has 0 posts on gold is allowed to continue?  it's filled with nothing more than anti XT troll posts:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1091654.0

Why looky here; Cypherdoc (Generalissimo of the Free Shit Nation) is back from the dead!  ...and reincarnated as YAWLC [yet another whiny little cunt.]  Lulz lovers everywhere rejoice!

---

i'm pretty sure ppl can see who the major trolls are in these discussions.

---

Oh, I almost forgot:  Could you ask ~justusranvier to come back out of hiding at the next strategy con-call?  We lovers of lulz would appreciate it.  He probably feels that he has 'burnt his books', but I am sure that there are a lot more newbies and simps out there who would be amenable to his brand of shtick.

Are you trying to formulate an argument? Because I don't see any.

[Iman E. Vilsok]

Are you trying to formulate an argument? Because I don't see any.

Nope.  You don't see it because there is none there.  How very perceptive you are!

[brg444]

There is quite simply no other choice but for us to support a centralized (read unique) consensus code.

What is the basis for that assertion?

As mentioned long ago by Gavin, there can certainly be different implementations of the original reference code.  Even hard forks are possible without a centralized authority as we are witnessing now.

Seriously?

Go back to your homeworks. We can't have a proper discussion about Bitcoin development if you can't understand there should only be one consensus code

If you can't explain your reasoning, you fail.  Are you afraid I might see a flaw in your logic?

Yes, there must be the rule set which all participants must agree on (that's what consensus means).
It doesn't necessarily imply there must only be one centralized code repository.

Indeed, that's not what this means.

What I'm referring to here is what the core devs has been working on, the libconsensus. The consensus critical code: the "rule set which all participants must agree on". Historically this code has been maintained and updated by a sole consensus of developers for very obvious reasons.

Now this does not suggest others are not free to create their own implementation using this consensus code but the danger is that an irresponsible change to this code, which has to be unique and the same for ALL implementation, can cause very important damage to the network.

[cypherdoc]

darn, for a minute there, i thought you were going to explain the hypocrisy:

then maybe you can explain why this troll take off thread on mine which has 0 posts on gold is allowed to continue?  it's filled with nothing more than anti XT troll posts:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1091654.0

[jonald_fyookball]

we basically agree but I still don't see any reason why it needs to remain "centralized" so for that reason I don't think you've invalidated what Peter R had to say.

[brg444]

darn, for a minute there, i thought you were going to explain the hypocrisy:

then maybe you can explain why this troll take off thread on mine which has 0 posts on gold is allowed to continue?  it's filled with nothing more than anti XT troll posts:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1091654.0

If you keep bringing your attention deficit over here I'mma have to go ahead and troll your new thread

[brg444]

we basically agree but I still don't see any reason why it needs to remain "centralized" so for that reason I don't think you've invalidated what Peter R had to say.

You don't understand why the consensus critical code that EVERY single node in the network needs to run cannot be modified at will by all sorts of different implementations!?!?!

I don't know what to tell you.... think harder? You do understand the implications if certain nodes do not agree on the rules ?

[jonald_fyookball]

we basically agree but I still don't see any reason why it needs to remain "centralized" so for that reason I don't think you've invalidated what Peter R had to say.

You don't understand why the consensus critical code that EVERY single node in the network needs to run cannot be modified at will by all sorts of different implementations!?!?!

I don't know what to tell you.... think harder? You do understand the implications if certain nodes do not agree on the rules ?

What you are saying is true, obviously.

The advantage of several implementations is that rule changes are done more 'democratically'.  Contrast this to the current debate where the 'core' doesn't want to raise the blocksize limit right now but others do, and those that do are forced to implement code from Mike Hearn, who not everyone trusts.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

darn, for a minute there, i thought you were going to explain the hypocrisy:

then maybe you can explain why this troll take off thread on mine which has 0 posts on gold is allowed to continue?  it's filled with nothing more than anti XT troll posts:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1091654.0

---   -----  ----  ------   --- -- ---- ----  ----- -- ---

In fairness, he hasn't even managed to get a majority in his own troll-poll. he is a divine tosser.  

[tvbcof]

darn, for a minute there, i thought you were going to explain the hypocrisy:

then maybe you can explain why this troll take off thread on mine which has 0 posts on gold is allowed to continue?  it's filled with nothing more than anti XT troll posts:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1091654.0

---   -----  ----  ------   --- -- ---- ----  ----- -- ---

In fairness, he hasn't even managed to get a majority in his own troll-poll. he is a divine tosser.  

I'm tvbcof and I approve of this message because it is amusing.

[jonald_fyookball]

confirmed: gmax refuses to disclose blockstream business model beyond vague generalities:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hjak7/the_hard_work_of_core_devs_not_xt_makes_bitcoin/cu8ityt

[brg444]

we basically agree but I still don't see any reason why it needs to remain "centralized" so for that reason I don't think you've invalidated what Peter R had to say.

You don't understand why the consensus critical code that EVERY single node in the network needs to run cannot be modified at will by all sorts of different implementations!?!?!

I don't know what to tell you.... think harder? You do understand the implications if certain nodes do not agree on the rules ?

What you are saying is true, obviously.

The advantage of several implementations is that rule changes are done more 'democratically'.  Contrast this to the current debate where the 'core' doesn't want to raise the blocksize limit right now but others do, and those that do are forced to implement code from Mike Hearn, who not everyone trusts.

We don't need democracy! Please stop trying to stick its failures to Bitcoin as well.

We need expert consensus on secure and properly vetted code. Having more idiots "vote" on what should go into the consensus code doesn't help with the process. I know that's what Mike Hearn will have you believe but that's just plain wrong.

Not everyone's opinion should be weighted equally in this decision and it's a dangerous idea to try an introduce more "voters" "because decentralization".

[brg444]

confirmed: gmax refuses to disclose blockstream business model beyond vague generalities:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hjak7/the_hard_work_of_core_devs_not_xt_makes_bitcoin/cu8ityt

You've never had any interactions with the business world or educated yourself a little on the matter have you?

Let me break the news for you: no one is stupid enough to disclaim their business plans in full details.

[Zarathustra]

we basically agree but I still don't see any reason why it needs to remain "centralized" so for that reason I don't think you've invalidated what Peter R had to say.

You don't understand why the consensus critical code that EVERY single node in the network needs to run cannot be modified at will by all sorts of different implementations!?!?!

I don't know what to tell you.... think harder? You do understand the implications if certain nodes do not agree on the rules ?

What you are saying is true, obviously.

The advantage of several implementations is that rule changes are done more 'democratically'.  Contrast this to the current debate where the 'core' doesn't want to raise the blocksize limit right now but others do, and those that do are forced to implement code from Mike Hearn, who not everyone trusts.

We don't need democracy! Please stop trying to stick its failures to Bitcoin as well.

We need expert consensus on secure and properly vetted code. Having more idiots "vote" on what should go into the consensus code doesn't help with the process.

Oh yeah! That's why Switzerland failed: Having more idiots "vote" on what should go into the consensus politics, instead of a gang of professionals who decide.

[Pab]

 Priviet,dont be shame ,your engllish is ok.There is very great  if people from your area of the  world are  coming here to discuss,I think there is a lot of hopes in bitcoin in Russia,Ukraine and now that hopes are broken
I will post you something on pm,i dont want to create of topic here
Even if btc will die digital currencys will stay,i am agree with you that situation is awful,already people call  that blockchain war.Sounds likecurrency war
Paka

[jonald_fyookball]

confirmed: gmax refuses to disclose blockstream business model beyond vague generalities:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hjak7/the_hard_work_of_core_devs_not_xt_makes_bitcoin/cu8ityt

You've never had any interactions with the business world or educated yourself a little on the matter have you?

Let me break the news for you: no one is stupid enough to disclaim their business plans in full details.

Please stop making assumptions about what I know or have done.

The point about blockstream isn't that they need to or should reveal trade secrets.
But many would like them to reveal enough to mitigate concerns over conflict of interests.
Whether or not that is feasible is unknown, but clearly they haven't done it and
I am pointing out that important fact.

As far as a centralized authority being in charge of the code, you are entitled to that opinion.
Ironically, that is an opinion Mike Hearn has expressed too.  But you are anti-XT.  So that
just shows you like the idea of authority, as long as it's one you agree with.

[brg444]

we basically agree but I still don't see any reason why it needs to remain "centralized" so for that reason I don't think you've invalidated what Peter R had to say.

You don't understand why the consensus critical code that EVERY single node in the network needs to run cannot be modified at will by all sorts of different implementations!?!?!

I don't know what to tell you.... think harder? You do understand the implications if certain nodes do not agree on the rules ?

What you are saying is true, obviously.

The advantage of several implementations is that rule changes are done more 'democratically'.  Contrast this to the current debate where the 'core' doesn't want to raise the blocksize limit right now but others do, and those that do are forced to implement code from Mike Hearn, who not everyone trusts.

We don't need democracy! Please stop trying to stick its failures to Bitcoin as well.

We need expert consensus on secure and properly vetted code. Having more idiots "vote" on what should go into the consensus code doesn't help with the process.

Oh yeah! That's why Switzerland failed: Having more idiots "vote" on what should go into the consensus politics, instead of a gang of professionals who decide.

What a ridiculous and ignorant comparison.

We're talking about code. Not politics. GTFO

[meono]

confirmed: gmax refuses to disclose blockstream business model beyond vague generalities:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hjak7/the_hard_work_of_core_devs_not_xt_makes_bitcoin/cu8ityt

You've never had any interactions with the business world or educated yourself a little on the matter have you?

Let me break the news for you: no one is stupid enough to disclaim their business plans in full details.

This is a prime example of not arguing with idiots.

Best they can do is personal attacks like a loud mouth juvenile.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Let me break the news for you: no one is stupid enough to disclaim their business plans in full details.

Another one of your comedy Freudian slips. 

I think the issue IS that blockstream continue to disclaim their business plan.. 


btw Its normal for business to disclose their business plans. Usually as part of a funding process and launch. They are rarely trade secret, whereas their IP might be.

[brg444]

confirmed: gmax refuses to disclose blockstream business model beyond vague generalities:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hjak7/the_hard_work_of_core_devs_not_xt_makes_bitcoin/cu8ityt

You've never had any interactions with the business world or educated yourself a little on the matter have you?

Let me break the news for you: no one is stupid enough to disclaim their business plans in full details.

Please stop making assumptions about what I know or have done.

The point about blockstream isn't that they need to or should reveal trade secrets.
But many would like them to reveal enough to mitigate concerns over conflict of interests.
Whether or not that is feasible is unknown, but clearly they haven't done it and
I am pointing out that important fact.

As far as a centralized authority being in charge of the code, you are entitled to that opinion.
Ironically, that is an opinion Mike Hearn has expressed too.  But you are anti-XT.  So that
just shows you like the idea of authority, as long as it's one you agree with.

[–]nullc

BRAINSSSS.

But really, look at the kind of work we're doing open source cryptographic solutions to solve really hard problems which other people aren't able or aren't trying to solve, E.g. the CT range proofs that protects commercial confidentiality by making transaction values private. Or using Elements Alpha to give people powerful, secure, auditable databases for internal transaction tracking and clearing. Helping smaller players the Bitcoin industry with uniform access to technical firepower that they're not justified hiring full time (and perhaps couldn't-- being the one hard core bitcoin guru at at web shop is a lonely place to be).
Some companies to look at for examples would be things like RedHat's, Cisco's open source and IETF work, and the Mozilla Corporation. (I'm not saying our dozen or so person company is like these organizations yet, but they are places we've looked for inspiration, places people at blockstream have worked before, etc.)

If you can't grasp what their model is after reading this then no amount of explaining will do the trick. Maybe you ought to ask them for a "take your kids to work day" kind of thing?

[jonald_fyookball]

Elements...yeah...we already knew that.  Well at least he gives a use case.  Still too vague overall.

btw, if you think your snide sarcasm makes you appear more intelligent or respected, let me inform you: it doesn't.

[brg444]

Elements...yeah...we already knew that.  Well at least he gives a use case.  Still too vague overall.

btw, if you think your snide sarcasm makes you appear more intelligent or respected, let me inform you: it doesn't.

Sorry, that's just how I deal with disingenuous noobs.

[jonald_fyookball]

Elements...yeah...we already knew that.  Well at least he gives a use case.  Still too vague overall.

btw, if you think your snide sarcasm makes you appear more intelligent or respected, let me inform you: it doesn't.

Sorry, that's just how I deal with disingenuous noobs.

have you ever written any related Bitcoin code?

[tvbcof]

Oh yeah! That's why Switzerland failed: Having more idiots "vote" on what should go into the consensus politics, instead of a gang of professionals who decide.

The Swiss get to vote on whether to be subjects of Brussels or vassals of the U.S. and not much more from the looks of things.  Peg you currency to the EU?  OK (for a while at least.)  Absorb whatever foreigners Brussels tells you to?  OK.  Cough up confidential customer bank records to the U.S.? OK.  Pathetic.

[brg444]

Elements...yeah...we already knew that.  Well at least he gives a use case.  Still too vague overall.

btw, if you think your snide sarcasm makes you appear more intelligent or respected, let me inform you: it doesn't.

Sorry, that's just how I deal with disingenuous noobs.

have you ever written any related Bitcoin code?

"I don't write code, I write checks" - Jay-Z.... or was it? 

[Peter R]

we basically agree but I still don't see any reason why it needs to remain "centralized" so for that reason I don't think you've invalidated what Peter R had to say.

Similar to how several people convinced themselves that "bitcoin couldn't scale" (and so now we see such a vicious backlash against increasing the max block size as these people overcome their cognitive dissonance), I think people also convinced themselves that Bitcoin Core would be the permanent core of Bitcoin (and again now they make up reasons for why we need centralized development to keep Bitcoin decentralized).  

It's sort of ironic that the push to increase the block size is what woke the community up to the problem of developer centralization in the first place.  Prior to this debate, people took it for granted that "basically everyone runs Core."  



In response to Brg444: everyone agrees that the consensus rules need to be such that the implementations don't permanently fork.  That's not the debate here.  The debate surrounds the question of why the choice should be dictated by a specific set of developers.  The only argument I've heard is a hand-wavy "well duh it will be chaos otherwise and the various implementations will all fork."  I don't find that convincing.  

[jonald_fyookball]

Elements...yeah...we already knew that.  Well at least he gives a use case.  Still too vague overall.

btw, if you think your snide sarcasm makes you appear more intelligent or respected, let me inform you: it doesn't.

Sorry, that's just how I deal with disingenuous noobs.

have you ever written any related Bitcoin code?

"I don't write code, I write checks" - Jay-Z.... or was it? 

ok, well I have written some Bitcoin code...a few utility scripts in the electrum section of this forum.
Nothing spectacular but since apparently more than you've done, the noob comments are funny.

Have a nice day.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Elements...yeah...we already knew that.  Well at least he gives a use case.  Still too vague overall.

btw, if you think your snide sarcasm makes you appear more intelligent or respected, let me inform you: it doesn't.

Sorry, that's just how I deal with disingenuous noobs.

have you ever written any related Bitcoin code?

"I don't write code, I write checks" - Jay-Z.... or was it?  

Problem is, your checks are bouncing.   

[brg444]

Elements...yeah...we already knew that.  Well at least he gives a use case.  Still too vague overall.

btw, if you think your snide sarcasm makes you appear more intelligent or respected, let me inform you: it doesn't.

Sorry, that's just how I deal with disingenuous noobs.

have you ever written any related Bitcoin code?

"I don't write code, I write checks" - Jay-Z.... or was it? 

ok, well I have written some Bitcoin code...a few utility scripts in the electrum section of this forum.
Nothing spectacular but since apparently more than you've done, the noob comments are funny.

Have a nice day.

the "iCode" argument

 

[brg444]

we basically agree but I still don't see any reason why it needs to remain "centralized" so for that reason I don't think you've invalidated what Peter R had to say.

Similar to how several people convinced themselves that "bitcoin couldn't scale" (and so now we see such a vicious backlash against increasing the max block size as these people overcome their cognitive dissonance), I think people also convinced themselves that Bitcoin Core would be the permanent core of Bitcoin (and again now they make up reasons for why we need centralized development to keep Bitcoin decentralized).  

It's sort of ironic that the push to increase the block size is what woke the community up to the problem of developer centralization in the first place.  Prior to this debate, people took it for granted that "basically everyone runs Core."  



In response to Brg444: everyone agrees that the consensus rules need to be such that the implementations don't permanently fork.  That's not the debate here.  The debate surrounds the question of why the choice should be dictated by a specific set of developers.  The only argument I've heard is a hand-wavy "well duh it will be chaos otherwise and the various implementations will all fork."  I don't find that convincing.  

So how do you imagine this works? Let me guess... DEMOCRACY!

Everyone pushes their own code to the consensus and may the best one win? Everyone gets to vote somehow?

How do you propose different sets of developers working on their own implementation decide on a consensus code?

[Peter R]

How do you propose different sets of developers working on their own implementation decide on a consensus code?

It would play out as a more efficient version of what's happening between XT and Core today.  Imagine that there are 5 competing implementations, each with between 10 - 30% of the node base.  They all run essentially the same consensus library because everyone knows it's very important to follow the longest chain, although they differ in features.  OK, so a few years down the road the community feels that a change needs to be made: we need bigger blocks!  Multiple proposals are put forward (as they are today), a big debate ensues (as it does today), and then each software implementation picks their favourite proposal and implements it to activate some time in the future (like what Bitcoin-XT did with BIP101).  

I believe this would be helpful to achieving consensus because now the user base has the ability to express their free choice more efficiently.  They will tend to migrate towards one of the particular implementations.  In an effort not to lose their user base, developers for the other implementations will make changes that at least make their code compatible (non-forkable) with what looks like the favoured solution.  

It's a sort of 'spontaneous consensus' event.  Of course, I can't prove that this will work, and that's one of the reasons why Bitcoin is an experiment.  However, if we need centralized development to keep Bitcoin decentralized, then it seems to me we've already lost.  

[Pab]

How do you propose different sets of developers working on their own implementation decide on a consensus code?

It would play out as a more efficient version of what's happening between XT and Core today.  Imagine that there are 5 competing implementations, each with between 10 - 30% of the node base.  They all run essentially the same consensus library because everyone knows it's very important to follow the longest chain, although they differ in features.  OK, so a few years down the road the community feels that a change needs to be made: we need bigger blocks!  Multiple proposals are put forward (as they are today), a big debate ensues (as it does today), and then each software implementation picks their favourite proposal and implements it to activate some time in the future (like what Bitcoin-XT did with BIP101).  

I believe this would be helpful to achieving consensus because now the user base has the ability to express their free choice more efficiently.  They will tend to migrate towards one of the particular implementations.  In an effort not to lose their user base, developers for the other implementations will make changes that at least make their code compatible (non-forkable) with what looks like the favoured solution.  

It's a sort of 'spontaneous consensus' event.  Of course, I can't prove that this will work, and that's one of the reasons why Bitcoin is an experiment.  However, if we need centralized development to keep Bitcoin decentralized, then it seems to me we've already lost.  

Yes very much agree with you
and to our Russian friend .There is good quote.If there is not possible to know what is about it is propably all about money

[VeritasSapere]

What a ridiculous and ignorant comparison.

We're talking about code. Not politics. GTFO

In the case of Bitcoin, code is synonymous with politics. Code is law, Bitcoin is a social contract. Consensus is a form of democracy, and the fundamental protocol rules are like a constitution.

[brg444]

What a ridiculous and ignorant comparison.

We're talking about code. Not politics. GTFO

In the case of Bitcoin, code is synonymous with politics. Code is law, Bitcoin is a social contract. Consensus is a form of democracy, and the fundamental protocol rules are like a constitution.

"Bitcoin is a social contract"

"Consensus is a form of democracy"

Have we officially gone full retard?

Take your Rousseau socialism elsewhere won't ya?

[cypherdoc]

It's sort of ironic that the push to increase the block size is what woke the community up to the problem of developer centralization in the first place.  Prior to this debate, people took it for granted that "basically everyone runs Core."  

sorry Peter.  it happened long before the block size debate:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/23fr63/bitcoin_20_unleash_the_sidechains/cgwt2nz

and it took Adrian-X and i to pound it home all Fall and into the Spring when the block size debate arrived to make everyone realize what we were saying is true.

and it came at great sacrifice; to me at least.

[VeritasSapere]

What a ridiculous and ignorant comparison.

We're talking about code. Not politics. GTFO

In the case of Bitcoin, code is synonymous with politics. Code is law, Bitcoin is a social contract. Consensus is a form of democracy, and the fundamental protocol rules are like a constitution.

"Bitcoin is a social contract"

"Consensus is a form of democracy"

Have we officially gone full retard?

Take your Rousseau socialism elsewhere won't ya?

So your counter argument is that I have gone full retard? For the record I am not a socialist. I do think that this is a predominantly political problem and not a technical one. The Bitcoin community needs to realize this so that we can resolve this dilemma before it causes even more problems.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHFSvttMg6E

[brg444]

What a ridiculous and ignorant comparison.

We're talking about code. Not politics. GTFO

In the case of Bitcoin, code is synonymous with politics. Code is law, Bitcoin is a social contract. Consensus is a form of democracy, and the fundamental protocol rules are like a constitution.

"Bitcoin is a social contract"

"Consensus is a form of democracy"

Have we officially gone full retard?

Take your Rousseau socialism elsewhere won't ya?

So your counter argument is that I have gone full retard? For the record I am not a socialist. I do think that this is a predominantly political problem and not a technical one. The Bitcoin community needs to realize this so that we can resolve this dilemma before it causes even more problems.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHFSvttMg6E

No, this is an entitlement problem. A typical reflex of sheeps trying to reflect their desires into what Bitcoin ought to be.

Bitcoin says no.

[yayayo]

Enough with this hyprocrisy. You are free to choose but not to talk about it on the main forums right?

Give us a break.

XTcoin is an altcoin.

This is the correct section for all XT-related discussion: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=67.0

If you don't like the rules, set up your own forum.


ya.ya.yo!

[tvbcof]

Cypherdoc antagonizes marcus_of_agustus who does a little research and responds with this thread.  cypherdoc loses mojo as high-powered-shill; flees trolltalk.

I think someone captured what marcus_of_agustus said the cypherdoc here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spOvMHBz69k

Edit:  Opps.  Wrong thread.  I mean to post it on the PSA one.  Sorry about that.

[helmax]

if we not upgrade to bip101

we are fuck
all bitcoin system are fucked


XT is evolution

[VeritasSapere]

What a ridiculous and ignorant comparison.

We're talking about code. Not politics. GTFO

In the case of Bitcoin, code is synonymous with politics. Code is law, Bitcoin is a social contract. Consensus is a form of democracy, and the fundamental protocol rules are like a constitution.

"Bitcoin is a social contract"

"Consensus is a form of democracy"

Have we officially gone full retard?

Take your Rousseau socialism elsewhere won't ya?

So your counter argument is that I have gone full retard? For the record I am not a socialist. I do think that this is a predominantly political problem and not a technical one. The Bitcoin community needs to realize this so that we can resolve this dilemma before it causes even more problems.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHFSvttMg6E

No, this is an entitlement problem. A typical reflex of sheeps trying to reflect their desires into what Bitcoin ought to be.

Bitcoin says no.

Actually I could argue the opposite. Since the original promise and vision of Bitcoin is that we should increase the block size, and not increasing the block size would give Bitcoin fundamentally different properties compared to its original vision. Because this is the case you could argue that not increasing the block size is actually breaking the social contract. If we do happen to be fundamentally ideologically opposed to some of the original vision of Bitcoin then these differences should be implemented in another cryptocurrency instead, which would allow the market to decide. This would be better then everyone fighting over what kind of a Bitcoin they want and projecting their desires onto it. Since this might just be an impossible position, for one cryptocurrency to accurately reflect everyone’s ideologies. It might be better to stay true with the original vision of Satoshi Nakamoto for Bitcoin and if you do not agree with this vision it would be better if we just support another alternative cryptocurrency instead, that better reflect our own unique beliefs.

[jonald_fyookball]

Enough with this hyprocrisy. You are free to choose but not to talk about it on the main forums right?

Give us a break.

XTcoin is an altcoin.

This is the correct section for all XT-related discussion: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=67.0

If you don't like the rules, set up your own forum.


ya.ya.yo!

You are misinformed.  

XT is an alt client that supports the Bitcoin blockchain and its rules and protocol.

The only difference is it will support bigger blocks IF AND WHEN 75% of the miners agree.
if and when that happens, core will either upgrade to be compatible or Bitcoin
will fork, but since the economic SUPER MAJORITY will be supporting bigger
blocks, the 1mb version of Bitcoin will likely be considered the alt.

Just because one code repository calls itself core doesn't give it exclusive rights
to control Bitcoin or call itself Bitcoin.   That's what people have been pointing out
for years when Bitcoin pessimists tried to argue that 'Bitcoin isn't decentralized
because it's run by a few core devs.'. Well, now we are seeing that indeed, it
is decentralized.  The core devs don't call all the shots and if they try to do
something the community doesn't like (such as take too long to increase
the blocksize), they will lose their power.

If one understands all this yet still insists on calling it an "altcoin", then
it is an attempt to mischaracterize and marginalize it, and an attempt
to influence opinion through misinformation (thus it is intellectually dishonest.)
It is also an attempt to force an outcome based on one's personal opinions
and biases, rather than allowing the economic majority to decide.

[Peter R]

It's sort of ironic that the push to increase the block size is what woke the community up to the problem of developer centralization in the first place.  Prior to this debate, people took it for granted that "basically everyone runs Core."  

sorry Peter.  it happened long before the block size debate:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/23fr63/bitcoin_20_unleash_the_sidechains/cgwt2nz

and it took Adrian-X and i to pound it home all Fall and into the Spring when the block size debate arrived to make everyone realize what we were saying is true.

and it came at great sacrifice; to me at least.

You're right. You saw it all along.

[Zarathustra]

Oh yeah! That's why Switzerland failed: Having more idiots "vote" on what should go into the consensus politics, instead of a gang of professionals who decide.

The Swiss get to vote on whether to be subjects of Brussels or vassals of the U.S. and not much more from the looks of things.  Peg you currency to the EU?  OK (for a while at least.)  Absorb whatever foreigners Brussels tells you to?  OK.  Cough up confidential customer bank records to the U.S.? OK.  Pathetic.

Pathetic. German Citizens can not decide whether to be a member of the EU or not. Swiss Citizens can. They also decide to rise the taxes or not. US Citizens can not.
If they want to vote against doing bank business in the USA, they can. Those are the reasons why Xapo fled to Switzerland.

[Zarathustra]

How do you propose different sets of developers working on their own implementation decide on a consensus code?

It would play out as a more efficient version of what's happening between XT and Core today.  Imagine that there are 5 competing implementations,

Authoritarians (blockstreamers and their cheerleaders) hate competition. They love rulers and imperatives:

"We don't need democracy!"
"GTFO" (brg444)

And they hate Switzerland. (tvbcof)

q.e.d.

To separate the wheat from the chaff (to fork that mentality away from bitcoin) will be essential.

[turvarya]

What a ridiculous and ignorant comparison.

We're talking about code. Not politics. GTFO

In the case of Bitcoin, code is synonymous with politics. Code is law, Bitcoin is a social contract. Consensus is a form of democracy, and the fundamental protocol rules are like a constitution.

"Bitcoin is a social contract"

"Consensus is a form of democracy"

Have we officially gone full retard?

Take your Rousseau socialism elsewhere won't ya?

The only retarded think is to think, that Bitcoin development is a pure rational thing. Have you ever read reddit posts from your beloved Core developers? Do you really think, they are purely rational without any human fault? Are you aware that the term "consensus" was used in politics long before PCs were invented?
For sure, there is politics in Software Development, just denying that fact, doesn't make it go away.

[tvbcof]

Authoritarians (blockstreamers and their cheerleaders) hate competition. They love rulers and imperatives:

"We don't need democracy!"
"GTFO" (brg444)

I suppose that is why they open source their work?  Doh!

And they hate Switzerland. (tvbcof)

Actually, I mostly dislike nationalists who have a blind eye to any problems that their nation has and constantly hammer on one perceived positive which, as likely as not, exists mostly in name only.  Just like 'democracy' in the U.S. for all intents and purposes.

[Zarathustra]

Authoritarians (blockstreamers and their cheerleaders) hate competition. They love rulers and imperatives:

"We don't need democracy!"
"GTFO" (brg444)

I suppose that is why they open source their work?  Doh!

And they hate Switzerland. (tvbcof)

Actually, I mostly dislike nationalists who have a blind eye to any problems that their nation has and constantly hammer on one perceived positive which, as likely as not, exists mostly in name only.  Just like 'democracy' in the U.S. for all intents and purposes.

I am neither a nationalist nor a globalist. I postulate anarchism. But I know also that direct democracy is not as bad as the indirect version.

[Westin Landon Cox]

These "bitcoin is a democracy" people scare me. Is there a way we can get them to go away?

[brg444]

These "bitcoin is a democracy" people scare me. Is there a way we can get them to go away?

It's a wonder they don't accuse Satoshi of authoritarianism for not having people vote for what should've gotten into Bitcoin.

"DEVELOPER CENTRALIZATIONSS!!!!"

[Zarathustra]

These "bitcoin is a democracy" people scare me. Is there a way we can get them to go away?

Yes, happy slaves (masochists) are dead scared when they get a vote.

[hdbuck]

These "bitcoin is a democracy" people scare me. Is there a way we can get them to go away?

Yes, happy slaves (masochists) are dead scared when they get a vote.

but fork off already kiddos.

cant wait for january.