Is it good or bad that Core development is virtually controlled by one company?

[blunderer]

^^ sunnankar: please delete your post. It adds nothing but faggotry to this thread.

Not like the thoughtful and dignified post you just made.  

You mean this one, made right before that faggot's gigantic Obama meme?
No, nothing like it.

OK, so I'm a newbie who has just been reading a lot and trying to understand things. So here is my opinion.

We may need 2Mb blocks, but it's not urgent, and it may be that in the future we need 4Mb or more.
Most blocks are half empty,

This is false. Here's a chart: https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size (.5 is "half full")
The urgency is pretty obvious: we knew that the number of transactions was growing, infighting about blocksize started over a year ago, and the blocks are hitting the limit, and... And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day. Well. I just don't understand it.

so maybe what we really need are variable length blocks and more efficiency.

Block size is already variable, meaning that blocks with max_block_size of 1MB aren't all 1MB -- that's just the maximum size. In other words, we're not growing the blockchain by 1MB every ten minutes, regardless of the number of transactions.

There is too much "rubbish" in blocks that is not essential to money transfer - people are recording weddings for heaven sake, SigWit doesn't mean that we can't use 2Mb blocks, it just means that if we do, then the storage will be mofre efficient. Please explain to me why we can't implement SegWit in the short term. See what effect that has on transaction processing, and then decide a block size policy for the future.

SegWit won't make the storage more efficient -- it will simply separate it into two warehouses. The amount of stuff to store will be the same.
Like the 2MB blocks, SegWit isn't a permanent solution, it merely kicks the can down the road. In other words, when we hit 1.7 to 2MB blocks, we'll still need a hard fork.

[Zarathustra]

51% is explicitly defined as consensus

The myth that a supermajority is needed needs to be dispelled.

The consensus mechanism was defined like it is to *exactly* deal with the situation where there is contention. Let hashrate decide.

If some people want to try and undermine this by trying to trick miners into following different chains, let them do so now. Let them reveal their hand. Then we can see who is truly being 'irresponsible', and who is truly 'trying to destroy bitcoin'.

Where is 51% defined as consensus?  The whitepaper?  Cite please!

And you know full well much less than 51% will given time inevitably appear, due to variance, as 51%.

The consensus mechanism is designed to discourage/prevent a situation where there is contention, via the extreme penalties (ie losing all your BTC) for defecting from the socioeconomic majority.

You don't get to be privy to, much less control, the Core Defense Network and small block militia's strategy, timing, and tactics.

You only get to find out what they are in the heat of battle, as the wildfire turns your attacking fleet into ash, shipwrecks, and corpses.

Now, isn't it well past time for you to concede that XT was defeated?

We're waiting....

The 5% consensus joke is one of the dumbest you've ever made.

https://medium.com/@Aquentys/on-the-theology-of-hardforks-312ab2f0ca9b#.vcoxbjuqd

[Zarathustra]

51% is explicitly defined as consensus

The myth that a supermajority is needed needs to be dispelled.

The consensus mechanism was defined like it is to *exactly* deal with the situation where there is contention. Let hashrate decide.

If some people want to try and undermine this by trying to trick miners into following different chains, let them do so now. Let them reveal their hand. Then we can see who is truly being 'irresponsible', and who is truly 'trying to destroy bitcoin'.

Where is 51% defined as consensus?  The whitepaper?  Cite please!

And you know full well much less than 51% will given time inevitably appear, due to variance, as 51%.

The consensus mechanism is designed to discourage/prevent a situation where there is contention, via the extreme penalties (ie losing all your BTC) for defecting from the socioeconomic majority.

You don't get to be privy to, much less control, the Core Defense Network and small block militia's strategy, timing, and tactics.

You only get to find out what they are in the heat of battle, as the wildfire turns your attacking fleet into ash, shipwrecks, and corpses.

Now, isn't it well past time for you to concede that XT was defeated?

We're waiting....

XT is not defeated. XT 0.11.0E is compatible with the 2 MB hard fork. Together with Classic and BU there are about 250 nodes already, vs. 150 Blockstream/PWC 0.12.0 soft fork nodes.

[gmaxwell]

transaction fee's do not need to be a revenue stream for atleast 2 decades

On one hand, you're saying that Bitcoin is fine even with the rewards being 64 times lower (that is what it is roughly 20 years from now.).. and yet you also think that 75% of the hashrate can force people into accepting rule changes.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

We argued last summer that this will happen, and we were right, with core being proven wrong. Core at the time publicly stated that once blocks are full we can have an emergency hardfork. Well, blocks are now full, and Classic proposes the emergency hardfork. Yet core continues to refuse because they want a settlement system, but we, the users, the companies, the wallet developers, the most senior core devs such as Gavin and Jeff, reject the settlement system.

https://medium.com/@Aquentys/on-the-theology-of-hardforks-312ab2f0ca9b#.d121nwxds

[MicroGuy]

We argued last summer that this will happen, and we were right, with core being proven wrong. Core at the time publicly stated that once blocks are full we can have an emergency hardfork. Well, blocks are now full, and Classic proposes the emergency hardfork. Yet core continues to refuse because they want a settlement system, but we, the users, the companies, the wallet developers, the most senior core devs such as Gavin and Jeff, reject the settlement system.

https://medium.com/@Aquentys/on-the-theology-of-hardforks-312ab2f0ca9b#.d121nwxds

It is becoming increasingly difficult for the Blockstream™ paid/controlled Core devs to conceal the severity of their conflicting interests.

Their lies and rhetoric - their smoke and mirrors - have all lost their luster and appeal. Satoshi Nakamoto must be saddened by disgust.
 

[franky1]

transaction fee's do not need to be a revenue stream for atleast 2 decades

On one hand, you're saying that Bitcoin is fine even with the rewards being 64 times lower (that is what it is roughly 20 years from now.).. and yet you also think that 75% of the hashrate can force people into accepting rule changes.

never said 75% of hashrate.. that was someone else..
i actually made a graphic saying 75% of peer consensus would be over 90% of hashrate (in a different conversation)

and as for the rewards.. yep 20 years will still be valid to mine with only block rewards as the main income.

my point being that transaction fee's should not be abused right now or in the next couple years. its only going to be PART of miners main source of income in MANY years. at the moment it should remain as a non-essential 'bonus'

remember if the fiat price increases, that takes care of the bitcoin reward decrease. if miners dont like getting $10,000 for 10 minutes work, then they need to either stop selling coin to help raise the price (supply decrease), to get the price they want. or find another hobby and let the rest have a chance.
i know you know the numbers
over the next 4 years 12.5btc, ($10k total $800/coin)
2020 6.25 ($10k total $1600/coin)
2024 3.125 ($10k total $3200/coin)
2028 1.5625 ($10k total $6400/coin)
(gap to take a breath and think about the numbers)thats 12 years for bitcoins fiat price to grow to $6,400 a coin($10k reward), more than enough time.
 especially if you blockstreamers are trying to make bitcoin into a reserve currency (need i remind you that bitcoin was 100x less in value just 4 years ago, soo is indeed possible to grow just 15 times in 12 years)
2032 0.78125 ($10k total $12,800/coin)
2036 0.390625 ($10k total $25,600/coin)

[iCEBREAKER]

XT is not defeated.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

transaction fee's do not need to be a revenue stream for atleast 2 decades

On one hand, you're saying that Bitcoin is fine even with the rewards being 64 times lower (that is what it is roughly 20 years from now.).. and yet you also think that 75% of the hashrate can force people into accepting rule changes.

I thought it was 51%?

[franky1]

XT is not defeated.

agreed XT is defeated. so is classic..

but that does not mean people... wait.. ill translate.. the community dont want 2mb.they still want it.
they just dont want one company with private backers running the show

[franky1]

transaction fee's do not need to be a revenue stream for atleast 2 decades

On one hand, you're saying that Bitcoin is fine even with the rewards being 64 times lower (that is what it is roughly 20 years from now.).. and yet you also think that 75% of the hashrate can force people into accepting rule changes.

I thought it was 51%?

depends which posts of different people Gmaxwell is reading. numbers seem to range from 51%-95%

[Jimmy Wales]

transaction fee's do not need to be a revenue stream for atleast 2 decades

On one hand, you're saying that Bitcoin is fine even with the rewards being 64 times lower (that is what it is roughly 20 years from now.).. and yet you also think that 75% of the hashrate can force people into accepting rule changes.

Why are you shying away from giving a clear answer to this ?

Judging by the lack of coins showing up on the bitcoinocracy polls, the vigorously attacking groups may not be big investors in Bitcoin.

Will Blockstream Core agree to shift to 2mb if bitcoinocracy poll indicates more coins are supporting 2mb ?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

transaction fee's do not need to be a revenue stream for atleast 2 decades

On one hand, you're saying that Bitcoin is fine even with the rewards being 64 times lower (that is what it is roughly 20 years from now.).. and yet you also think that 75% of the hashrate can force people into accepting rule changes.

Why are you shying away from giving a clear answer to this ?

Judging by the lack of coins showing up on the bitcoinocracy polls, the vigorously attacking groups may not be big investors in Bitcoin.

Will Blockstream Core agree to shift to 2mb if bitcoinocracy poll indicates more coins are supporting 2mb ?

This is only a democracy if Core is winning. 

[franky1]

transaction fee's do not need to be a revenue stream for atleast 2 decades

On one hand, you're saying that Bitcoin is fine even with the rewards being 64 times lower (that is what it is roughly 20 years from now.).. and yet you also think that 75% of the hashrate can force people into accepting rule changes.

Why are you shying away from giving a clear answer to this ?

Judging by the lack of coins showing up on the bitcoinocracy polls, the vigorously attacking groups may not be big investors in Bitcoin.

Will Blockstream Core agree to shift to 2mb if bitcoinocracy poll indicates more coins are supporting 2mb ?

bitcoinocracy has been hammered and spammed by the blockstream friends and not really advertised to the whole community.. so its not really a fair example of democracy.

even hilary clinton can persuade a group of her friends to get on a tourbus and be by her side and cheer her on, pretending to be the towns folk loving every word she says infront of a carefully zoomed camera

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

I wonder what make him lose enough self-respect to put up with being bossed around by a bigoted, copyright-trolling shitlord like Olivier Janssens?

Oh please tell me you didn't just use that word against someone else, you jackbooted, FN-loving, MP-shilling, GoldmanSachs-lackying hypocrite!!! 

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

51% is explicitly defined as consensus

The myth that a supermajority is needed needs to be dispelled.

The consensus mechanism was defined like it is to *exactly* deal with the situation where there is contention. Let hashrate decide.

If some people want to try and undermine this by trying to trick miners into following different chains, let them do so now. Let them reveal their hand. Then we can see who is truly being 'irresponsible', and who is truly 'trying to destroy bitcoin'.

Where is 51% defined as consensus?  The whitepaper?  Cite please!

Remember the Nakamoto Consensus

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

No figures needed - voting with their feet is just simple majority - 51%  You could say it is implicit.

Any other efforts you have to skew this are just spin.

[sgbett]

In fact, 51% is explicitly defined as consensus.

We all wait with abated breath while you go and cite that "explicit" definition for us.

It's in the white paper. I expect you have read it.

[gmaxwell]

You could say it is implicit.
Any other efforts you have to skew this are just spin.

You can say it's "implicit" -- but there are also many other lies you can tell.  The paper describes a mechanism where nodes verify and enforce the system's rules for themselves, using POW for ordering. It doesn't describe a system where nodes stop enforcing their rules if the are overpowered, nor is that how Bitcoin was written.

the most senior core devs such as Gavin and Jeff, reject the settlement system.

"The fundamental engineering truths diverge from that misty goal:
Bitcoin is a settlement system, by design." -- Jeff Garzik

Ahem.

And the claim that Jeff and Gavin are more senior is bunk. Unless you mean to say that someone whos first changes were merged a few days earlier, regardless of how much involvement they've had since is "more senior".

[bargainbin]

...
And the claim that Jeff and Gavin are more senior is bunk. Unless you mean to say that someone whos first changes were merged a few days earlier, regardless of how much involvement they've had since is "more senior".

No, I don't wanna hear who started it, apologize to your brother THIS INSTANT! You know yourself you're wrong!

[iCEBREAKER]

51% is explicitly defined as consensus

Where is 51% defined as consensus?  The whitepaper?  Cite please!

No figures needed - voting with their feet is just simple majority - 51%  You could say it is implicit.

OK boys, you two have fun getting your story straight.

And I expect it to be explicitly logically and linguistically consistent, not the hand-waving implicit wink-wink-nudge-nudge version.

PS  Nobody else believes your preposterous "51% = consensus" falsehood.

Not even Garzik.  

To roll out a change to the network you need to get most of the clients understanding both the old and the new protocol, and then when you have a majority you turn on the new protocol.

You just described a whole-network upgrade.  I'd call that an incompatible change

The effort to raise the transaction rate limit is the same as the effort to change the fundamental nature of bitcoins:  convince the vast majority to upgrade.