Finally, Bitcoin Core = REKT

[steeev]

classic's coinbase clunkers should implement their bloatcoin as a Bitcoin sidechain

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE_elgnIw3M

[1715060430]

1715060430

[1715060430]

1715060430

[1715060430]

1715060430

[Quickseller]

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.

Oh, so what other products/services does blockstream offer? How else do then plan on generating revenue for themselves?

[jonald_fyookball]

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

Only a minority disagrees with it. 

If that is true then there's no need for you to continually lambast
about how dangerous 75% forks are, since the conversation is about
needing 75% to fork away from core, which is a large majority
not a minority.

I don't expect you'll stop doing it though.

[Lauda]

Oh, so what other products/services does blockstream offer? How else do then plan on generating revenue for themselves?

It is most likely going to be sidechains. My guess would be custom made sidechains with technical support or something of that sort. I honestly have no idea and haven't looked into it.

If that is true then there's no need for you to continually lambast
about how dangerous 75% forks are, since the conversation is about
needing 75% to fork away from core, which is a large majority
not a minority.
I don't expect you'll stop doing it though.

1. It is dangerous and harmful; 2. It doesn't matter who's forking away from who. If Core proposed an hard fork with a 75% threshold, I'd be against it. Nobody in their right mind would propose such a low threshold unless they don't really care about the system but just rather want to get their own way as quickly as possible.

[mikewirth]

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.

But if those very important names are taking money from private interests, where those private interests want them to impose artificial limitations that force bitcoin users to adopt fixes like those known as Lightning, then it is good to see those 'important names'.

This is called 'conflict of interest'. Bitcoin Core is controlled by those having a private interest aligned with limited the blocksize.  Therefore, fuck them.  Good riddance.

[Lauda]

But if those very important names are taking money from private interests, where those private interests want them to impose artificial limitations that force bitcoin users to adopt fixes like those known as Lightning, then it is good to see those 'important names'.

This is called 'conflict of interest'. Bitcoin Core is controlled by those having a private interest aligned with limited the blocksize.  Therefore, fuck them.  Good riddance.

Wrong. There is basically zero evidence (which would be considered real and legit) in regards to these accusations. You've been deluded by the opposing party to think so (of course there's a chance, but that chance exists with everyone (see what happened with Hearn)). Segwit is essentially much better than a 2MB block size increase and it adds capacity as well (which grows upwards and is not an instant jump). Nobody is forcing Bitcoin users to do anything. Bitcoin can't scale efficiently without solutions such as the Lightning Network.
Interestingly everyone seems to forget that the Core developers own a decent sum of Bitcoins and would probably profit more if the price went upwards.
The only underlying logic present here is: They don't agree with my view, therefore they are evil and want to artificially limit Bitcoin.

[steeev]

scaling is about far more than just making arbitrary numbers bigger - classic clunkers need to listen and learn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYHyR2E5Pic

[ATguy]

Oh, so what other products/services does blockstream offer? How else do then plan on generating revenue for themselves?

Partnering with PwC probably got income already. The worst thing is Bitcoin meant to be decentralized, but the weakest point in decentralization chain become Bitcoin Core which got basicaly monopolized by BlockStream and Bitcoin as just settlement mechanism developers. It is obvious bad actors have reason to attack the weakest Bitcoin point and overtake it, without decentralized development and more alternatives people can choose from the one which fits their need/or future Bitcoin vision, there will always be this risk.

[gmaxwell]

which got basicaly monopolized by BlockStream and Bitcoin

Can you explain this for me?  Bitcoin Core is a project with dozens of people. One of the main developers of Bitcoin Core is a founder of Blockstream. And this is "monopolized"? Please, help me understand what you're thinking here.

Meanwhile, the developers of other implementations just don't bother to tell you about their business partnerships at all. Makes me sick.

[bob123]

I dont see a reason to stay with 1 MB all the way.
Just seems so vintage.. which isnt suitable to bitcoin at all.

[mikewirth]

Bitcoin can't scale efficiently without solutions such as the Lightning Network.

The Lightning Network which is privately owned by Blockstream.  They want you to believe Bitcoin can't scale without you having to buy access to their system. 

But, I believe lots of solutions for scaling can be devised without any overlord owner. 

Core programmers have a conflict of interest - they say things like: "Bitcoin can't scale efficiently..."  Because convincing others of this allows them to burden the system with a limit that drives need for their solution. 

Fuck that.  And fuck those guys who were trusted to control the software while they got on Blockstreams payroll.

[mikewirth]

which got basicaly monopolized by BlockStream and Bitcoin

Can you explain this for me?  Bitcoin Core is a project with dozens of people. One of the main developers of Bitcoin Core is a founder of Blockstream. And this is "monopolized"? Please, help me understand what you're thinking here.

Meanwhile, the developers of other implementations just don't bother to tell you about their business partnerships at all. Makes me sick.

It is now useful for Blockstream to block expansion to 2MB so there is greater need for Lightning.  They monopolized Core because their de facto 'veto' vote has stopped Mike Hearn and others from going down a road that permits scalability without the Blockstream privately owned solution.

Look, you guys got found out.  The community isn't that stupid.  Knock off the bullshit.

[Lauda]

The Lightning Network which is privately owned by Blockstream.  They want you to believe Bitcoin can't scale without you having to buy access to their system.  

LN is not privately owned; you're trolling. Get your facts straight before spewing nonsense around here.

[jonald_fyookball]

Oh, so what other products/services does blockstream offer? How else do then plan on generating revenue for themselves?

It is most likely going to be sidechains. My guess would be custom made sidechains with technical support or something of that sort. I honestly have no idea and haven't looked into it.

If that is true then there's no need for you to continually lambast
about how dangerous 75% forks are, since the conversation is about
needing 75% to fork away from core, which is a large majority
not a minority.
I don't expect you'll stop doing it though.

1. It is dangerous and harmful; 2. It doesn't matter who's forking away from who. If Core proposed an hard fork with a 75% threshold, I'd be against it. Nobody in their right mind would propose such a low threshold unless they don't really care about the system but just rather want to get their own way as quickly as possible.

So then your argument is purely academic, since you believe there's only a minority supporting a fork anyway.  Correct?

[jackg]

Looks like those assholes at Blockstream are losing finally.  Looks like their 1MB block limit crippling of the blockchain so we all need to buy their Lightning Network isn't working out.  I knew people would finally jump over their very dumb arguments that 2MB would lead to centralization. 

I am not in favor of a private entity owning a group of core programmers who take a position to make valuable the offerings of that private entity.  That just reeks of improper.  Good riddance Blockstream.  Looks like the new kid on the block is Bitcoin Classic!!!

http://paymentweek.com/2016-1-20-bitfury-now-supports-bitcoin-classic-and-2-megabyte-block-size-seems-to-be-winning-the-battle-9421/?utm_content=bufferf2145&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin.com&utm_campaign=buffer

I'm not sure that increasing it to 2MB would cause re-centralisation of the bitcoin network.
I am also not sure that increasing it to 2MB would do very much! We could probably do wih increasing it to 10MB to make it more viable and a faster network (also offering greater difficulty and with greater difficulty can come a faster speed of hardware).

[Lauda]

So then your argument is purely academic, since you believe there's only a minority supporting a fork anyway.  Correct?

The answer here is both yes and no. Currently I believe that only a minority supports the fork. I'm not saying that this can't change though, nor am I saying how many people are actually in support of a block size increase (where supporting a block size increase doesn't imply that you support a different proposal (fork)). I wouldn't mind 2 MB blocks right now (if they properly fixed that attack vector without a workaround as Gavin proposed). However, in regards to Segwit or 2 MB blocks, I'd take Segwit.

I'm not sure that increasing it to 2MB would cause re-centralisation of the bitcoin network.
I am also not sure that increasing it to 2MB would do very much! We could probably do wih increasing it to 10MB to make it more viable and a faster network (also offering greater difficulty and with greater difficulty can come a faster speed of hardware).

All wrong. 2 MB might cause some centralization due to less nodes being online (the number is dropping anyways though). We can't do 10 MB blocks because of propagation delay, validation time and orphans. An increase of the block size limit won't make the network 'more viable and faster'. The speed of the network will remain the same.

[coins101]

which got basicaly monopolized by BlockStream and Bitcoin

Can you explain this for me?  Bitcoin Core is a project with dozens of people. One of the main developers of Bitcoin Core is a founder of Blockstream. And this is "monopolized"? Please, help me understand what you're thinking here.

Meanwhile, the developers of other implementations just don't bother to tell you about their business partnerships at all. Makes me sick.

Perhaps a register of interests for those working on the production infrastructure or proposing changes to the production infrastructure might be worth thinking about.

[RealBitcoin]

Don't divide and conquer idiots, the price will halve.

Do you really want that after all the struggle we've been trough?

[jonald_fyookball]

 I wouldn't mind 2 MB blocks right now (if they properly fixed that attack vector without a workaround as Gavin proposed).  

So then we agree on that point.  But lets see if Core will do it.
Based on Greg's comments thus far, I'm sensing resistance.

[busybee7]

its not rekt and never will be core is the best and it will the main thing, classic will not take over