Bitcoin Forum
August 20, 2019, 06:41:56 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another?  (Read 37763 times)
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1000


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
January 29, 2016, 04:12:19 PM
 #121

Sorry. No arguments, not answering this.
Yup - "weak punk" as I thought.
If you want to "grow a pair" then challenge me.
Can you stop already ?

I only respond to logic. You cannot scare me or manipulate my ego with this shitty tactic.

1566283316
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1566283316

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1566283316
Reply with quote  #2

1566283316
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1003


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
January 29, 2016, 04:12:39 PM
 #122

I am just sick of the "nonsense".

(which is all @ShadowOfHarbringer has been showing)

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

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
tAP
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100


View Profile
January 29, 2016, 04:12:54 PM
 #123

While I cannot eliminate the possibility that certain Core devs working for Blockstream may indeed share a vision with their employer as to what Bitcoin's future would be
Hahahaha.

That's a nice downplaying manipulation right there.

Actually most of prominent Bitcoin Core devs also work for Blockstream:
Adam Back
Gregory Maxwell
Luke-Jr
Matt Corallo
Pieter Wuille
Peter Todd


Misattributing one dev as a Blockstream employee is understandable, but two at the same time, is probably too coincidental. Roll Eyes
Sorry, my mistake.

These two are only strongly affiliated with blockstream. Not employees.

I will have proof in a minute, working really hard here.

Don't respond to the other guy anymore man (and likewise him you).  Just lay out the facts.  That's the best way for this to go (and I support 2MB hard fork immediately).

"The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there."

LP Hartley
uvwvj
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 161
Merit: 100


View Profile
January 29, 2016, 04:13:14 PM
 #124

Overall, there seems to be a sense of helplessness. Some reflected on why the Chinese had so little say in the matter and some urge that the Chinese should form their own core development team and create their own fork.

If you were to form a mining developer team, do you have an idea as to what your goals would be? It seems like you there had been miner suggestion of a third alternative, neither classic nor core, but intead mining code with  95% consensus HF for a 2mb increase, remove RBF, and segwit testing possibly a year down the road?

IMO the more coders with different views writing code the better Bitcoin becomes.  Competition brings innovation.

Also the above bold proposal is something I would support and hope once Bitcoin Classic code comes out is what it is or something close to it IF NOT and a chinese group came out with it I would go BitcoinChina

We can fork many times in the future when consensus does not like when a development team does something we disagree with, this is part of the Bitcoin Satoshi came up with using open source.
tAP
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100


View Profile
January 29, 2016, 04:16:06 PM
 #125

We can fork many times in the future when consensus does not like when a development team does something we disagree with, this is open source.

This is part of the reason I am very anti-Core dev team at the moment, though.  They are on record saying these kinds of forks are harmful.  I got involved in Bitcoin because it is open-source, and because the idea was that the majority finally have some power over the minority (i.e. us regular folks over banks).  Bitcoin NEEDS to be forkable when the community decides they don't like where something is going.

Adam Back has insinuated through his tweets that the majority support a 2MB increase.

Also, RBF was certainly not consensus... maybe consensus of the devs but... most people's comments I read are quite against it.

"The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there."

LP Hartley
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1003


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
January 29, 2016, 04:19:42 PM
 #126

Also, RBF was certainly not consensus... maybe consensus of the devs but... most people's comments I read are quite against it.

RBF is "optional" so it doesn't affect anyone that doesn't want to use it (it is not the slightest bit controversial really).

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

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
tAP
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100


View Profile
January 29, 2016, 04:21:54 PM
 #127

Also, RBF was certainly not consensus... maybe consensus of the devs but... most people's comments I read are quite against it.

RBF is "optional" so it doesn't affect anyone that doesn't want to use it (it is not the slightest bit controversial really).


It's opt-in by default, and so for the regular user of bitcoin who may not be up to snuff on all the technical stuff, that means it's on.

Let's be honest, though - it certainly is controversial. 

con·tro·ver·sial
ˌkäntrəˈvərSHəl,ˌkäntrəˈvərsēəl/
adjective
adjective: controversial

    giving rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement.

People disagree on RBF, thus it is controversial.

"The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there."

LP Hartley
oakpacific
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


View Profile
January 29, 2016, 04:21:58 PM
 #128

We can fork many times in the future when consensus does not like when a development team does something we disagree with, this is open source.

This is part of the reason I am very anti-Core dev team at the moment, though.  They are on record saying these kinds of forks are harmful.  I got involved in Bitcoin because it is open-source, and because the idea was that the majority finally have some power over the minority (i.e. us regular folks over banks).  



You do understand an alt-client is completely different from a fork, and  to change the network consensus is not Core dev's job?

Quote
Bitcoin NEEDS to be forkable when the community decides they don't like where something is going.

FWIW I am still waiting for a referendum to organize around this issue, if you really want to be democratic certainly somebody should get us all to vote?

Quote
Also, RBF was certainly not consensus... maybe consensus of the devs but... most people's comments I read are quite against it.

No disagreement here, it's almost like they want to be hated on this.

https://tlsnotary.org/ Fraud proofing decentralized fiat-Bitcoin trading.
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1003


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
January 29, 2016, 04:25:33 PM
 #129

It's opt-in by default, and so for the regular user of bitcoin who may not be up to snuff on all the technical stuff, that means it's on.

It is not "used by default" so you are trying to make something controversial that actually isn't (is this all that you guys can do?).

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

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1000


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
January 29, 2016, 04:27:14 PM
 #130

Evidence no. 1. Luke-Jr working on Blockstream's project:
https://github.com/ElementsProject/elementsproject.github.io/graphs/contributors
There is more, of course, but do we really need it ?

About Peter Todd: seems I was indeed wrong, there is no direct evidence linking him to blockstream. Correcting this now.


tAP
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100


View Profile
January 29, 2016, 04:27:52 PM
 #131

We can fork many times in the future when consensus does not like when a development team does something we disagree with, this is open source.

This is part of the reason I am very anti-Core dev team at the moment, though.  They are on record saying these kinds of forks are harmful.  I got involved in Bitcoin because it is open-source, and because the idea was that the majority finally have some power over the minority (i.e. us regular folks over banks).  



You do understand an alt-client is completely different from a fork, and  to change the network consensus is not Core dev's job?

Quote
Bitcoin NEEDS to be forkable when the community decides they don't like where something is going.

FWIW I am still waiting for a referendum to organize around this issue, if you really want to be democratic certainly somebody should get us all to vote?

Quote
Also, RBF was certainly not consensus... maybe consensus of the devs but... most people's comments I read are quite against it.

No disagreement here, it's almost like they want to be hated on this.


Yeah, I understand how alt-clients work and what not.  Unfortunately there is no real way to get most people to vote on this (other than running a node supporting your side). I know Classic devs opened up consider.it, but that's not really useful because the people there voting obviously are biased (speaking from my own perspective even as I support them).

Block size all aside, the RBF thing was rolled out pretty poorly, I agree.  Even small/large block size supporters are somewhat meeting in the middle on this (not everyone of course).

"The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there."

LP Hartley
tAP
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100


View Profile
January 29, 2016, 04:30:00 PM
 #132

It's opt-in by default, and so for the regular user of bitcoin who may not be up to snuff on all the technical stuff, that means it's on.

It is not "used by default" so you are trying to make something controversial that actually isn't (is this all that you guys can do?).



Most everyone will agree that RBF is "controversial" regardless of what side you are on.  Just like the block size is "controversial."

I've been nothing but respectful to you the entire time.  Since it's not being reciprocated, I won't bother you anymore by engaging you in future posts.

"The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there."

LP Hartley
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1003


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
January 29, 2016, 04:33:50 PM
 #133

Most everyone will agree that RBF is "controversial" regardless of what side you are on.  Just like the block size is "controversial."

That is for a start an incorrect statement - how can you say that "most everyone" without a survey that everyone will accept as being evident of such a thing as even having been made?

I don't know what is wrong with you people.

You just don't care for reason or for anything other than "to be right" (when I keep proving that you are wrong).

My guess is that your group are just trying to become popular (as idiots) and think that that might work. Well you can keep trying that path but I am always going to call you out as idiots.

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

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

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


View Profile
January 29, 2016, 04:36:09 PM
 #134

We can fork many times in the future when consensus does not like when a development team does something we disagree with, this is open source.

This is part of the reason I am very anti-Core dev team at the moment, though.  They are on record saying these kinds of forks are harmful.  I got involved in Bitcoin because it is open-source, and because the idea was that the majority finally have some power over the minority (i.e. us regular folks over banks).  



You do understand an alt-client is completely different from a fork, and  to change the network consensus is not Core dev's job?

Quote
Bitcoin NEEDS to be forkable when the community decides they don't like where something is going.

FWIW I am still waiting for a referendum to organize around this issue, if you really want to be democratic certainly somebody should get us all to vote?

Quote
Also, RBF was certainly not consensus... maybe consensus of the devs but... most people's comments I read are quite against it.

No disagreement here, it's almost like they want to be hated on this.


Yeah, I understand how alt-clients work and what not.  Unfortunately there is no real way to get most people to vote on this (other than running a node supporting your side). I know Classic devs opened up consider.it, but that's not really useful because the people there voting obviously are biased (speaking from my own perspective even as I support them).

Block size all aside, the RBF thing was rolled out pretty poorly, I agree.  Even small/large block size supporters are somewhat meeting in the middle on this (not everyone of course).

Then, I guess, perhaps we could agree that, hard fork the network with the support of just 6 pool operators, and one month "grace period", while completely disregarding the response of the network of full nodes at the time, like what the Bitcoin Classic people are very clear about what they are trying to do, is very undemocratic and should not be supported?

https://tlsnotary.org/ Fraud proofing decentralized fiat-Bitcoin trading.
tAP
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100


View Profile
January 29, 2016, 04:38:17 PM
 #135

Then, I guess, perhaps we could agree that, hard fork the network with the support of just 6 pool operators, and one month "grace period", while completely disregarding the response of the network of full nodes at the time, like what the Bitcoin Classic people are very clear about what they are trying to do, is very undemocratic?

I thought Core/Blockstream devs have spoken out about how Bitcoin is NOT a democracy?  And to make it one would ruin it?

All I know is I am sick of paying the recommended fee from the Core client (and even extra at times) and having to wait a couple hours at times to get included in a block, since the mempool is so backlogged.  That was never the idea behind Bitcoin - paying for a 'fast lane.'

Edit:  I gotta head out for now.  Whatever happens, I just hope all of our investments (time and monetary) stay intact.  No one on either side wants to see Bitcoin fail.  Good luck to everyone.

"The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there."

LP Hartley
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1000


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
January 29, 2016, 04:39:40 PM
 #136

Also, RBF was certainly not consensus... maybe consensus of the devs but... most people's comments I read are quite against it.

RBF is "optional" so it doesn't affect anyone that doesn't want to use it (it is not the slightest bit controversial really).

Again, incorrect.

RBF is optional for sender (opt-in), but not optional for receiver. Educate youself, granny:
1. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/42m4po/its_a_sad_day_when_core_devs_appear_to_understand/
2. especially: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/42lhe7/usability_nightmare_rbf_is_sort_of_like_writing_a/
3. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3zju81/rbf_optin_a_man_walk_in_a_bar_order_a_coffe_drink/

In short: You can choose whether to send RBF, you can choose whether to mine RBF, but you cannot choose whether you receive it or not.
"RBF is sort of like writing a paper check, but filling in the recipient's name and the amount in pencil so you can erase it later and change it." - /u/rowdy_beaver (self.btc).

RBF could have the potential to completely destroy 0-conf transactions widely & successfully used today.

Bitcoin Core is a disaster waiting to happen.

knight22
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000


--------------->¿?


View Profile
January 29, 2016, 04:39:49 PM
 #137

Most everyone will agree that RBF is "controversial" regardless of what side you are on.  Just like the block size is "controversial."

That is for a start an incorrect statement - how can you say that "most everyone" without a survey that everyone will accept as being evident of such a thing as even having been made?

I don't know what is wrong with you people.

You just don't care for reason or for anything other than "to be right" (when I keep proving that you are wrong).

My guess is that your group are just trying to become popular (as idiots) and think that that might work. Well you can keep trying that path but I am always going to call you out as idiots.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

oakpacific
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


View Profile
January 29, 2016, 04:39:53 PM
 #138

Then, I guess, perhaps we could agree that, hard fork the network with the support of just 6 pool operators, and one month "grace period", while completely disregarding the response of the network of full nodes at the time, like what the Bitcoin Classic people are very clear about what they are trying to do, is very undemocratic?

I thought Core/Blockstream devs have spoken out about how Bitcoin is NOT a democracy?  And to make it one would ruin it?

I am not in agreement/disagreement with Core devs on everything/anything. But I was trying to ask your opinion, to see if we can find any agreement.

https://tlsnotary.org/ Fraud proofing decentralized fiat-Bitcoin trading.
ShadowOfHarbringer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470
Merit: 1000


Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952


View Profile
January 29, 2016, 04:41:49 PM
 #139

Most everyone will agree that RBF is "controversial" regardless of what side you are on.  Just like the block size is "controversial."

That is for a start an incorrect statement - how can you say that "most everyone" without a survey that everyone will accept as being evident of such a thing as even having been made?

I don't know what is wrong with you people.

You just don't care for reason or for anything other than "to be right" (when I keep proving that you are wrong).

My guess is that your group are just trying to become popular (as idiots) and think that that might work. Well you can keep trying that path but I am always going to call you out as idiots.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
I don't really think he will get it.

He only gets what his old mind wants him to get. And he thinks he is absolutely right, just like Adam Back.

tAP
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238
Merit: 100


View Profile
January 29, 2016, 04:43:03 PM
 #140

Then, I guess, perhaps we could agree that, hard fork the network with the support of just 6 pool operators, and one month "grace period", while completely disregarding the response of the network of full nodes at the time, like what the Bitcoin Classic people are very clear about what they are trying to do, is very undemocratic?

I thought Core/Blockstream devs have spoken out about how Bitcoin is NOT a democracy?  And to make it one would ruin it?

I am not in agreement/disagreement with Core devs on everything/anything. But I was trying to ask your opinion, to see if we can find any agreement.

In that regard I'm with you.  There is nothing truly democratic occurring on either side of this debate.  Unfortunately, I don't think it is possible (and many will argue that democracy is bad for BTC anyway).  

We can only hope that when the dust settles the 'correct' side won, whichever that is, as we all have our biases.

"The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there."

LP Hartley
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 »
  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!