Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong calls the industry to fork Bitcoin Core

[Zarathustra]

Oh how I wish the Bitcoin community would shun Coinbase...  Everything about that company is pure evil.

They are not alone on that boat you know?

http://blog.blockchain.com/2015/08/24/industry-endorses-bigger-blocks-and-bip101/

Scust. A bunch of banking parasites pretending to be important.

LOL. This is Bitcoin -  not communist coin.

[1714976360]

1714976360

[1714976360]

1714976360

[1714976360]

1714976360

[1714976360]

1714976360

[1714976360]

1714976360

[knight22]

XT has code which blacklists IPs. Until that is removed, it can keep sinking to where it deserves to go.

EDIT: This is another unfortunate desire of Coinbase. They have a history of rejecting accounts due to tainted Bitcoins. IMHO this destroys the fungibility property of Bitcoin. If your BTC can be rejected because it was used for undesirable activities in the past (even if you had nothing to do with those activities) then your BTC is not worth the same as other BTC. It's also a form of censorship.

THis is pretty much the end of the debate right here, nothing else matters.  The idea of blacklisting coins, go make some shitcoin.

Just turn it off. It's that simple.

https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/issues/40

No that won't work. That prevents your node banning others, not yours from getting banned. XT users will have to live with little to no Tor connectivity.

Only when nodes are being under DDOS attack.

[Carlton Banks]

Just turn it off. It's that simple.

https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/issues/40

No that won't work. That prevents your node banning others, not yours from getting banned. XT users will have to live with little to no Tor connectivity.

Only when nodes are being under DDOS attack.

Wrong again, XT node operators can decide to disconnect Tor connected nodes as they please, doesn't matter whether there's a DDOS attack taking place or not. What happened to "Just turn it off. It's that simple."? Misleading statement, wasn't it? It literally isn't that simple, as you and I are demonstrating?

[knight22]

Just turn it off. It's that simple.

https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/issues/40

No that won't work. That prevents your node banning others, not yours from getting banned. XT users will have to live with little to no Tor connectivity.

Only when nodes are being under DDOS attack.

Wrong again, XT node operators can decide to disconnect Tor connected nodes as they please, doesn't matter whether there's a DDOS attack taking place or not.

True but they are not disconnected by default. Secondly, people can run BIP101 nodes implemented on Core instead of XT. This anti-DDOS feature is not something set in stone.

[Carlton Banks]

This anti-DDOS feature is not something set in stone.

Thankfully the same is true of the majority of Mike Hearn's attempts at design solutions.

Remind me again, what happened to "Just turn it off. It's that simple."?

[theymos]

This is so stupid. It is possible (but certainly not assured) that a coalition of Coinbase and some other big exchanges could apply enough economic pressure to force through a hardfork vis-à-vis the economic majority, but:

- If they fail, it will massively damage them.
- If they succeed, it will massively damage Bitcoin. A large percentage of users will refuse to switch, so they've automatically reduced the size of the Bitcoin economy -- both the price and their number of customers will go down. And BIP 101 itself is basically suicidal.

It looks like BitStamp is one of the most sane exchanges nowadays.

P.S. I was trying to find that quote from Gavin where he describes his vision of Bitcoin's future as being one where full nodes are only run by what are essentially banks. It was several paragraphs long. Does anyone have that?

[HostFat]

P.S. I was trying to find that quote from Gavin where he describes his vision of Bitcoin's future as being one where full nodes are only run by what are essentially banks. It was several paragraphs long. Does anyone have that?

Maybe you are referring to something that even Satoshi said.
As I remember correctly, he even thought that even different continents could be concurring on the mining, but it has passed a lot of time...

Anyway, you should jump out of your bubble and see who and what is really damaging the community.

Make your statements as you are doing, but let the others doing it also.

[knight22]

P.S. I was trying to find that quote from Gavin where he describes his vision of Bitcoin's future as being one where full nodes are only run by what are essentially banks. It was several paragraphs long. Does anyone have that?

Are you trying to find what Gavin expanded on that matter? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306

[mayax]

XT is just another e-currency controlled by Gavin&Co.... Co = Coinbase and other big exchangers.

XT has nothing to do with BTC. It modifies the BTC core to become something different.

[meono]

This is so stupid. It is possible (but certainly not assured) that a coalition of Coinbase and some other big exchanges could apply enough economic pressure to force through a hardfork vis-à-vis the economic majority, but:

- If they fail, it will massively damage them.
- If they succeed, it will massively damage Bitcoin. A large percentage of users will refuse to switch, so they've automatically reduced the size of the Bitcoin economy -- both the price and their number of customers will go down. And BIP 101 itself is basically suicidal.

It looks like BitStamp is one of the most sane exchanges nowadays.

P.S. I was trying to find that quote from Gavin where he describes his vision of Bitcoin's future as being one where full nodes are only run by what are essentially banks. It was several paragraphs long. Does anyone have that?

Say the idiot himself.

Calling something stupid while the whole community calls you idiot....

[mezzomix]

XT has code which blacklists IPs. Until that is removed, it can keep sinking to where it deserves to go.

Even without those features XT stands for 8 GB blocks.

In 20 years...

I suggest that we (all bitcoin users not just the miners) decide now what limit we need now. In 20 years we decide what limit we need at this point in time or if we don't need a limit anymore. With bitcoin we don't need a master that tells us what we have to do. Only slaves have masters.

[iCEBREAKER]

This is so stupid. It is possible (but certainly not assured) that a coalition of Coinbase and some other big exchanges could apply enough economic pressure to force through a hardfork vis-à-vis the economic majority, but:

- If they fail, it will massively damage them.
- If they succeed, it will massively damage Bitcoin. A large percentage of users will refuse to switch, so they've automatically reduced the size of the Bitcoin economy -- both the price and their number of customers will go down. And BIP 101 itself is basically suicidal.

I like BashCo's epic dressing down of the Gavinistas.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3rlkh2/adam_back_says_there_is_vote_manipulation/cwpcopq

abusive voting patterns were stifling the block size debate leading up to the release of the non-consensus code. This had created an illusion of popular support by the time XT was released and the new subreddit policy was enacted in response. I didn't notice any decrease in vote abuse at that point. I'd say the problem only got worse after the XT sub was created and 'everybody left'. This is because they didn't leave since nobody followed them like they expected, and XT adoption flopped hard. So now we're stuck with maybe 500 people who don't want to be here, but don't have the support they thought they did as evidenced by metrics across the board.  They're bitter, angry, loud and just hang around and ruin the experience of other readers who don't share their views, but aren't willing to stick their head out for fear of getting sniped.

[molecular]

P.S. I was trying to find that quote from Gavin where he describes his vision of Bitcoin's future as being one where full nodes are only run by what are essentially banks. It was several paragraphs long. Does anyone have that?

Are you trying to find what Gavin expanded on that matter? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306

you mean satoshi? The post you linked is by Satoshi:

The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale.  That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server.  The design supports letting users just be users.  The more burden it is to run a node, the fewer nodes there will be.  Those few nodes will be big server farms.  The rest will be client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate.

[Carlton Banks]

XT has code which blacklists IPs. Until that is removed, it can keep sinking to where it deserves to go.

Even without those features XT stands for 8 GB blocks.

In 20 years...

I suggest that we (all bitcoin users not just the miners) decide now what limit we need now. In 20 years we decide what limit we need at this point in time or if we don't need a limit anymore. With bitcoin we don't need a master that tells us what we have to do. Only slaves have masters.

Exactly. The idea that Einstein, Satoshi or anyone else can predict what Bitcoin is going to need even 5 years from now is a joke, and yet Gavin Andresen seems to think he can predict the next 20 years. A better idea is needed than static, scheduled increases (especially overly-aggressive increase schedules).  

[mammon]

Well, too bad but Bitcoin is allready in hands of the Elite...

If they want XT for more\better\full control, then XT it WILL be.

Too bad, but bitcoin is just another instrument to rule markets.

[mezzomix]

If they want XT for more\better\full control, then XT it WILL be.

For them but not for me and not for the rest of the users.

[Mickeyb]

It seems to me that there is a new round of Bitcoin XT debate coming to us as the end of the year is nearing. I am sure that propaganda will do its job!

[iCEBREAKER]

  jump out of your bubble and see who and what is really damaging the community   

The premise that thermos is in a "bubble" is fallacious because it is ad hominem.  Let's be rational and communicate in good faith, instead of arguing about who is or isn't in a bubble.

Bitcoin, inclusive of its community, is antifragile.

We REQUIRE adversity such as the attempted Gavinista governance coup and attempted hostile XT fork to grow stronger.

When you whine about "really damaging the community" what jumps out at me is your gratuitous use of the utterly unnecessary term "really" to modify "damaging."

"Really damaging?"  As opposed to what, fake damaging or trivially damaging?   

Such linguistic cues betray the fact you know your argument is very weak, so you (consciously or not) puff up your rhetoric with feeble attempts at impact exaggeration.

[Zarathustra]

The premise that thermos is in a "bubble" is fallacious because it is ad hominem. 

Uuuuh, ad hominem against the Greatest Censor of Bitcoin History ...

[iCEBREAKER]

  the Greatest Censor of Bitcoin History 

You know your argument is very weak, so you (consciously or not) puff up your rhetoric with feeble attempts at impact exaggeration.