Can we reopen this pull request? (remove Classicbase from bitcoin.org)

[25hashcoin]

https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/pull/1178


Classicbase is not a bitcoin wallet.

[Cconvert2G36]

[25hashcoin]

Brian?

[unamis76]

Why? To further separate waters and create another bash-worthy discussion? There is no need... If we're going to do that, might as well remove all web wallets, because they do not comply with Bitcoin basics, because users of those wallets can't store the keys themselves.

[25hashcoin]

Why? To further separate waters and create another bash-worthy discussion? There is no need... If we're going to do that, might as well remove all web wallets, because they do not comply with Bitcoin basics, because users of those wallets can't store the keys themselves.

The CEO recently declared Coinbase NOT a wallet. Everything else aside, they should be removed anyway. They don't belong.

[chopstick]

No, 25hashcoin is just butthurt Brian Armstrong called Core out on their BS, immaturity, and lack of ability to make any real decisions (other than stalling indefinitely to promote the product they will eventually profit off of.)

[chopstick]

QFT

[25hashcoin]

QFT

Why do you keep reposting that photo of Brian?

[unamis76]

Why? To further separate waters and create another bash-worthy discussion? There is no need... If we're going to do that, might as well remove all web wallets, because they do not comply with Bitcoin basics, because users of those wallets can't store the keys themselves.

The CEO recently declared Coinbase NOT a wallet. Everything else aside, they should be removed anyway. They don't belong.

Thank you for your clarification, then they should really be removed either ways (and not because what client they run or don't run). Was not aware of that as I've never used online wallets

[25hashcoin]

Why? To further separate waters and create another bash-worthy discussion? There is no need... If we're going to do that, might as well remove all web wallets, because they do not comply with Bitcoin basics, because users of those wallets can't store the keys themselves.

The CEO recently declared Coinbase NOT a wallet. Everything else aside, they should be removed anyway. They don't belong.

Thank you for your clarification, then they should really be removed either ways (and not because what client they run or don't run). Was not aware of that as I've never used online wallets

Yep. Here's the proof: https://medium.com/@barmstrong/coinbase-is-not-a-wallet-b5b9293ca0e7#.gcv5c2fsn

[25hashcoin]

Anyone know who has the power to do such thing?

[Lauda]

Classicbase is not a bitcoin wallet.

That's a nice name. Initially I thought this was just due to the support for Classic, but I completely missed the statement that Coinbase is not a wallet (or forgot about it).
Here you go. Let's see what happens.

[Denker]

I support that!
Crybaby himself said that his company is not a wallet provider and therefore they should not be listed as such any longer.

[ATguy]

Seriously, does it matter?

I dont think bitcoin.org is visited much anyway, and few days ago I visited the front page out of curiosity. After I saw answers to question what is Bitcoin like "Decentralized development" and "low transaction fees" I become disgusted and closed the front page. So thank you to bring that feeling again, maybe you can give more newcommers false hope just to find them out later the reality.

[Lauda]

Seriously, does it matter?

It does; it is a 'systemic risk' to mislead users like this.

After I saw answers to question what is Bitcoin like "Decentralized development" and "low transaction fees" I become disgusted and closed the site.

Both are actually correct, unless you think that ~5-10 cents means 'high transaction fees'.

I support that!

Let's see what they say on Github (might take some time though).

[ATguy]

After I saw answers to question what is Bitcoin like "Decentralized development" and "low transaction fees" I become disgusted and closed the site.

Both are actually correct, unless you think that ~5-10 cents is 'high transaction fees'.

It is not much about today transaction fees, but the way these have to become in near future. As promised to miners by Bitcoin core, the onchain fees should be 100 times higher in mid future to compensate the low number of onchain transactions on artifically capped blockchain together with the fact miners wont get the offchain transaction fees which become centralized.

Given the amount of hate when anybody except one development team trying to solve the capacity problem with the highest compromise possible, and the fear of Bitcoin Core loosing monopoly thus spreading all the FUD (decentralization, developers leaving threats, holders crashing price, splitted chains with 2* more supply), there is not much will for real decentralization development from Bitoin Core where anybody is free to propose change to network and let it vote in provably fair method, up to a point many people starting to see Bitoin Core as a actual threat to Bitcoin.

[Lauda]

It is not much about today transaction fees, but the way these have to become in near future.

The website states now (as in the present) that the fees are low, which is correct.

As promised to miners by Bitcoin core, the onchain fees should be 100 times higher in mid future

Source?

here is not much will for real decentralization development from Bitoin Core where anybody is free to propose change to network and let it vote in provably fair method, up to a point many people starting to see Bitoin Core as a actual threat to Bitcoin.

Baseless speculation.
Not sure how all of this is relevant to the OP though. From what I see Bitcoin.org is quite important. If you search "Bitcoin" on Google the first result is Bitcoin.org followed by a Wikipedia article. The information on it has to be correct.

[ATguy]

As promised to miners by Bitcoin core, the onchain fees should be 100 times higher in mid future

Source?

Statement from Bitmain's Jihan Wu at 8btc explained to the Chinese community why miners sided with core at recent Hong Kong meeting

https://np.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/48kf18/daily_discussion_wednesday_march_02_2016/d0krl0w

During the Hong Kong meeting, the answer provided by Core reps is that the future Lightning Network would increase capacity a thousandfold - that up to tens of thousands of transactions can be completed on the lightning network and settled with one on chain transaction. Assuming that current transaction fees are 0.3 RMB, and assuming that 1000 lightning transactions can be settled by one blockchain transaction, then we can raise fees for on chain transactions to 30 RMB (100x increase), while each transaction on the lightning network would only cost a tenth of current fees and increase miner revenue a hundredfold.

here is not much will for real decentralization development from Bitoin Core where anybody is free to propose change to network and let it vote in provably fair method, up to a point many people starting to see Bitoin Core as a actual threat to Bitcoin.

Baseless speculation.

I dont see fair Core statement "welcome, let hash decide for your BIP109. If succesfull, we merge BIP109 immediatelly".
 
/r/btc is becoming almost as relevant as /r/bitcoin due to /r/bitcoin censorship. Unfortunatelly /r/btc is too radical and low post quality and you can still find beter post quality at /r/bitcoin though radical small block shills are still very vocal there and probably censorship still there but only lately I see big blocker good arguments to not be censored there so possibility for /r/bitcoin to become most relevant if free non censored discussion become norm there.

Not sure how this is relevant to the OP though. From what I see Bitcoin.org is quite important. If you search "Bitcoin" on Google the first result is Bitcoin.org followed by a Wikipedia article. The information on it has to be correct.

I agree, and although my first post was ontopic, my following replies are just to provide more info. Still, Coinbase can be used as a Bitcoin wallet - no doubt about this.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

I don't care what the CEO says, it's a web wallet.

[chopstick]

During the Hong Kong meeting, the answer provided by Core reps is that the future Lightning Network would increase capacity a thousandfold - that up to tens of thousands of transactions can be completed on the lightning network and settled with one on chain transaction. Assuming that current transaction fees are 0.3 RMB, and assuming that 1000 lightning transactions can be settled by one blockchain transaction, then we can raise fees for on chain transactions to 30 RMB (100x increase), while each transaction on the lightning network would only cost a tenth of current fees and increase miner revenue a hundredfold.

So basically they sold us all out for chump change, and are supporting the official limitation of on-chain transaction volume (blocksize) to support a technology that may or may not exist some 2 years from now and which will probably require a radical degree of centralization in order to run properly, not to mention fees, after-all Blockstream will need to pay back their investors somehow.