Thoughts from Russia on the block size situation and Blockstream

[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?