Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another?

[sturle]

No, miners don't matter.  If a miner break consensus, users and merchants won't accept their blocks.  They will just make themselves irrelevant, mining worthless coins.

Nobody wants to have software with critical bugs.  It is quite easy to achieve consensus about that.  I remember the one back in 2010 when someone discovered they could make 184 billion BTC for themselves in the coinbase transaction due to an integer overflow bug.  That one was resolved quickly as well.  In both cases the hard fork was caused by an unintentional bug.  Bitcoin is still i beta.

Nobody also wants to be on the minority branch. Gavin just did a great piece about what would happen if the network split 80/20.
Check it out:
http://gavinandresen.ninja/minority-branches (TL;DR: Nothing would really happen)

Many people, me too, think he is wrong.  I will stick to Bitcoin, and if people will exchange the bitcoins they bought from me to some altcoin, I don't have any problems with that.  In the past I got many requests to sell litecoin, primecoin, scamcoin and whatevercoin.  My answer has always been the same: I buy and sell bitcoin, and if you want something else, it is very easy to exchange the bitcoins to something else elsewhere.  As you see from the short list of businesses wanting to switch to an altcoin based on different consensus rules, the great majority will stick to Bitcoin.

I think many miners will switch back to Bitcoin as well, since their newly minted coins will only be accepted by a very few merchants.  If an exchange try to sell the altcoin as Bitcoin, they will certainly get sued by people who discover the coin they bought won't be accepted by merchants accepting Bitcoin.  This can lead to severe losses.  I regularly buy lumps of 100 BTC which people send to my autobuy system with no prior notice.  If someone send some altcoin to the same address because the address format is the same, they may have lost a lot of money.  100 classiccoins, unlimitedcoins, bitpaycoins, XTcoins or whatevertheyarecalledthisweekcoins will probably not be worth anyting, but you get my point.  People are going to lose a lot of money on the confusion.  As a bonus to miners coming back to Bitcoin, the difficulty will get significantly lower.

2. Lately "consensus" means whatever Adam Back wants it to mean. Check out these links:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/434spq/adam_back_on_twitter_understand_bitcoin_social/
https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/692756252418576384

.@jnxpn understand #bitcoin social contract: majority MUST NOT be able to override minority. that is how political money fails. #consensus

Irrelevant.  My dictionary still have the same defintition of consensus as it always had.

Let's get on the same page. What actually is your definition of consensus ?

My Websters Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language defines consensus as a "general agreement or concord".  In Bitcoin this agreement is defined in the software.

So basically now he claims that consensus is what minority (Blockstream) wants. He has lost it and is completely mad with power.

I don't see how what you think someone else claim is relevant at all here.  (Read again – what he wrote is not what you think he claims.)

Nope, I read it again - with context and I still think my argument stands.
Please explain your point further because I don't understand what you think I am misunderstanding.

You misinterpret the general agreement among all bitcoin nodes as a wish from a specific "minority".   Which is actually the opposite of what he actually wrote:  "majority MUST NOT be able to override minority"  I.e. consensus is not what a minority wants, neither what a majority wants.  Consensus is based on the agreement which was there from the beginning.  Neither Bitstream or any short list of merchants, can overrule the general agreement which define Bitcoin and the bitcoin blockchain.  Neither can a majority.

Bitcoin is built on some hard rules which cannot change unless all users agree to the change.  As long as some (or in this case most) users don't agree to change the rules, it is impossible.  You can only add new more restrictive rules, not change or remove existing rules.  People who cannot live with the rules as they are, have to use something else.  There are plenty of altcoins to choose from, and it shouldn't be a problem to anyone.

Wait a minute... what exactly is your point ?
Are you trying to say that if 100% users don't agree to change, then the change cannot happen ? Am I getting this right ?

Correct within normal rounding rules.  (If one or two won't change, it probably doesn't matter much.  As long as there is a significant chance of an SPV client contacting those nodes, especially if they have any mining power behind them, the security of SPV wallets will be severely compromised.  But people shouldn't trust SPV clients anyway.)

Last time I remember, Bitcoin was all about what majority wants. When minority wants to change rules of the game then it is called a HARD FORK and they go their separate way.

I can never remember bitcoin beeing about what a majority wants.  Bitcoin wasn't designed that way.  Can I run a campaign to make 100 BTC extra for UNICEF?  Just 100 BTC?  That's not much, and I'm sure it will help a lot of children.  I will probably get at least as as many supporters as those who want to change the maximum block size rule.  Perhaps make it 1000 BTC.  Or even more.  It is a good cause.

You can do anything and you can even fork Bitcoin in any way you want.
If you can convince the majority of the network that your fork is the best and that giving 1000 BTC to poor children is the right choice and network will install your client then by all means - your client will be considered the "true" Bitcoin, and the previous client will be made obsolete and nobody will use it.

You don't get it.  Since this would change the general agreement, it would require cooperation from all bitcoin nodes.  Not just a majority.

However the probability you could pull something like this is almost equal to zero.

Are you telling me you don't support this!?  Why do you hate children?  Do you kill babies for a hobby?

The only change a majority can do, is to impose new rules, i.e. stricter rules which will be imposed on new blocks.  Blocks adhering to the new rule will still be valid to old nodes, but blocks may have to confirm to an extra rule to be accepted by upgraded nodes.  This is called a soft fork.  Soft forks are typically activated only after 95% of the hashpower enforce the new rules.  Otherwise false confirmations may show up to old nodes whenever an old node mine a block.

This is basically completely wrong and has no basis in anything. I don't think you understand what a soft fork and hard fork is.
Here is a pretty good explanation:
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/30817/what-is-a-soft-fork

Actually the explanation there is just a longer version of mine.  Read it again, and see if you can understand it.

In short, I would say that hard forks are the ones that split the network in 2 separate ones - old and new - and make a "clean cut", while soft forks "pretend" to all old clients that nothing has changed, so the old clients can keep working (but important: the old clients are not working 100% correctly while not knowing that anything happened).
So basically, hard fork is kind of more open and honest way of doing changes, while soft-fork is more of a "sneaky" way that makes a change and pretends that nothing has happened to the network.

ROFL!  Read it again.  "To implement a hardfork, without a blockchain-fork, all users must switch to the new protocol consensually."

How many bitcoin blockchains do you think is adequate?  At least we will get rid of SPV clients by hard forking into many chains, but unfortunately you would then have to rely on either wallets talking to some central trusted node, or that everyone run full nodes locked to one specific blockchain.  (You don't want to risk another chain to take over if they gain more mining power.)

Old nodes will work just fine after a softfork, but merchants should upgrade.  SPV clients are mostly safe after a softfork as well, but both old nodes and SPV clients may see unconfirmed transactions which aren't valid.  (In a hard fork the invalid transactions would confirm in some chains, and the SPV client will see it differently depending on which node it connects to.)

[1713512980]

1713512980

[1713512980]

1713512980

[YarkoL]

3)  Charge people extra to give you their TX directly and put them in the block.  This is the way things are going eventually as TX relaying appears unreliable and unrewarding.  

Ok but how do you market your service to people?

5) Thank you for securing the network!  

seconded.

[watashi-kokoto]

Reddit poster activity intensifies, these are the major topics:

Classic vaporware - There is no alternative qualified team other than Core.

Hardfork to crash economy - The proposed block size increase hard fork is dangerous for many reasons. Large blocks will be spammed and full from the start.

Hardfork freeze coins - No matter the fork, the weak chain will be destroyed. This means the weak chain coins will become frozen, speculation will be impossible.

Hardfork cause loss of funds - If user pays during a hard fork, the payment can be reorganized and lead to the loss of funds.

Classic cannot VISA Scale - There is no proposal to reach 1000 transactions per second. Currently Bitcoin process 4 tps, Classic offers 8 tps.

Spam and 1MB cap are temporary - Because the "stress test" never ends, so will the blocks be forever full. Spam cannot be detected because wallets are anonymous.

0-confirmations are unsafe - 1% of blocks become orphaned, in this situation even 1-confirmed transaction can be reversed.

All miners mine 1MB now - There is no miner who has the balls to disrespect the Satoshi Nakamoto 1MB rule and mine a large block.

1MB +fee fast confirmation - With proper fees, transactions get confirmed without any delay

[sgbett]

I can never remember bitcoin beeing about what a majority wants.  Bitcoin wasn't designed that way.

Au contraire, Blackadder...

12. Conclusion
We have proposed a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust. We started with the usual framework of coins made from digital signatures, which provides strong control of ownership, but is incomplete without a way to prevent double-spending. To solve this, we proposed a peer-to-peer network using proof-of-work to record a public history of transactions that quickly becomes computationally impractical for an attacker to change if honest nodes control a majority of CPU power. The network is robust in its unstructured simplicity. Nodes work all at once with little coordination. They do not need to be identified, since messages are not routed to any particular place and only need to be delivered on a best effort basis. Nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone. They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.

[Luke-Jr]

I can never remember bitcoin beeing about what a majority wants.  Bitcoin wasn't designed that way.

Au contraire, Blackadder...

12. Conclusion
We have proposed a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust. We started with the usual framework of coins made from digital signatures, which provides strong control of ownership, but is incomplete without a way to prevent double-spending. To solve this, we proposed a peer-to-peer network using proof-of-work to record a public history of transactions that quickly becomes computationally impractical for an attacker to change if honest nodes control a majority of CPU power. The network is robust in its unstructured simplicity. Nodes work all at once with little coordination. They do not need to be identified, since messages are not routed to any particular place and only need to be delivered on a best effort basis. Nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone. They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.

And indeed, needed rules are added in that way. It's another thing entirely when you speak of removing current rules, however. On that, Satoshi said (emphasis mine):

The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime.

Also keep in mind that back when Satoshi was around, the idea was that every node would be a miner among equals. That is no longer the case.

[Cconvert2G36]

-snip-
Also keep in mind that back when Satoshi was around, the idea was that every node would be a miner among equals. That is no longer the case.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

-snip-
Also keep in mind that back when Satoshi was around, the idea was that every node would be a miner among equals. That is no longer the case.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306

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.

[Luke-Jr]

That is users vs nodes, not nodes vs miners.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Just a quick thread refresh, so we all know what are we dealing with here...
Proceeding with the discussion soon...
----

This is what this topic is about. Stop watering it down:

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

That's not all - people above are actually the founders of Blockstream & whole lightning concept.

Just a reminder, Adam Back, president of blockstream openly condones censorship:
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hbpg0/adam_back_openly_shows_his_agreeableness_to/
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hbpg0/adam_back_openly_shows_his_agreeableness_to/

Gregory Maxwell also condones censorship:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/42vqyq/blockstream_core_dev_greg_maxwell_still_doesnt/

And he is a manipulative lying bastard, proof:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/438udm/greg_maxwell_caught_red_handed_playing_dirty_to/

And he openly supports attacking competing projects:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41c1h6/greg_maxwell_unullc_just_drove_the_final_nail/

...which Adam Back also does. He really likes sabotage, that one:
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3hc4nu/adam_back_openly_shows_his_agreeableness_to/

The arguments provided above should be enough for anybody to abolish Bitcoin Core forever. But there is of course much, much, much more from last year.

I will repeat this once more, for posterity:

Saying that "bitcoin is hashcash extended with inflation control" is exactly like saying that "car is just horse carriage extended with combustion engine"

A person who said such thing must have HUGE ego problems.

The source of the quote:
https://twitter.com/adam3us

Mirror in case he changes it:

So what is exactly the percentage of Core Devs that work for Blockstream?

(I guess this should be the key issue here)

Correct.

Proceeding with developer list. Please note the metric used (number of commits) is far from perfect (Not done by me - found on reddit):


So basically, Bitcoin Core is clearly under direct strong influence by blockstream.

-------------------------------------------------

The arguments provided above should be enough for anybody to abolish Bitcoin Core forever. But there is of course much, much, much more from last year.

Tell me more

Here you are:

1. https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3id1al/moderators_of_rbitcoin_changed_the_stylesheets/
2. https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3h51e0/we_did_it_reddit_a_500_upvoted_post_with_hundreds/
3. https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3ruq0a/coinbase_ceo_brian_armstrong_proposes_rbtc_for/
4. https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/40qrc6/theymos_is_intentionally_bugging_threads_that_he/
5. https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3h8vkv/rbitcoin_is_now_banning_people_for_mentioning_xt/
6. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3woemv/gregory_maxwell_biggest_mistake_is_a_bit_too_much/cxy4fpx?context=3
7. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3woemv/gregory_maxwell_biggest_mistake_is_a_bit_too_much/cxxvep4?context=3
8. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3z0pkq/theymos_caught_redhanded_why_he_censors_all_the/

EDIT:
Oh, almost forgot these. These are golden:
9. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/418r0l/lukejr_is_already_trying_to_sabotage_bitcoin/
10. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/40qvwd/bitcoin_classic_hard_fork_causes_chaos_on/

All done by small blockists & blockstream employees & blockstream supporters.

If you genuinely want what is good for others, you don't use evil tactics to achieve it.

-------------------------------------------------

Please remember that even if you don't understand Bitcoin technically, you can still vote correctly in the blocksize debate:

How ? The only thing that you actually need to consider is the actions taken by both sides of the debate.

There is only one side of the debate here that repeatedly tries to stifle discussion by resorting to censorship, DDoSing, outright lying while simultaneously pretending that nothing is actually happening. Check out yourself.

If they wanted the best for Bitcoin users, they wouldn't have to lie, censor and directly attack their opponents. Such actions clearly show their evil intentions and their ulterior hidden agenda. Words are often meaningless. Words are cheap. These days you can actually detect bullshit and real intentions of evil people only by watching their actions.

This is at least a 2000-year old truth. "You will recognize them by their fruits" it said in some ancient book.

So basically, the side of the debate that resorts to censorship, lying, manipulation and attacks, is 99,99% of the time the dishonest side which is trying to do something evil while pretending to do something good.

[commander11]

Core is now producing code that fails to reach broad consensus. They want to keep the blockchain small so more nodes can be easily run on the network but more and more people DON'T want you use their code anymore. The very reason why alternate implementation are pumping up. Ironic isn't it?

Core devs refuse ANY compromise to achieve consensus. They don't care to drive people and businesses away as long as bitcoin still fit in their business model. All this must be good for adoption and miners future revenue no?

I still don't get why miners don't see blockstream trying to offload transactions on their systems as a threat to their profits when the subsidy will dry out.

Somehow, Blockstream thinks that driving transactions up to a point that the blockchain becomes uneconomical (high fees not driven by competition) and unreliable  to use (not sure if your transactions will make it through) is a good idea for anyone to build businesses on top of it. The bitcoin blockchain is not the only one in town.

Keep fighting Knight im admire you how you fight against the Blockstream trolls...

[commander11]

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 - EDIT: incorrect, my mistake

That's not all - people above are actually the founders of Blockstream & whole lightning concept.

Just a reminder, Adam Back, president of blockstream openly condones censorship:
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hbpg0/adam_back_openly_shows_his_agreeableness_to/
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hbpg0/adam_back_openly_shows_his_agreeableness_to/

Gregory Maxwell also condones censorship:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/42vqyq/blockstream_core_dev_greg_maxwell_still_doesnt/

And he is a manipulative lying bastard, proof:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/438udm/greg_maxwell_caught_red_handed_playing_dirty_to/

And he openly supports attacking competing projects:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41c1h6/greg_maxwell_unullc_just_drove_the_final_nail/

...which Adam Back also does. He really likes sabotage, that one:
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3hc4nu/adam_back_openly_shows_his_agreeableness_to/

The arguments provided above should be enough for anybody to abolish Bitcoin Core forever. But there is of course much, much, much more from last year.

You Nail it !! Keep Fighting Support from Germany against Blockstream Taking over !!

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Nobody also wants to be on the minority branch. Gavin just did a great piece about what
would happen if the network split 80/20.
Check it out:
http://gavinandresen.ninja/minority-branches (TL;DR: Nothing would really happen)

Many people, me too, think he is wrong. 

He has perfect understanding of how things would work after the fork,
do you ?
He is actually right, I can understand it (I am a technical person, though not Bitcoin developer).

Hell, even Bitcoin Core/Blockstream developers can also surely understand it, but I am not sure if any of them is
willing to admit that.
They may be too deep with their heads in the bullshit, propaganda & manipulation web they have created.

I will stick to Bitcoin, and if people will exchange the bitcoins they bought (...) businesses wanting to switch to an
altcoin based on different consensus rules, the great majority will stick to Bitcoin.

I don't think you understand how things work in Bitcoin network function at all.
Once Bitcoin Classic wins, Bitcoin Classic becomes Bitcoin, Bitcoin Core stops being
Bitcoin. Bitcoin Core will be *THE* altcoin you are talking about.

Bitcoin this agreement is defined in
the
software.

No, this is not what I was asking.
Let me rephrase the question: "how do you think consensus looks in Bitcoin world" ?

So basically now he claims that consensus is what minority (Blockstream) wants. He has lost it and is completely mad
with power.

I don't see how what you think someone else claim is relevant at all here.  (Read again – what he wrote is not
what you think he claims.)

Oh, it is extremely relevant.

- Adam Back is the president of Blockstream.
- Adam Back lies and manipulates, as clearly proven above
- Adam Back condones censorship.
- Adam Back has clear conflict of Interest as previously proved in this thread.
- Adam Back wants to cripple the Bitcoin network for his personal (his company) gain.

So yeah, it has everything to do with what is happening here, because anything that man says can be now treated as
bullshit and/or manipulation of the topic for his gain.

Nope, I read it again - with
context and I still think my argument stands.
Please explain your point further because I don't understand what you think I am misunderstanding.

You misinterpret the general agreement among all bitcoin nodes as a wish from a specific "minority".   Which is
actually the opposite of what he actually wrote:  "majority MUST NOT be able to override minority"  I.e.
consensus is not what a minority wants, neither what a majority wants.

Let's sum it up.
- Consensus is NOT what majority wants
- Consensus is NOT what minority wants

Loigically, the only thing left is that Consensus, according to Adam Back, is what a
strictly selected group of people wants. And that is exactly what I have stated.

So for Adam Back, consensus is what Blockstream wants. Which is clearly visible in his posts.
- He thinks he is smarter than everybody
- He thinks he always knows better
- He actually thinks he invented Bitcoin and it is his to do as he pleases.

This is completely unacceptable for me and should be unacceptable for any Bitcoin user.

Consensus is based on the agreement
which was there from the beginning.  Neither Bitstream or any short list of merchants, can overrule the general
agreement which define Bitcoin and the bitcoin blockchain.  Neither can a majority.

Soe logically by what you are saying is:
- Majority cannot override "consensus"
- Users cannot override "consensus" (they are the majority !)

So everything checks out. Blockstream / Bitcoin Core are the ones who define consensus. That is exactly the same I have
said.

You can do anything and you can even fork Bitcoin in any
way you want.
If you can convince the majority of the network that your fork is the best and that giving 1000 BTC to poor children is
the right choice and network will install your client then by all means - your client will be considered the "true"
Bitcoin, and the previous client will be made obsolete and nobody will use it.

You don't get it.  Since this would change the general agreement, it would require cooperation from all bitcoin nodes. 
Not just a majority.

This is incorrect, and this is not how Bitcoin network work.

You are actually talking about how soft-fork would work.
With hard fork, you can quickly & easily split 2 incompatibile parts of the network, so the one majority chooses
becomes "the Bitcoin", and the other one is abandoned and dies.

The separate chains coould obviously work as separate coins, but that is very difficult to maintain and therefore
highly unlikely.

- Gavin knows this
- Jeff knows this
- All Core devs know this

The problem is whether they are willing to honestly admit this, because - as clearly proven above - some of them are
lying bastards completely full of shit.

Are you telling me you don't support this!?  Why do you hate children?  Do you kill babies for a hobby?

Stop this offtopic now.

I have proven that you are incorrect. That is all here.

Actually the explanation there is just a longer version of mine.  Read it again, and see if you can understand it.
ROFL!  Read it again.  "To implement a hardfork, without a blockchain-fork, all users must switch to the new
protocol consensually."

How many bitcoin blockchains do you think is adequate?  At least we will get rid of SPV clients by hard forking into
many chains, but unfortunately you would then have to rely on either wallets talking to some central trusted node, or
that everyone run full nodes locked to one specific blockchain.  (You don't want to risk another chain to take over if
they gain more mining power.)

Old nodes will work just fine after a softfork, but merchants should upgrade.  SPV clients are mostly safe after a
softfork as well, but both old nodes and SPV clients may see unconfirmed transactions which aren't valid.  (In a
hard fork the invalid transactions would confirm in some chains, and the SPV client will see it differently depending
on
which node it connects to.)

Oh, now I get it.

You and me are talking about 2 different things.

You are all the time talking about a soft-fork "consensus".
I am talking about what happens when hard fork, not soft fork is performed.

Hard fork is a clean cut. Soft fork is messy, because - as you say - it requires everybody to migrate to the new
system, otherwise there may be problems.

By the way, this is reason why what Core devs are trying to do is dangerous. They are trying to upgrade the
network using soft-fork which requires much greater "consensus" than hard forks do.

- To do hard fork, actually 60% "consensus" is enough. (but 75% is of course better) The other 40%/25% will
quickly migrate to the winning side of the fork.
- To do soft fork (which Core wants to do), 90% may not be enough.

[commander11]

Nobody also wants to be on the minority branch. Gavin just did a great piece about what
would happen if the network split 80/20.
Check it out:
http://gavinandresen.ninja/minority-branches (TL;DR: Nothing would really happen)

Many people, me too, think he is wrong. 

He has perfect understanding of how things would work after the fork,
do you ?
He is actually right, I can understand it (I am a technical person, though not Bitcoin developer).

Hell, even Bitcoin Core/Blockstream developers can also surely understand it, but I am not sure if any of them is
willing to admit that.
They may be too deep with their heads in the bullshit, propaganda & manipulation web they have created.

I will stick to Bitcoin, and if people will exchange the bitcoins they bought (...) businesses wanting to switch to an
altcoin based on different consensus rules, the great majority will stick to Bitcoin.

I don't think you understand how things work in Bitcoin network function at all.
Once Bitcoin Classic wins, Bitcoin Classic becomes Bitcoin, Bitcoin Core stops being
Bitcoin. Bitcoin Core will be *THE* altcoin you are talking about.

Bitcoin this agreement is defined in
the
software.

No, this is not what I was asking.
Let me rephrase the question: "how do you think consensus looks in Bitcoin world" ?

So basically now he claims that consensus is what minority (Blockstream) wants. He has lost it and is completely mad
with power.

I don't see how what you think someone else claim is relevant at all here.  (Read again – what he wrote is not
what you think he claims.)

Oh, it is extremely relevant.

- Adam Back is the president of Blockstream.
- Adam Back lies and manipulates, as clearly proven above
- Adam Back condones censorship.
- Adam Back has clear conflict of Interest as previously proved in this thread.
- Adam Back wants to cripple the Bitcoin network for his personal (his company) gain.

So yeah, it has everything to do with what is happening here, because anything that man says can be now treated as
bullshit and/or manipulation of the topic for his gain.

Nope, I read it again - with
context and I still think my argument stands.
Please explain your point further because I don't understand what you think I am misunderstanding.

You misinterpret the general agreement among all bitcoin nodes as a wish from a specific "minority".   Which is
actually the opposite of what he actually wrote:  "majority MUST NOT be able to override minority"  I.e.
consensus is not what a minority wants, neither what a majority wants.

Let's sum it up.
- Consensus is NOT what majority wants
- Consensus is NOT what minority wants

Loigically, the only thing left is that Consensus, according to Adam Back, is what a
strictly selected group of people wants. And that is exactly what I have stated.

So for Adam Back, consensus is what Blockstream wants. Which is clearly visible in his posts.
- He thinks he is smarter than everybody
- He thinks he always knows better
- He actually thinks he invented Bitcoin and it is his to do as he pleases.

This is completely unacceptable for me and should be unacceptable for any Bitcoin user.

Consensus is based on the agreement
which was there from the beginning.  Neither Bitstream or any short list of merchants, can overrule the general
agreement which define Bitcoin and the bitcoin blockchain.  Neither can a majority.

Soe logically by what you are saying is:
- Majority cannot override "consensus"
- Users cannot override "consensus" (they are the majority !)

So everything checks out. Blockstream / Bitcoin Core are the ones who define consensus. That is exactly the same I have
said.

You can do anything and you can even fork Bitcoin in any
way you want.
If you can convince the majority of the network that your fork is the best and that giving 1000 BTC to poor children is
the right choice and network will install your client then by all means - your client will be considered the "true"
Bitcoin, and the previous client will be made obsolete and nobody will use it.

You don't get it.  Since this would change the general agreement, it would require cooperation from all bitcoin nodes. 
Not just a majority.

This is incorrect, and this is not how Bitcoin network work.

You are actually talking about how soft-fork would work.
With hard fork, you can quickly & easily split 2 incompatibile parts of the network, so the one majority chooses
becomes "the Bitcoin", and the other one is abandoned and dies.

The separate chains coould obviously work as separate coins, but that is very difficult to maintain and therefore
highly unlikely.

- Gavin knows this
- Jeff knows this
- All Core devs know this

The problem is whether they are willing to honestly admit this, because - as clearly proven above - some of them are
lying bastards completely full of shit.

Are you telling me you don't support this!?  Why do you hate children?  Do you kill babies for a hobby?

Stop this offtopic now.

I have proven that you are incorrect. That is all here.

Actually the explanation there is just a longer version of mine.  Read it again, and see if you can understand it.
ROFL!  Read it again.  "To implement a hardfork, without a blockchain-fork, all users must switch to the new
protocol consensually."

How many bitcoin blockchains do you think is adequate?  At least we will get rid of SPV clients by hard forking into
many chains, but unfortunately you would then have to rely on either wallets talking to some central trusted node, or
that everyone run full nodes locked to one specific blockchain.  (You don't want to risk another chain to take over if
they gain more mining power.)

Old nodes will work just fine after a softfork, but merchants should upgrade.  SPV clients are mostly safe after a
softfork as well, but both old nodes and SPV clients may see unconfirmed transactions which aren't valid.  (In a
hard fork the invalid transactions would confirm in some chains, and the SPV client will see it differently depending
on
which node it connects to.)

Oh, now I get it.

You and me are talking about 2 different things.

You are all the time talking about a soft-fork "consensus".
I am talking about what happens when hard fork, not soft fork is performed.

Hard fork is a clean cut. Soft fork is messy, because - as you say - it requires everybody to migrate to the new
system, otherwise there may be problems.

By the way, this is reason why what Core devs are trying to do is dangerous. They are trying to upgrade the
network using soft-fork which requires much greater "consensus" than hard forks do.

- To do hard fork, actually 60% "consensus" is enough. (but 75% is of course better) The other 40%/25% will
quickly migrate to the winning side of the fork.
- To do soft fork (which Core wants to do), 90% may not be enough.

Thank you for tell people the Truth im wondering how much Trolls and Propaganda writer Blockstream pays here to spread desinformation ....

[commander11]

Guys just ask yourself Cui bono?

We in Germany ask us that at the moment all the time ABout Angela Merkel who is Destroying our countries with mass muslime immigrations ...Who controll her and whats the plan ?


So the Core devs gots shithole of money to do this...they are not stupid people....just Money rulezz


If Blockstream give me 5000 btc i will code whatever they want i would not much care also if the BTC miner get the fees
or Blockstream gets the money.....

They are like our Goverment bought by too much Money....



Thats my personal opinion and not an attack on anybody !

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Classic vaporware - There is no alternative qualified team other than Core.

Incorrect.
Not vaporware, code is available, source:
https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/693136607659069441

Also there are already 48 nodes running, source:
http://xtnodes.com/

Hardfork to crash economy - The proposed block size increase hard fork is dangerous for many reasons. Large blocks will be spammed and full from the start.

There is no proof whatsoever about what you are saying.

Hardfork freeze coins - No matter the fork, the weak chain will be destroyed. This means the weak chain coins will become frozen, speculation will be impossible.

The "weak chain" will quickly die, but you will able to move your coins to the "stronger chain" any time. No problem with that.

Hardfork cause loss of funds - If user pays during a hard fork, the payment can be reorganized and lead to the loss of funds.

I don't think the words you are saying mean what you think they mean, please elaborate.

Classic cannot VISA Scale - There is no proposal to reach 1000 transactions per second. Currently Bitcoin process 4 tps, Classic offers 8 tps.

We don't need such proposal currently. Bitcoin does not need to scale to VISA levels tomorrow. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Spam and 1MB cap are temporary - Because the "stress test" never ends, so will the blocks be forever full. Spam cannot be detected because wallets are anonymous.

Now, this is some kind of hardcore extreme bullshit.
Explain in detail what you mean by "spam cannot be detected" and "stress test never ends" and what does it have to do with Bitcoin Classic or hard fork.

0-confirmations are unsafe - 1% of blocks become orphaned, in this situation even 1-confirmed transaction can be reversed.

0 confirmation transactions were never ever safe.
So what is your point ?

All miners mine 1MB now - There is no miner who has the balls to disrespect the Satoshi Nakamoto 1MB rule and mine a large block.

1MB is no kind of satoshi nakamoto "rule".
1MB is simply a temporary anti-spam measure.
Everybody knows this and Core developers also know this. Some of them are just too deep in shit with their heads to admit it.

1MB +fee fast confirmation - With proper fees, transactions get confirmed without any delay

Is $50 a "proper fee" ?

Once the network starts congesting, not only will the fees go up significantly, but Bitcoin transactions will become unreliable. This is why RBF was created by Peter Todd for Bitcoin Core. The only way you can make transactions fast & reliable with 1MB blocks is using RBF.

But RBF is fatally flawed itself, check this out:
RBF is optional for sender (opt-in), but not optional for receiver.
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 (on reddit.com/r/btc).

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

RBF / Bitcoin Core is a disaster waiting to happen.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Guys just ask yourself Cui bono?
We in Germany ask us that at the moment all the time ABout Angela Merkel who is Destroying our countries with mass muslime immigrations ...Who controll her and whats the plan ?
So the Core devs gots shithole of money to do this...they are not stupid people....just Money rulezz
If Blockstream give me 5000 btc i will code whatever they want i would not much care also if the BTC miner get the fees
or Blockstream gets the money.....
They are like our Goverment bought by too much Money....

I am sorry, my brain really cannot process what you are saying.

[commander11]

So basically, Bitcoin Core is clearly under direct strong influence by blockstream.




WHY bitcoin Devs are paid by an Company who wanna make PRofit

i thought its open source


Of course they doing what the best for Blockstream who pay them and not for Bitcoin Satoshi !!!



Dont Argue here everybody knows that People have Conflict of interesst $$$$$$$

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

Current thread backup in case of censorship,
https://archive.is/fbSQt

[watashi-kokoto]

Current thread backup in case of censorship,

Tinfoil hat on?

[YarkoL]

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.

That is users vs nodes, not nodes vs miners.

As you pointed out, the nodes and generators were the same at the time of
that quote. So you can't say that it applies only to the miner side of them.
When it says, "client nodes that only do transactions and don't generate"
I don't think it applies to full nodes, but wallets.