Finally, Bitcoin Core = REKT

[Lauda]

Very valid point. But this assumes that everyone will stop working on the main chain if the Classic implementation passes the consensus threshold, which I doubt.

That's not what I meant. I was comparing the current two groups, people contributing to Core and people who are/will contribute to Classic according to their website. I don't think that everyone would stop working on Bitcoin but I'm sure that we would lose some very important names due to this.

[coins101]

Very valid point. But this assumes that everyone will stop working on the main chain if the Classic implementation passes the consensus threshold, which I doubt.

That's not what I meant. I was comparing the current two groups, people contributing to Core and people who are/will contribute to Classic according to their website. I don't think that everyone would stop working on Bitcoin but I'm sure that we would lose some very important names due to this.

If you take emotion out of this, the version that reaches consensus first, reaches consensus for everyone. This happens every 10 minutes already. Joining the consensus opionion is part of the protocol.

On paper, why sould anyone leave? This is how bitcoin is supposed to work.

[Lauda]

If you take emotion out of this, the version that reaches consensus first, reaches consensus for everyone. This happens every 10 minutes already. Joining the consensus opionion is part of the protocol.

Scenario: 75% miners adopt hard fork and it happens, 25% disagree. How can they reach consensus for "everyone"? This does not make sense.

On paper, why sould anyone leave? This is how bitcoin is supposed to work.

A lot of people will leave. However, maybe more would join. Who can know exactly what is going to happen?

[coins101]

If you take emotion out of this, the version that reaches consensus first, reaches consensus for everyone. This happens every 10 minutes already. Joining the consensus opionion is part of the protocol.

Scenario: 75% miners adopt hard fork and it happens, 25% disagree. How can they reach consensus for "everyone"? This does not make sense.

On paper, why sould anyone leave? This is how bitcoin is supposed to work.

A lot of people will leave. However, maybe more would join. Who can know exactly what is going to happen?

75% is often seen as a majority vote. If you are in the 25%, would you not consider it a fair vote and your view is in the minoirty?  In any event, the level to be reached to achieve consensus is evidently the first thing that needs consensus.

Who knows what will happen, but as long as Bitcoin remains internet money, it will continue to evolve. Who knows, creating more capacity to expand its attractiveness may bring even more people into the development community.

[siameze]

Gavin has been unsucessful in trying to fracture Bitcoin and increase the blocksize already. What makes this approach any different besides magically changing a number ?

[Lauda]

75% is often seen as a majority vote. If you are in the 25%, would you not consider it a fair vote and your view is in the minoirty?  In any event, the level to be reached to achieve consensus is evidently the first thing that needs consensus.

I would not because Bitcoin is not a democracy.

Who knows what will happen, but as long as Bitcoin remains internet money, it will continue to evolve. Who knows, creating more capacity to expand its attractiveness may bring even more people into the development community.

Segwit offers an increase in capacity as well. Nothing special about the fork and 2 MB blocks. I do wonder what is going to happen though.

[coins101]

75% is often seen as a majority vote. If you are in the 25%, would you not consider it a fair vote and your view is in the minoirty?  In any event, the level to be reached to achieve consensus is evidently the first thing that needs consensus.

I would not because Bitcoin is not a democracy.

Who knows what will happen, but as long as Bitcoin remains internet money, it will continue to evolve. Who knows, creating more capacity to expand its attractiveness may bring even more people into the development community.

Segwit offers an increase in capacity as well. Nothing special about the fork and 2 MB blocks. I do wonder what is going to happen though.

I'm reasonably sure segwit will end up needing a hard fork.  How do you deal with nodes that fail to update? There will be differences in the data between full nodes. There is too much risk at the moment with the soft fork without more testing. It sounds feasible to soft fork, but....there is always a but.

[Lauda]

I'm reasonably sure segwit will end up needing a hard fork.  How do you deal with nodes that fail to update? There will be differences in the data between full nodes. There is too much risk at the moment with the soft fork without more testing.

It won't. Nodes that do not update will not be able to validate the data, that's about it IIRC.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I'm reasonably sure segwit will end up needing a hard fork.  How do you deal with nodes that fail to update? There will be differences in the data between full nodes. There is too much risk at the moment with the soft fork without more testing.

It won't. Nodes that do not update will not be able to validate the data, that's about it IIRC.

Peter Todd recently said it should probably be a hard fork. Did you follow that?

[jonald_fyookball]

Core's view of how Bitcoin should be governed:

1. All changes should be with consensus

2. Consensus means everyone agrees.

3. We don't agree to anything but our own roadmap.

4. Therefore, anything but our way isn't consensus and can't happen.

5. Hard forks threaten consensus too, so no hard forking unless
we say so and no doing anything unless Gregory says its ok.

[bitlost]

Core's view of how Bitcoin should be governed:

1. All changes should be with conensus

2. Consensus means everyone agrees.

3. We don't agree to anything but our own roadmap

4. Therefore, anything but our way isn't consensus and can't happen.

5. Hard forks threaten consensus too, so no hard forking unless
we say so and no doing anything unless Gregory says its ok.

It's almost impossible to reach 100 consensus

it makes more sense to think about "majority" instead of "everyone"

no?

[Lauda]

Peter Todd recently said it should probably be a hard fork. Did you follow that?

I didn't. Where?

3. We don't agree to anything but our own roadmap.

Only a minority disagrees with it. Another group is obsessed with Core and Blockstream and the third group is just weird.

It's almost impossible to reach 100 consensus
it makes more sense to think about "majority" instead of "everyone"

no?

100% is realistically impossible. 90-95% is possible and we should not even try anything under this number.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

Peter Todd recently said it should probably be a hard fork. Did you follow that?

I didn't. Where?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/43fadt/peter_todd_segwit_is_not_safe_to_deploy_as_a_soft/
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-January/012301.html

I didn't follow it...

[Lauda]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/43fadt/peter_todd_segwit_is_not_safe_to_deploy_as_a_soft/
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-January/012301.html

I didn't follow it...

No. What you wrote is misleading and it is probably because you haven't looked into it yourself. He made a proposal on how to reduce the risk of deployment via the soft fork (regarding old nodes being unable to verify new data). I haven't followed up on the next posts on the list, but it seems like a good proposal that should shut some people up (that have been complaining about this like it was going to kill the whole system). 

[Quickseller]

... The Lightning Network is going to be part of Bitcoin and it is free to use.

I am not sure how you think this would ever be possible.

1 - Blockstream took a bunch of VC money and will need to somehow turn a profit. The LN is their only "product" therefore LN must somehow generate revenue for blockstream

2 - Even if the above were untrue, there must be some mechanism to keep track of who is owed how much in the LN and whoever keeps track of this is not going to do this for free (in Bitcoin the miners do this via confirming transactions and extending the blockchain, and in return they get the block subsidy plus the tx fees)

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

... The Lightning Network is going to be part of Bitcoin and it is free to use.

I am not sure how you think this would ever be possible.

1 - Blockstream took a bunch of VC money and will need to somehow turn a profit. The LN is their only "product" therefore LN must somehow generate revenue for blockstream

2 - Even if the above were untrue, there must be some mechanism to keep track of who is owed how much in the LN and whoever keeps track of this is not going to do this for free (in Bitcoin the miners do this via confirming transactions and extending the blockchain, and in return they get the block subsidy plus the tx fees)

Lightning Network is a Joseph Poon invention. You're probably thinking of sidechains.

https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper-DRAFT-0.5.pdf

[Lauda]

1 - Blockstream took a bunch of VC money and will need to somehow turn a profit. The LN is their only "product" therefore LN must somehow generate revenue for blockstream

Lightning Network is a Joseph Poon invention. You're probably thinking of sidechains.

https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper-DRAFT-0.5.pdf

People seem to mix these two up. There's only 1 developer on the Blockstream payroll that is working on LN (as far as I know). Would the whole company put only a single developer on their "only product"? No. Another thing that people seem to forget is that they're free to develop LN themselves if they have the adequate skills to do so.

[MicroGuy]

The conflicts of interest inside Bitcoin core have reached near deadly levels. At one time core was free and independent, this is no longer true.

Taking a look around here, it's not very hard to see that most devs opposed to 2MB blocks are on Blockstream's payroll. Very sad and disgusting.

[bitlost]

The conflicts of interest inside Bitcoin core have reached near deadly levels. At one time core was free and independent, this is no longer true.

Taking a look around here, it's not very hard to see that most devs opposed to 2MB blocks are on Blockstream's payroll. Very sad and disgusting.

That should be and argument strong enough to drive the consensus towards the 2mb implementation ASAP!

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

The conflicts of interest inside Bitcoin

consensus....ASAP!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1305286.msg13728330#msg13728330