.

[Lauda]

How are they going to make money from Sidechains? 
Isn't that open source too?

I think Bitcoin transaction processing may be a much more
obvious and in demand market than sidechains.

The 'elements' of which Liquid is made of are open source, but Liquid itself isn't (IIRC). It should be easy to set up a model where they provide technical support for Liquid and get paid constantly in return (in addition to licensing fees).

ps - personal incredulity?  what now?   

It's a fallacy.

[1714971193]

1714971193

[1714971193]

1714971193

[1714971193]

1714971193

[iCEBREAKER]

Gavin constantly change his proposal based on community feed back

Gavin is ignoring feedback from miners and others who told him 75% is far too low for a safe hard fork.¹

Gavin is ignoring feedback from everyone who told him 28 days is not long enough to give the ecosystem time to adapt with minimum disruption.²

Like Gavin, you constantly lie about having the support of The Community^®.³

Citations:

1.  http://organofcorti.blogspot.com/2015/08/bip101-implementation-flaws.html

2.  http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/decided

3.  https://twitter.com/barrysilbert/status/694911989701861376


But please, by all means continue.  You are welcome to die on the 2MB hill, sacrificing your reputation for Classic just like Hearn and Frap.doc did for XT.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Gavin constantly change his proposal based on community feed back

But please, by all means continue.  You are welcome to die on the 2MB hill, sacrificing your reputation for Classic just like Hearn and Frap.doc did for XT.

And so it goes. 

You don't need to hold Bitcoins to use Bitcoin's blockchain; you only must spend enough to use the blockchain as an immutable ledger

Miners will lovve you when their bitcoins are worth shit, because your banking buddies only need to spend satoshis to settle their off-chain transactions.

But they wise to you, boy. They wise.

[franky1]

Lauda and icebreaker.. lets stick with the code. after all, this debate is about capacity.. so i have one question

Confidential transaction codes (about 250byte) is that going in the witness block.. or the main block?
(i know the answer but i want to hear you say the words)

go on tell the community that the roadmap of increasing capacity is not actually going to increase capacity but bloat it up more with all the new features.

do not knitpick, insult, insinuate, or meander off topic about politics, control, shilling or sponsorships. but for once answer a direct question about the code honestly

[Cuidler]

Gavin is ignoring feedback from miners and others who told him 75% is far too low for a safe hard fork.¹

Gavin is ignoring feedback from everyone who told him 28 days is not long enough to give the ecosystem time to adapt with minimum disruption.²

Your wrong, it is dangerous if just one pool has veto about change thats why 75%, and Gavin asked relevant Bitcoin services whether 28 days is enought time for them to make necessary changes which he received positive responses.

The community support seems majority as well when you consider all the forums, not just btctalk + r/Bitcoin where it might be closer to 50/50 instead

BTW your avatar which promotes altcoin reminds me why only those who supports Bitcoin are important in this decision which are mostly miners supporting security. So you can vote with your hashpower in trustless manner, no need to argue about support based on how often people posting on internet for/against 2MB

[Lauda]

Your wrong, it is dangerous if just one pool has veto about change thats why 75%, and Gavin asked relevant Bitcoin services whether 28 days is enought time for them to make necessary changes which he received positive responses.

You are wrong. Why not 70%, since a single miner could veto with 26% hashrate? Why not 50% because more miners could veto the change? That could only happen if there wasno consensus obviously.

The community support seems majority as well when you consider all the forums, not just btctalk + r/Bitcoin where it might be closer to 50/50 instead

Wrong. There is no indication that the majority support any contentious HF. If there is, I'd like to see some sources (e.g. bitcoinocracy shows one side of the situation).

[MicroGuy]

BTW your avatar which promotes altcoin reminds me why only those who supports Bitcoin are important in this decision

Are you saying that people that support other digital currencies don't support Bitcoin? Actually, the opposite is true.

Altcoin prices are derived directly from Bitcoin's price, making the health and vitality of bitcoin of "extreme interest and concern" to supporters of other digital currencies. It is bitcoin that's opening the door for other currencies. We need the front runner to remain strong and free from subversion.

In addition, individuals involved in altcoins are some of the most technically knowledgeable and informed in regards to the blocksize issue!

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Your wrong, it is dangerous if just one pool has veto about change thats why 75%, and Gavin asked relevant Bitcoin services whether 28 days is enought time for them to make necessary changes which he received positive responses.

You are wrong. Why not 70%, since a single miner could veto with 26% hashrate? Why not 50% because more miners could veto the change? That could only happen if there wasno consensus obviously.

The community support seems majority as well when you consider all the forums, not just btctalk + r/Bitcoin where it might be closer to 50/50 instead

Wrong. There is no indication that the majority support any contentious HF. If there is, I'd like to see some sources (e.g. bitcoinocracy shows one side of the situation).

You are forgetting that the larger portion of Miners are behind the +2Mb bump. Thats what is going to count.

[Lauda]

You are forgetting that the larger portion of Miners are behind the +2Mb bump. Thats what is going to count.

So users, developers and merchants don't matter anymore? Interesting.

[franky1]

You are forgetting that the larger portion of Miners are behind the +2Mb bump. Thats what is going to count.

So users, developers and merchants don't matter anymore? Interesting.

lol with blockstream, only developers matter.. not the community, not the merchants (blockstream hates coinbase) and not the miners

[jonald_fyookball]

You are forgetting that the larger portion of Miners are behind the +2Mb bump. Thats what is going to count.

So users, developers and merchants don't matter anymore? Interesting.

I believe that most users want 2MB+ too. 

[Cuidler]

Your wrong, it is dangerous if just one pool has veto about change thats why 75%, and Gavin asked relevant Bitcoin services whether 28 days is enought time for them to make necessary changes which he received positive responses.

You are wrong. Why not 70%, since a single miner could veto with 26% hashrate? Why not 50% because more miners could veto the change? That could only happen if there wasno consensus obviously.

Its important if just one miner/pool doesnt have veto power. Someone with 26% hashrate cannot veto the change because variance works against him in the long run (check variance in statistic). Thats why we dont need to worry about this as long as some miner/pool doesnt have over 30% of hashing power which is much easier to veto required 75% treshold.

Thank you for your concern one pool with 26% can veto othervise majority consensus for change though.

BTW your avatar which promotes altcoin reminds me why only those who supports Bitcoin are important in this decision

Are you saying that people that support other digital currencies don't support Bitcoin? Actually, the opposite is true.

Altcoin prices are derived directly from Bitcoin's price, making the health and vitality of bitcoin of "extreme interest and concern" to supporters of other digital currencies. It is bitcoin that's opening the door for other currencies. We need the front runner to remain strong and free from subversion.

In addition, individuals involved in altcoins are some of the most technically knowledgeable and informed in regards to the blocksize issue!

All I saying we can judge whether someone supports Bitcoin in trustless manner mainly by the hashpower they providing, running full nodes is helpfull too but unless the numbers drops a lot not so important as mining.

While there can be altcoiners with best intentions for Bitcoin future, there can be other altcoiners who would like to shift dominant Bitcoin marketshare/useability/popularity in favour of their preffered Altcoin/s. So trustless manner in deciding about Bitcoin support is better which is hashpower.

[Lauda]

I believe that most users want 2MB+ too. 

Until there is sound proof that the majority wants this, this is a false statement. I have not seen any kind of proof yet, have you?

Thank you for your concern one pool with 26% can veto othervise majority consensus for change though.

There is no consensus in this case. That would cause a network split 3/4 and 1/4. If there is really consensus then 90% seems feasible.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

You are forgetting that the larger portion of Miners are behind the +2Mb bump. Thats what is going to count.

So users, developers and merchants don't matter anymore? Interesting.

where in the consensus mechanism to they get to decide?

You are a complete fruitcake sometimes.

[da2ce7]

Well Well. What do we have here?

 

This thread has been a lulzy!

In Summary:


Über Evil Blockstream Core have done *something* evil; and Gavin (and his Super-Hero sidekicks) has swept in with is multi-aborted fetus of blocksize increases to save the day!




The problem is that this (dead, rotten, stinking) blocksize increase fetus is starting to get so fowl that even places like Reddit are starting to get a unsavoury taste in their mouths when it is presented as a viable option; yet again.

---

The mailing list on the other hand...

[...]

Responding to "28 days is not long enough" :

[...]

[...]

With respect, the question should not be "is 28 days enough time for anyone
to roll out new binaries", it's instead a question of "how long does it
take someone to agree to upgrade to these new incompatible rules".

If Bitcoin users don't want to upgrade to incompatible rules right now, why
would they agree when 10% of the hashpower is setting some flag in a block?
Why would they change their minds at 20%? 90%? I am not saying here that
hard-forks should never be attempted, although we need as an ecosystem to
develop much more rigor and a more data-driven approach, and while that
might be hard to define exactly, as was once said by regulators, “I know it
when I see it”. Companies in the financial sector give a year or more
before deprecating old APIs even after the new one has been up and running
concurrently and well proven, and would not shut off their old one in order
to get adoption of the new one.

Are we OK with some percent of the Bitcoin ecosystem not agreeing with the
existing rules? What would that mean? Are you willing to maintain two
separate networks, and if not, would you please document this in your BIP?
Deprecation timeline and emergency procedures?? Should we include
rationalizations for not using a new address prefix? In the event of a
partial hard-fork where two chains exist, wouldn't it make more sense to
have the new chain use a new address prefix? Using a new address prefix
could conceivably serve to minimize the impact of what almost looks like an
intentionally constructed y2k-bug type of event for the ecosystem.

[...]

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012369.html

Well.  Lets just say that if this was a game of football; nobody is watching it for the contest anymore.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

There is no consensus in this case. That would cause a network split 3/4 and 1/4. If there is really consensus then 90% seems feasible.

Rubbish. 75% is the desired level. If anyone still wants to make a point when the majority of the network is against them, then so be it. They will lose and it will be their fault.
Rational players will play a rational game.

[jonald_fyookball]

I believe that most users want 2MB+ too. 

Until there is sound proof that the majority wants this, this is a false statement. I have not seen any kind of proof yet, have you?

It's not a false statement.   I didn't say anything about "proof".

I have observed that many people here (even those who support the Core team) want 2MB to be implemented.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

 [drivel]

Go fuck yourself.

Please. 

[Lauda]

where in the consensus mechanism to they get to decide?

Part of the time you guys are talking about the economic majority being important, then about the miners being the sole ones who decide. What's next? Make up your mind. Miners can't move without the industry and users; who are they going to sell their coins to?

It's not a false statement.   I didn't say anything about "proof".
I have observed that many people here (even those who support the Core team) want 2MB to be implemented.

It is a false statement. Without proper data, your observation is pointless to anyone sensible. I could easily state the opposite:"I have observed that many people here don't want 2 MB implemented.". So who would be right in this case? Are we both right at the same time? You're making conclusions based on a small sample of mostly hand picked data.

[jonald_fyookball]

where in the consensus mechanism to they get to decide?

Part of the time you guys are talking about the economic majority being important, then about the miners being the sole ones who decide. What's next? Make up your mind. Miners can't move without the industry and users; who are they going to sell their coins to?

It's not a false statement.   I didn't say anything about "proof".
I have observed that many people here (even those who support the Core team) want 2MB to be implemented.

It is a false statement. Without proper data, your observation is pointless to anyone sensible. I could easily state the opposite:"I have observed that many people here don't want 2 MB implemented.". So who would be right in this case? Since there are "no false statements" are we both right at the same time? You're making conclusions based on a small sample of mostly hand picked data.

I said "I believe".  I didn't say I've scientifically measured it.

You see, I can differentiate between opinions and facts.
You seem to be unable to do that, so I'm not surprised
you would make this kind of bonehead argument.