Bitcoin Forum
December 14, 2017, 03:31:59 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong calls the industry to fork Bitcoin Core  (Read 9104 times)
Nagle
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204


View Profile WWW
November 09, 2015, 09:17:28 AM
 #181

Unless a node is doing mining, why should it limit the block size? Block size is determined by what the majority of miners accept.  Other nodes are just slaves of the miners.
1513222319
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513222319

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513222319
Reply with quote  #2

1513222319
Report to moderator
1513222319
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513222319

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513222319
Reply with quote  #2

1513222319
Report to moderator
1513222319
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513222319

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513222319
Reply with quote  #2

1513222319
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513222319
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513222319

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513222319
Reply with quote  #2

1513222319
Report to moderator
1513222319
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513222319

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513222319
Reply with quote  #2

1513222319
Report to moderator
1513222319
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513222319

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513222319
Reply with quote  #2

1513222319
Report to moderator
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
November 09, 2015, 09:27:26 AM
 #182

Unless a node is doing mining, why should it limit the block size? Block size is determined by what the majority of miners accept.  Other nodes are just slaves of the miners.

It is called validation because if some peer you are connected to you is going to start throwing huge blocks at you then they are chewing up your bandwidth with rubbish (same as sending you huge txs with no fees, etc.).

Full nodes will necessarily perform such validation in order to reduce potential DoS attacks (am surprised that you hadn't already realised this).

For SPV usage there is much less validation going on (which is why SPV mining is such a bad idea).

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 09, 2015, 12:56:28 PM
 #183

Unless a node is doing mining, why should it limit the block size? Block size is determined by what the majority of miners accept.  Other nodes are just slaves of the miners.

Because mining nodes are subsidized while the other full nodes on the network, who are essential to Bitcoin's censorship resistance, are not.

Do you want to centralize node control over to mining nodes?

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
mayax
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


View Profile
November 09, 2015, 01:25:05 PM
 #184

is now war but i think this business operators did not understand that bitcoin and the people that using don't need anymore the old financial system. We want to change it or to completely destroy it and create something new.
Instead in their opinion bitcoin must change to be a small part of this old system. this is wrong.

Exactly.

If you want to understand the behavior of Andresen, Hearn, and Ver* you should continue reading here:

http://www.minddisorders.com/Kau-Nu/Narcissistic-personality-disorder.html

The outlook that their condition will improve is not too bright:

Quote
Prognosis

The prognosis for younger persons with narcissistic disorders is hopeful to the extent that the disturbances reflect a simple lack of life experience. The outlook for long-standing NPD, however, is largely negative. Some narcissists are able, particularly as they approach their midlife years, to accept their own limitations and those of others, to resolve their problems with envy, and to accept their own mortality. Most patients with NPD, on the other hand, become increasingly depressed as they grow older within a youth-oriented culture and lose their looks and overall vitality. The retirement years are especially painful for patients with NPD because they must yield their positions in the working world to the next generation. In addition, they do not have the network of intimate family ties and friendships that sustain most older people.

(*) Now also known as Vearndresencoiners.

ya.ya.yo!

great point! Indeed, the are sick. Smiley

-He or she has a grandiose sense of self-importance (exaggerates accomplishments and demands to be considered superior without real evidence of achievement).
-He or she lives in a dream world of exceptional success, power, beauty, genius, or "perfect" love.
- He or she thinks of him- or herself as "special" or privileged, and that he or she can only be understood by other special or high-status people

- He or she is exploitative towards others and takes advantage of them.
- He or she "has an attitude" or frequently acts in haughty or arrogant ways.

Are't these common to those...so called "elite shit" who say that they represent BTC? Remember their interviews, their speeches.

They only want to control Bitcoin. Who are they? Look to the big exchangers' shareholders(they are the same; as I stated in a previous post). They are "they" Smiley
All of them are connected. It's not a theory of conspiration. It's the pure truth with facts.

You should be blind or ignorant not seeing that.
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
November 09, 2015, 02:29:26 PM
 #185

Do you want to centralize node control over to mining nodes?
Giving node control to miners is not centralization unless you believe miners are centralized. If you believe miners are centralized, then what does it matter if the nodes are also?

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
Was
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 75

We are Satoshi.


View Profile
November 09, 2015, 05:28:23 PM
 #186

We don't need change we're not ready for. The 1MB Block size symbolizes not only a technological limitation on the network, but a limitation of the capability of the community.

We don't have a proper solution to the Block size increase yet. We also need to address node incentives (if we're to implement hard forking change). Satoshi said he believes we need a way to incentivize the propagation of fresh transactions to the network.

Has anyone read the white paper on Bitcoin and red Balloons? 

Was

We Are Satoshi.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 09, 2015, 05:46:45 PM
 #187

Do you want to centralize node control over to mining nodes?
Giving node control to miners is not centralization unless you believe miners are centralized. If you believe miners are centralized, then what does it matter if the nodes are also?

I do believe mining is a dangerously centralized business which is why the nodes are required to keep this inherent economy of scale in check.

Mining centralization can only affect the network to a certain extent. Centralization of governance (full nodes) implies that they get to change the rules as it pleases them. Not a risk I wanna take.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
November 10, 2015, 07:36:05 AM
 #188

Do you want to centralize node control over to mining nodes?
Giving node control to miners is not centralization unless you believe miners are centralized. If you believe miners are centralized, then what does it matter if the nodes are also?

I do believe mining is a dangerously centralized business which is why the nodes are required to keep this inherent economy of scale in check.

Mining centralization can only affect the network to a certain extent. Centralization of governance (full nodes) implies that they get to change the rules as it pleases them. Not a risk I wanna take.
Again with politics. Why do you insist that governance has anything to do with Bitcoin? You can change rules on your own miner or node, but you can't force anyone else to change them too.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
November 10, 2015, 07:54:37 AM
 #189

Do you want to centralize node control over to mining nodes?
Giving node control to miners is not centralization unless you believe miners are centralized. If you believe miners are centralized, then what does it matter if the nodes are also?

I do believe mining is a dangerously centralized business which is why the nodes are required to keep this inherent economy of scale in check.

Mining centralization can only affect the network to a certain extent. Centralization of governance (full nodes) implies that they get to change the rules as it pleases them. Not a risk I wanna take.
Again with politics. Why do you insist that governance has anything to do with Bitcoin? You can change rules on your own miner or node, but you can't force anyone else to change them too.

Yes. Some Bitcoiners hate choice.

Some of them don't:

"I will argue that it is more important that nodes follow the longest chain composed of valid transactions than dogmatically adhere to an arbitrary block size limit. I will end my talk by proposing a simple change for bitcoin software to allow a node operator to express his free choice regarding the size of blocks he is willing to accept while simultaneously ensuring that his node tracks consensus."

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3s525y/the_size_of_blocks_policy_tool_or_emergent/
mayax
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


View Profile
November 11, 2015, 02:29:30 PM
 #190

Coinbase and their shitty shareholders can use XT without any problem. Why do they ask to for a fork? They can no longer accept Bitcoin and they can only accept XT. Simple!

This rule is available to anybody. Use any ALT COIN you wish(like XT, Litecoin, Shitcoin, PissCoin, etc) but don't require for a fork.
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
November 11, 2015, 02:48:40 PM
 #191

"I will argue that it is more important that nodes follow the longest chain composed of valid transactions than dogmatically adhere to an arbitrary block size limit. I will end my talk by proposing a simple change for bitcoin software to allow a node operator to express his free choice regarding the size of blocks he is willing to accept while simultaneously ensuring that his node tracks consensus."

That makes absolutely no sense - if your node is not going to accept a large block due to his "free choice" and yet that large block becomes part of the consensus chain then exactly how is that node supposed to "track consensus"?

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
n2004al
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008


View Profile
November 11, 2015, 03:03:19 PM
 #192

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong calls the industry to fork Bitcoin Core by the end of December

Quote
In my view, Bitcoin XT is the best option I've seen so far. Not just because it has working code, but also because it has a simple implementation that is easy to understand, the block-size increases seem about right to me, and I have confidence in the people behind the project. My preference at this point would be to have Gavin step up as the final decision-maker on Bitcoin XT, and have the industry move to that solution with help from Mike Hearn, Jeff Garzik and others that wish to do so.”

The CEO believes an upgrade is urgently needed in order for the Bitcoin network to handle a sudden increase of Bitcoin usage. As such, Armstrong emphasized that Coinbase will not wait for consensus to form among the Bitcoin development community.

“We will upgrade regardless of whether Bitcoin Core is updated,” Armstrong said. “Capacity planning is something you should try to get ahead of. Growth can be unpredictable, and I want to remove all blockers to Bitcoin's success. I've been disappointed to see how slow Bitcoin Core has moved on this issue, and we're open to switching forks.”

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/coinbase-ceo-brian-armstrong-bip-is-the-best-proposal-we-ve-seen-so-far-1446584055

Everyone understand that these discordances are only bad for bitcoin. I cannot understand how is possible that all these people who live with and mainly for bitcoin cannot find a solution for a so "easy" problem. The actual size of blocks is a problem which affect all the activity of bitcoin. Most of technicians of this field agree that the actual size is more problem than good for bitcoin. Hours to have confirmation. Most of the developers of bitcoin accept the fact that needed an increase of size of the blocks. Size less, size more, them accept the increase of block size. Why don't agree? Why don't be able to collaborate and arrive at an unique conclusion about such important thing which have months of discussion and risk the sure future development of bitcoin? I cannot understand such behavior. Seems like children which quarrel about the size of their ice cream and not for the future of a such important invention like bitcoin. Very bad. Very irresponsibly. Very risky. When and how will finish?
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 17, 2015, 12:55:28 AM
 #193

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong calls the industry to fork Bitcoin Core by the end of December

Quote
In my view, Bitcoin XT is the best option I've seen so far. Not just because it has working code, but also because it has a simple implementation that is easy to understand, the block-size increases seem about right to me, and I have confidence in the people behind the project. My preference at this point would be to have Gavin step up as the final decision-maker on Bitcoin XT, and have the industry move to that solution with help from Mike Hearn, Jeff Garzik and others that wish to do so.”

The CEO believes an upgrade is urgently needed in order for the Bitcoin network to handle a sudden increase of Bitcoin usage. As such, Armstrong emphasized that Coinbase will not wait for consensus to form among the Bitcoin development community.

“We will upgrade regardless of whether Bitcoin Core is updated,” Armstrong said. “Capacity planning is something you should try to get ahead of. Growth can be unpredictable, and I want to remove all blockers to Bitcoin's success. I've been disappointed to see how slow Bitcoin Core has moved on this issue, and we're open to switching forks.”

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/coinbase-ceo-brian-armstrong-bip-is-the-best-proposal-we-ve-seen-so-far-1446584055

Everyone understand that these discordances are only bad for bitcoin. I cannot understand how is possible that all these people who live with and mainly for bitcoin cannot find a solution for a so "easy" problem. The actual size of blocks is a problem which affect all the activity of bitcoin. Most of technicians of this field agree that the actual size is more problem than good for bitcoin. Hours to have confirmation. Most of the developers of bitcoin accept the fact that needed an increase of size of the blocks. Size less, size more, them accept the increase of block size. Why don't agree? Why don't be able to collaborate and arrive at an unique conclusion about such important thing which have months of discussion and risk the sure future development of bitcoin? I cannot understand such behavior. Seems like children which quarrel about the size of their ice cream and not for the future of a such important invention like bitcoin. Very bad. Very irresponsibly. Very risky. When and how will finish?

we're learning not everyone understands how bitcoin works, ego is not part of bitcoin, yet it seems to have latched on where there is weakness, its' a good thing it'll either kill bitcoin or make it stronger.

In my view small blockists just need to digest whats been said, we now wait a little, while egos settle, then we can move on.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
November 17, 2015, 09:23:31 AM
 #194

we're learning not everyone understands how bitcoin works, ego is not part of bitcoin, yet it seems to have latched on where there is weakness, its' a good thing it'll either kill bitcoin or make it stronger.

In my view small blockists just need to digest whats been said, we now wait a little, while egos settle, then we can move on.
You are right that ego is not part of Bitcoin. Bitcoin also doesn't wait for egos to settle down, it waits for consensus. In the marketplace of ideas, usually the mediocre ideas win because sales, marketing, and profit margins. Egos are very good at selling mediocrity at a hefty profit margin.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!