So the bitcoin classic (2MB) coup was compromised?

[BitUsher]

XT/BU/Classic is the side that is trying to power grab Bitcoin in the false pretenses of 'decentralized development' and 'multiple implementations is better'.

This is a fair point to make as they do not make the distinction between implementations that break consensus rules and a diversity of implementations  that cooperate with each other. Additionally, I have seen the same users jump from XT to BU to the now classic iteration going from 20MB to infinity to 8MB to Infinity to Let's vote on Infinity to 2MB BiP 102...

P.S.... I have nothing technically against BIP 102 with the right sigop protections ... but don't see any advantages above segwit to it technically .

[1714048866]

1714048866

[1714048866]

1714048866

[1714048866]

1714048866

[1714048866]

1714048866

[1714048866]

1714048866

[DaRude]

I'm hope the Chinese decide to stick with Core. I think we need to address the "Core" of the problem instead of splintering off into factions.

Any attempt by core to pick up the pieces and get back on track will be a too little too late act of desperation similar to the content of the OP. Those who think core continuing with their fiasco will somehow be a boon for say goldcoin or litecoin or crypto in general are living in fantasyville.

Considering that bitcoin in its current technical state is not broken, splintering the community into different factions and bitcoin into different brands seems extremely counterproductive. The fact that Coinbase and Circle Pay are so quickly ready to jump aboard the bitcoin classic Titantic is also cause for concern.

It seems to me that the core developers have the cooler heads and are being conservative and well intending. I think divided bitcoin will be conquered, but united it will stand.

I think it's a classic divide between techies and marketers. Techies still treat it as if it's a testnet, marketers treat it as core of their business and want exponential growth YESTERDAY!

But it is naive to expect that miners will support anything that would render their ASICs useless.

[wserd]

I'm hope the Chinese decide to stick with Core. I think we need to address the "Core" of the problem instead of splintering off into factions.

Any attempt by core to pick up the pieces and get back on track will be a too little too late act of desperation similar to the content of the OP. Those who think core continuing with their fiasco will somehow be a boon for say goldcoin or litecoin or crypto in general are living in fantasyville.

Considering that bitcoin in its current technical state is not broken, splintering the community into different factions and bitcoin into different brands seems extremely counterproductive. The fact that Coinbase and Circle Pay are so quickly ready to jump aboard the bitcoin classic Titantic is also cause for concern.

It seems to me that the core developers have the cooler heads and are being conservative and well intending. I think divided bitcoin will be conquered, but united it will stand.

I think it's a classic divide between techies and marketers. Techies still treat it as if it's a testnet, marketers treat it as core of their business and want exponential growth YESTERDAY!

But it is naive to expect that miners will support anything that would render their ASICs useless.

Greg Maxwell was the one to say that if a fork happens where miners go to Classic, that he will push through a change to the POW so current ASICs are incompatible. Sounds to me like with that out there now, miners would be safer going with Classic. Is that what you are insinuating as well?

[xyzzy099]

I'm hope the Chinese decide to stick with Core. I think we need to address the "Core" of the problem instead of splintering off into factions.

Any attempt by core to pick up the pieces and get back on track will be a too little too late act of desperation similar to the content of the OP. Those who think core continuing with their fiasco will somehow be a boon for say goldcoin or litecoin or crypto in general are living in fantasyville.

Considering that bitcoin in its current technical state is not broken, splintering the community into different factions and bitcoin into different brands seems extremely counterproductive. The fact that Coinbase and Circle Pay are so quickly ready to jump aboard the bitcoin classic Titantic is also cause for concern.

It seems to me that the core developers have the cooler heads and are being conservative and well intending. I think divided bitcoin will be conquered, but united it will stand.

I think it's a classic divide between techies and marketers. Techies still treat it as if it's a testnet, marketers treat it as core of their business and want exponential growth YESTERDAY!

But it is naive to expect that miners will support anything that would render their ASICs useless.

Greg Maxwell was the one to say that if a fork happens where miners go to Classic, that he will push through a change to the POW so current ASICs are incompatible. Sounds to me like with that out there now, miners would be safer going with Classic. Is that what you are insinuating as well?

I'm pretty sure GMaxwell never said that.  He was asked to comment on the feasibility of such an action, and he confirmed that it could be done, hypothetically.  That's all.

[jonald_fyookball]

XT/BU/Classic is the side that is trying to power grab Bitcoin in the false pretenses of 'decentralized development' and 'multiple implementations is better'.

What's false about it? 

I say decentralized development and multiple implementations are indeed better.

[BitUsher]

XT/BU/Classic is the side that is trying to power grab Bitcoin in the false pretenses of 'decentralized development' and 'multiple implementations is better'.

What's false about it?  

I say decentralized development and multiple implementations are indeed better.

What is misleading about it is the "white lie of omission"  where you leave out some important details in your propaganda where you don't acknowledge the fact that multiple implementations do already exist with different developers and the fact that you don't make a distinction between implementations that are trying to change the consensus rules with the others and ones that cooperate, and the salient fact that Bitcoin core is working on libbitcoinconsensus to make bitcoin more modular for the express reason of supporting multiple implementations.

If you had more integrity your statements would be less misleading if written like this:

"I acknowledge that Bitcoin core is working on libbitcoinconsensus to improve modularity for the sake of cooperative implementations coexisting, but I am frustrated that more that only 6 full implementations exist and many other partial implementations. I additionally would prefer implementations that were competing with each other to change the primary consensus rules where the network could always be on the verge of a hardfork."

[eddie13]

I'll PM lottery248 and ask him if he would mind stopping by this thread to translate the OP.

[Yakamoto]

People need to stop following the banksters plans and start following their own understanding.

The issue is that, as it stands in society, more people are interested in checking out the latest social media fad or liking their friend's selfies than learning more about economics. They simply want to get paid, hit like, repeat, and die. Very few people, specifically the ones on this forum, are interested in doing other things in our lives.

It's actually really discouraging, but you gotta live with it.

[jonald_fyookball]

XT/BU/Classic is the side that is trying to power grab Bitcoin in the false pretenses of 'decentralized development' and 'multiple implementations is better'.

What's false about it?  

I say decentralized development and multiple implementations are indeed better.

What is misleading about it is the "white lie of omission"  where you leave out some important details in your propaganda where you don't acknowledge the fact that multiple implementations do already exist with different developers and the fact that you don't make a distinction between implementations that are trying to change the consensus rules with the others and ones that cooperate, and the salient fact that Bitcoin core is working on libbitcoinconsensus to make bitcoin more modular for the express reason of supporting multiple implementations.

If you had more integrity your statements would be less misleading if written like this:

"I acknowledge that Bitcoin core is working on libbitcoinconsensus to improve modularity for the sake of cooperative implementations coexisting, but I am frustrated that more that only 6 full implementations exist and many other partial implementations. I additionally would prefer implementations that were competing with each other to change the primary consensus rules where the network could always be on the verge of a hardfork."

I shouldn't have to contextualize everything I say, especially when certain facts
are obvious.  That fact that you're demanding I communicate a certain way and
accusing me of propaganda and dishonesty is petty and ridiculous.

Everyone knows that Classic wants to hard fork to 2 MB. It's right on their
website!   So stop acting like a tool, ok?   I know you're passionate about
Bitcoin, we all are.

I could say that your spin of "always be on the verge of a hardfork" is dishonest,
is propaganda, and lacks context (because I think it is and does).

I'd explain further if you were interested, but clearly you're not, and
anyway you are a bit too combative for me to have an intelligent
conversation with.

[BitcoinNewsMagazine]

I'm hope the Chinese decide to stick with Core. I think we need to address the "Core" of the problem instead of splintering off into factions.

Any attempt by core to pick up the pieces and get back on track will be a too little too late act of desperation similar to the content of the OP. Those who think core continuing with their fiasco will somehow be a boon for say goldcoin or litecoin or crypto in general are living in fantasyville.

Considering that bitcoin in its current technical state is not broken, splintering the community into different factions and bitcoin into different brands seems extremely counterproductive. The fact that Coinbase and Circle Pay are so quickly ready to jump aboard the bitcoin classic Titantic is also cause for concern.

It seems to me that the core developers have the cooler heads and are being conservative and well intending. I think divided bitcoin will be conquered, but united it will stand.

I think it's a classic divide between techies and marketers. Techies still treat it as if it's a testnet, marketers treat it as core of their business and want exponential growth YESTERDAY!

But it is naive to expect that miners will support anything that would render their ASICs useless.

Greg Maxwell was the one to say that if a fork happens where miners go to Classic, that he will push through a change to the POW so current ASICs are incompatible. Sounds to me like with that out there now, miners would be safer going with Classic. Is that what you are insinuating as well?

I'm pretty sure GMaxwell never said that.  He was asked to comment on the feasibility of such an action, and he confirmed that it could be done, hypothetically.  That's all.

If Classic was successful with miners luke-jr proposed PoW change which was dismissed by Iriez and sipa see http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2016/01/20#l1453313394.0

[Peter R]

...implementations that are trying to change the consensus rules with the others and ones that cooperate...

Let's say more and more node operators continue to increase the limits for the size of blocks they are willing to accept.  They do this to signal to miners "if you want to produce a bigger block, I would be willing to accept it!"  Eventually, the "Wall at 1 MB" falls and a brave miner has enough confidence to try to produce a 1.1 MB block.  Let's image that block gets accepted into the blockchain.  



In such a case, who was it that changed the consensus rules?  

Did the rules actually change?

How do we know what the consensus rules today are?

[franky1]

XT/BU/Classic is the side that is trying to power grab Bitcoin in the false pretenses of 'decentralized development' and 'multiple implementations is better'.

well maybe instead of the blockstream crew only arguing the politics of the r3 crew.. how about random programmers from all the different camps release a bitcoin-core that has 2mb limit.

that way there is no debate about r3 group as people can get a 2mb implementation from people that are not r3 related.

EG imagine the blockstream crew having 2 implementations: 2mb and segwit1mb.. and then let the community choose the preferences without having to be involved in the politics of the people behind it

holding the source code to only one download location and implementing only one rule depending on the politics of one party is the main debate.. so open up the politics and have both, that way people will finally see that there is no political agenda to worry about. and ultimately just whats the best FEATURES of the CODE, as thats all that counts in the end.. the code

[capcher]

http://8btc.com/forum.php?mod=redirect&goto=findpost&ptid=28217&pid=354944

原微博是P2PBUCKS发的，但他已经删掉了微博。还不一定呢。

Translation: the original weibo is posted by P2PBUCKS, but he has already deleted it. It's still uncertain.

[lottery248]

As a result of the Beijing conference, the mining farm agrees to stick with bitcoin core and 1M plan.
Apparently they couldn't afford to lose the user base and the risk of their ASICs being rendered useless.

bitcoin酱：矿工缩了
http://8btc.com/thread-28217-1-1.html

here is my possible translation: after the conference in beijing, the bitcoin core remains. bitcoin classic by Jeff and Gavin did not get the support throughout the bitcoin users in China. in the future, the bitcoin 'decentralized value of network', the transaction fees increases, in order to increase the miners. the full node user will increase throughout the network. the major companies will often use the 'super flash network' or viceversa to confirm/conclude the agreement.
china refuses to use XT, the core is now being agreed throughout the china. (in a nutshell)

if it is helpful, please tip a little.

[franky1]

relax
iceland is taking over as the new spot for mining. and so far china only has 114 full nodes (2%) running so lets not be sheeple and follow china decision. remember 4800 nodes around the world can happily have 2mb in their settings and still receive china's 1mb blocks, because 1mb is still less than 2mb so there wont be any problem for USERS to upgrade limits and then leave miners to upgrade only when consensus allows it..
miners will stick to 1mb long after people upgrade. as thats how it works, miners stay a couple of generations of updates behind the rest of people, to ensure happy co-existance, and only upgrade once the community as a whole are settled and ready

so dont wait for miners to decide for you.. instead you decide for the miners.. they will adapt eventually when the time is right. just be sure your ready.

and dont worry about what bandcamp you get into.. there are lots of guides to tell you how to manually change the block limit even in bitcoin-core.. so dont fall for the political drama. just concentrate on the code

[lottery248]

i would believe that this is a very great news to the majority of the core user, because they won't need a certainly large amount of spaces to sustain the bitcoin core, and besides it could help not to create a lot of electric wastes. that's good to the earth, but it would only lag the bitcoin blockchain when more people starts to use the bitcoin. 

[Indianacoin]

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but there's a mechanism for handling consensus disputes built into the code.
While I can appreciate that there is a human element, it doesn't mean that changes should be vetoed by any minority that decides it's not on board.

Game theory doesn't support that and Satoshi didn't design it in - this 'nothing should be contentious' property is something that has been described after the fact and it's not an intrinsic quality that Bitcoin displays.

[watashi-kokoto]

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but there's a mechanism for handling consensus disputes built into the code.
While I can appreciate that there is a human element, it doesn't mean that changes should be vetoed by any minority that decides it's not on board.

What about we ignore your consensus?

[Gyrsur]

As a result of the Beijing conference, the mining farm agrees to stick with bitcoin core and 1M plan.
Apparently they couldn't afford to lose the user base and the risk of their ASICs being rendered useless.

bitcoin酱：矿工缩了
http://8btc.com/thread-28217-1-1.html

nice to hear!

[BitcoinNewsMagazine]

Scare tactics, trying to convince miners with false claims that Classic supports a PoW change because luke-jr managed to submit the pull request in Classic github calling for a PoW change. jtoomin closed it. Then gmaxwell suggested that changing PoW in Core would be on the table if miners adopted Classic. sipa reminded everyone that changing PoW in Core is really off the table.