An Open Letter to the Bitcoin Community from the Developers

[hdbuck]

[QuestionAuthority]

Circle intentions are no suprise and no secrets from the whole beginning

Which is precisely why I'm supplying the information from Circle's own press releases

and they do share the same goals than most of the biggest companies in the bitcoin space.

Except for all those that don't share their goals, of course

I guess people here don't understand that you are presenting proof that the financial status quo is hell bent on taking over Bitcoin. It makes sense for them to at least try to have some controlling interest in this new revolutionary technology. The problem is when they control the upper echelon of Bitcoin business and development it won't really be revolutionary techonology anymore but instead it will be the same old shit in a shiny new wrapper.

[knight22]

Circle intentions are no suprise and no secrets from the whole beginning

Which is precisely why I'm supplying the information from Circle's own press releases

and they do share the same goals than most of the biggest companies in the bitcoin space.

Except for all those that don't share their goals, of course

I guess people here don't understand that you are presenting proof that the financial status quo is hell bent on taking over Bitcoin. It makes sense for them to at least try to have some controlling interest in this new revolutionary technology. The problem is when they control the upper echelon of Bitcoin business and development it won't really be revolutionary techonology anymore but instead it will be the same old shit in a shiny new wrapper.

They won't be able to change a single thing of what bitcoin is exept for the scalability issue. What are you afraid they could do to the protocol exactly?

[jonald_fyookball]

If they want a piece of it then they want it to succeed.   Bip 101 lets it scale.

[QuestionAuthority]

Circle intentions are no suprise and no secrets from the whole beginning

Which is precisely why I'm supplying the information from Circle's own press releases

and they do share the same goals than most of the biggest companies in the bitcoin space.

Except for all those that don't share their goals, of course

I guess people here don't understand that you are presenting proof that the financial status quo is hell bent on taking over Bitcoin. It makes sense for them to at least try to have some controlling interest in this new revolutionary technology. The problem is when they control the upper echelon of Bitcoin business and development it won't really be revolutionary techonology anymore but instead it will be the same old shit in a shiny new wrapper.

They won't be able to change a single thing of what bitcoin is expect for the scalability issue. What are you afraid they could do to the protocol exactly?

You don't really believe that do you? One small change could bring blacklisting and end Bitcoin's fungability. There are numerous ways to change Bitcoin for the worst. Sure, the few hundred thousand current users here would abandon it but hundreds of millions of other mainstream users would pick it up and trust it because big names in finance are supporting the system.

[IIOII]

If they want a piece of it then they want it to succeed.   Bip 101 lets it scale.

Retard arguments for the simple minded...

Since decentralization does not matter, the followers of Hearndresencoin can just use Paypal. There's no difference besides the personality cult around Andresen and Hearn.

[knight22]

If they want a piece of it then they want it to succeed.   Bip 101 lets it scale.

Retard arguments for the simple minded...

Since decentralization does not matter, the followers of Hearndresencoin can just use Paypal. There's no difference besides the personality cult around Andresen and Hearn.

Scaling bitcoin won't make it less decentralized to the point of jeopardising its robustness. The fear of centralization is overblown.

[RoadTrain]

If they want a piece of it then they want it to succeed.   Bip 101 lets it scale.

Retard arguments for the simple minded...

Since decentralization does not matter, the followers of Hearndresencoin can just use Paypal. There's no difference besides the personality cult around Andresen and Hearn.

Scaling bitcoin won't make it less decentralized to the point of jeopardising its robustness. The fear of centralization is overblown.

Scaling bitcoin by exponentially increasing blocksize limit will make it less decentralized to the point of jeopardising its robustness. The fear of centralization is justified.

You know, I can make statements as well.

[BitProdigy]

A Proposal for the Consensus Building Process:

1) All BIP's have equal weight in the voting process.

2)Miners vote with each newly mined Block.

3) BIPs are revised and amended according to argument and reservations submitted so that they are molded into the best possible versions that everyone is happy with.

4) Once 75% of blocks mined within the last 1000 blocks is in support of one BIP, an alert is sent out to everyone indicating that they should switch over to supporting this BIP.

5) Once 90% of blocks mined within the last 1000 blocks indicates support of the BIP the debate is over and the new BIP is implemented, all blocks that do not include the new BIP protocol changes are after that point rejected.


Historically the threshold has been 95% such as with BIP69, but I suggest lowering that to 90%. Agree? Disagree?

A few of us are working on creating an Open Letter to the Devs from The Bitcoin Community which will include this proposal. If you would like to help us shape this document PM me and I will send you a link to the Google Doc so you can help us write the letter.

[IIOII]

If they want a piece of it then they want it to succeed.   Bip 101 lets it scale.

Retard arguments for the simple minded...

Since decentralization does not matter, the followers of Hearndresencoin can just use Paypal. There's no difference besides the personality cult around Andresen and Hearn.

Scaling bitcoin won't make it less decentralized to the point of jeopardising its robustness. The fear of centralization is overblown.

Of course scaling is possible without harming decentralization. Just not the way those two self-proclaimed "benevolent dictators" want to do it. Their proposal which (among other privacy-attacking features) is now included into their Altcoin is not a well-thought-out solution. That's why the vast majority of Bitcoin Core developers rejected it.

Andresen and Hearn are very good at making PR and bully for their own interests. However that doesn't make them good engineers.

[knight22]

If they want a piece of it then they want it to succeed.   Bip 101 lets it scale.

Retard arguments for the simple minded...

Since decentralization does not matter, the followers of Hearndresencoin can just use Paypal. There's no difference besides the personality cult around Andresen and Hearn.

Scaling bitcoin won't make it less decentralized to the point of jeopardising its robustness. The fear of centralization is overblown.

Of course scaling is possible without harming decentralization. Just not the way those two self-proclaimed "benevolent dictators" want to do it. Their proposal which (among other privacy-attacking features) is now included into their Altcoin is not a well-thought-out solution. That's why the vast majority of Bitcoin Core developers rejected it.

Andresen and Hearn are very good at making PR and bully for their own interests. However that doesn't make them good engineers.

This scaling solution was part of the plan from the whole beginning. It’s just too bad a better solution didn't came up until to this point but now is the time to accept it and move forward. Time is money for these businesses and they can no longer afford to wait any more. They will make things happen as planned.

[knight22]

Circle intentions are no suprise and no secrets from the whole beginning

Which is precisely why I'm supplying the information from Circle's own press releases

and they do share the same goals than most of the biggest companies in the bitcoin space.

Except for all those that don't share their goals, of course

I guess people here don't understand that you are presenting proof that the financial status quo is hell bent on taking over Bitcoin. It makes sense for them to at least try to have some controlling interest in this new revolutionary technology. The problem is when they control the upper echelon of Bitcoin business and development it won't really be revolutionary techonology anymore but instead it will be the same old shit in a shiny new wrapper.

They won't be able to change a single thing of what bitcoin is expect for the scalability issue. What are you afraid they could do to the protocol exactly?

You don't really believe that do you? One small change could bring blacklisting and end Bitcoin's fungability. There are numerous ways to change Bitcoin for the worst. Sure, the few hundred thousand current users here would abandon it but hundreds of millions of other mainstream users would pick it up and trust it because big names in finance are supporting the system.

The DDOS protection in XT is also an overblown concern about blacklisting. Nobody wants this and every major players understand that bitcoin need to remain agnostic and fungible as they are key attributes for being a robust system.

[IIOII]

This scaling solution was part of the plan from the whole beginning. It’s just too bad a better solution didn't came up until to this point but now is the time to accept it and move forward. Time is money for these businesses and they can no longer afford to wait any more. They will make things happen as planned.

The DDOS protection in XT is also an overblown concern about blacklisting. Nobody wants this and every major players understand that bitcoin need to remain agnostic and fungible as they are key attributes for being a robust system.

It seems to be your job to downplay valid concerns with bogus arguments. Either you are hopelessly naive or a Hearndresencoin shill.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[jonald_fyookball]

This scaling solution was part of the plan from the whole beginning. It’s just too bad a better solution didn't came up until to this point but now is the time to accept it and move forward. Time is money for these businesses and they can no longer afford to wait any more. They will make things happen as planned.

The DDOS protection in XT is also an overblown concern about blacklisting. Nobody wants this and every major players understand that bitcoin need to remain agnostic and fungible as they are key attributes for being a robust system.

It seems to be your job to downplay valid concerns with bogus arguments. Either you are hopelessly naive or a Hearndresencoin shill.

Welcome to my ignore list.

If you don't understand the difference between DDOS blacklisting of IPs and blacklisting of coins which threatens fungibility, you are hopelessly naive or a blockstream shill.

[knight22]

This scaling solution was part of the plan from the whole beginning. It’s just too bad a better solution didn't came up until to this point but now is the time to accept it and move forward. Time is money for these businesses and they can no longer afford to wait any more. They will make things happen as planned.

The DDOS protection in XT is also an overblown concern about blacklisting. Nobody wants this and every major players understand that bitcoin need to remain agnostic and fungible as they are key attributes for being a robust system.

It seems to be your job to downplay valid concerns with bogus arguments. Either you are hopelessly naive or a Hearndresencoin shill.

Welcome to my ignore list.

If you don't understand the difference between DDOS blacklisting of IPs and blacklisting of coins which threatens fungibility, you are hopelessly naive paranoid or a blockstream shill.

FTFY

[QuestionAuthority]

This scaling solution was part of the plan from the whole beginning. It’s just too bad a better solution didn't came up until to this point but now is the time to accept it and move forward. Time is money for these businesses and they can no longer afford to wait any more. They will make things happen as planned.

The DDOS protection in XT is also an overblown concern about blacklisting. Nobody wants this and every major players understand that bitcoin need to remain agnostic and fungible as they are key attributes for being a robust system.

It seems to be your job to downplay valid concerns with bogus arguments. Either you are hopelessly naive or a Hearndresencoin shill.

Welcome to my ignore list.

If you don't understand the difference between DDOS blacklisting of IPs and blacklisting of coins which threatens fungibility, you are hopelessly naive or a blockstream shill.

The problem lies with shitheads like Luke Dashjr who make changes unilaterally. He decides to make a Gentoo patch that blacklists sites. The bastard blacklisted SatoshiDice, BitcoinDice, Satoshibones, and Luckybit. He also blocked addresses operated by Mastercoin, and Counterparty without telling anyone. He used his pools power, disregarding the trust of his miners, to destroy an altcoin instead of mine Bitcoin which is what his miners signed up to do. As long as people like him are on the dev team I find it hard to trust anything they say or do because you won't find out until way after the fact that any change was made. When you involve corporate heads and government heads to operate your company and develop Bitcoin it's like having an entire team of Luke Dashjr's controlling Bitcoin. At that point I'm out. MasterCard, Visa and bank accounts have worked well for me so far, jumping the extra hoops to use Bitcoin won't be worth it, and the old financial system execs are in charge anyway so why change?

[IIOII]

If you don't understand the difference between DDOS blacklisting of IPs and blacklisting of coins which threatens fungibility, you are hopelessly naive or a blockstream shill.

1.) What makes you think that I don't understand the difference?
2.) What makes you think that IP blacklisting is harmless?

These are rhetorical questions. Don't put too much effort into your answer, because I will no longer read it.

[RoadTrain]

The problem lies with shitheads like Luke Dashjr who make changes unilaterally. He decides to make a Gentoo patch that blacklists sites. The bastard blacklisted SatoshiDice, BitcoinDice, Satoshibones, and Luckybit. He also blocked addresses operated by Mastercoin, and Counterparty without telling anyone. He used his pools power, disregarding the trust of his miners, to destroy an altcoin instead of mine Bitcoin which is what his miners signed up to do. As long as people like him are on the dev team I find it hard to trust anything they say or do because you won't find out until way after the fact that any change was made. When you involve corporate heads and government heads to operate your company and develop Bitcoin it's like having an entire team of Luke Dashjr's controlling Bitcoin. At that point I'm out. MasterCard, Visa and bank accounts have worked well for me so far, jumping the extra hoops to use Bitcoin won't be worth it, and the old financial system execs are in charge anyway so why change?

Luke is not a core developer and doesn't have commit access to Bitcoin's repo: https://bitcoin.org/en/development
Though it doesn't prevent him from doing stuff for Core, as many other contributors do.

[IIOII]

The problem lies with shitheads like Luke Dashjr who make changes unilaterally. He decides to make a Gentoo patch that blacklists sites. The bastard blacklisted SatoshiDice, BitcoinDice, Satoshibones, and Luckybit. He also blocked addresses operated by Mastercoin, and Counterparty without telling anyone. He used his pools power, disregarding the trust of his miners, to destroy an altcoin instead of mine Bitcoin which is what his miners signed up to do. As long as people like him are on the dev team I find it hard to trust anything they say or do because you won't find out until way after the fact that any change was made. When you involve corporate heads and government heads to operate your company and develop Bitcoin it's like having an entire team of Luke Dashjr's controlling Bitcoin. At that point I'm out. MasterCard, Visa and bank accounts have worked well for me so far, jumping the extra hoops to use Bitcoin won't be worth it, and the old financial system execs are in charge anyway so why change?

Luke is not a core developer and doesn't have commit access to Bitcoin's repo: https://bitcoin.org/en/development
Though it doesn't prevent him from doing stuff for Core, as many other contributors do.

Luke certainly has a rather controlling character. On the other hand he made some significant contributions to Core. I think within the current consensus process he won't be able to harm Bitcoin, because the other developers will prevent it. Imho overall it is still good to have him on board.

[jonald_fyookball]

If you don't understand the difference between DDOS blacklisting of IPs and blacklisting of coins which threatens fungibility, you are hopelessly naive or a blockstream shill.

1.) What makes you think that I don't understand the difference?
 

Actually I apologize, I misread the post.