How do we stop the division in the Bitcoin community?

[Kakmakr]

Julius Caesar said, "Divida et Impera" - Divide and rule and since he divided Rome, no one ever contradicted him. We see some forces, trying to do the same. Divide and conquer may refer to: Divide and rule, in politics, sociology and economics, a strategy to gain or maintain power.

Since the introduction of XT and Classic, we have seen some clear indications that people are trying to implement that strategy. There is nothing wrong with the submission of a opposing implementation to Bitcoin Core, because it is in the best interest of the technology to make suggestions and to develop new ideas to improve the technology. 

The problem come in, when submissions are done to accomplish other goals, for example a power grab or to Divide and conquer


How can the community come back together and fight for one goal? < Making Bitcoin the center of attention > It is not healthy for everyone to attack each other on public platforms and debate should be centered on making Bitcoin better.

[Jet Cash]

Make sure you run a core node.
If you are part of a mining pool, then contact the administrators, and make sure they are aware that you support core, and may transfer to a core supporting pool if they support schismatic groups.

[unamis76]

There is nothing wrong with the submission of a opposing implementation to Bitcoin Core, because it is in the best interest of the technology to make suggestions and to develop new ideas to improve the technology. 

I think the answer is here. People propose what they think it's best for the Bitcoin community and the community choses what works best and everyone merges under the same set of rules. After settling on a new set of rules, we have no division anymore.

[SebastianJu]

It's fully normal that, when people think that the persons that rule something does not act in their interest anymore, they start to act in a way that supports their interest.

I'm not sure if classic can do that though. But it is a legit thing to disagree and do your own thing.

Besidest that, I think you misunderstand "divide et imperia". It means let two different groups fight each other and then win as the third party. Common thing the US is doing before they invade countries.

In bitcoin I don't see the third party and it's not like a third party could overwhelm all bitcoiners somehow.

[Kakmakr]

It's fully normal that, when people think that the persons that rule something does not act in their interest anymore, they start to act in a way that supports their interest.

I'm not sure if classic can do that though. But it is a legit thing to disagree and do your own thing.

Besidest that, I think you misunderstand "divide et imperia". It means let two different groups fight each other and then win as the third party. Common thing the US is doing before they invade countries.

In bitcoin I don't see the third party and it's not like a third party could overwhelm all bitcoiners somehow.

Mike Hearn has moved on to the third party in this battle. His partnership with the banks, after he divided the community with his failed XT implementation was proof of this strategy. You have to read between the lines and see the bigger picture of how this was done.

The biggest competition for Bitcoin < Core and Classic > will come from Private Blockchain technology that are being developed as we speak. ^hmmmm^

[SebastianJu]

It's fully normal that, when people think that the persons that rule something does not act in their interest anymore, they start to act in a way that supports their interest.

I'm not sure if classic can do that though. But it is a legit thing to disagree and do your own thing.

Besidest that, I think you misunderstand "divide et imperia". It means let two different groups fight each other and then win as the third party. Common thing the US is doing before they invade countries.

In bitcoin I don't see the third party and it's not like a third party could overwhelm all bitcoiners somehow.

Mike Hearn has moved on to the third party in this battle. His partnership with the banks, after he divided the community with his failed XT implementation was proof of this strategy. You have to read between the lines and see the bigger picture of how this was done.

The biggest competition for Bitcoin < Core and Classic > will come from Private Blockchain technology that are being developed as we speak. ^hmmmm^

Hm... didn't think about that party but surely, they remained calm all the time and this fight surely can only hurt bitcoin. But it's fully understandable that there is a fight at all. Both sides have good arguments. At the moment I can't back any side 100%.

Really a pity.

I think banks could easily stop bitcoin. I was wondering for a long time why governments remained so calm and watched the control over money possibly be taken out of their hands. I think there might be the interest of agencies because following the bitcoin trail might be new and interesting to them... should not be too hard when you control the network activity of whole countries.

[Lauda]

You can't. It is up to the people who are on the "wrong side". Both sides (there probably are more) are definitely guilty of a lot of things (e.g. ad hominem), but at least on one side the situation has calmed down. Some 'people' (?) just keep focusing on negativity, targeting individuals, companies and such. They have to choose to stop behaving like this themselves. It is best to stay away from them and spread the word until they do.

The biggest competition for Bitcoin < Core and Classic > will come from Private Blockchain technology that are being developed as we speak. ^hmmmm^

What makes you say that?

Besidest that, I think you misunderstand "divide et imperia". It means let two different groups fight each other and then win as the third party.

In that case it would be: Let Core fight XT and then Classic was supposed to emerge as the third party. Seems like the plan failed.

[Slark]

Julius Caesar said, "Divida et Impera" - Divide and rule and since he divided Rome, no one ever contradicted him. We see some forces, trying to do the same. Divide and conquer may refer to: Divide and rule, in politics, sociology and economics, a strategy to gain or maintain power.

It is not Julius Cesar who invented this strategy. The maxim divide et impera has been attributed to Philip II of Macedon, and together with the maxim divide ut regnes was utilised by Caesar and the French emperor Napoleon.

And I think bitcoin is free for now because government won't see it as significant force.
As we all know a simple regulation of ASIC manufacturers would harm bitcoin - for example by forcing manufacturers to add kill switches to the hardware, or require ASIC users to have licenses for mining.

[SebastianJu]

And I think bitcoin is free for now because government won't see it as significant force.
As we all know a simple regulation of ASIC manufacturers would harm bitcoin - for example by forcing manufacturers to add kill switches to the hardware, or require ASIC users to have licenses for mining.

The killswitch will be a bit hard. There will still be countries that would produce them as a niche. Though importing them might be risky at the borders.

Licences... not anymore when bitcoin would be a risk. Then bitcoin would be forbidden and price would go down alot.

[franky1]

How can the community come back together and fight for one goal? < Making Bitcoin the center of attention > It is not healthy for everyone to attack each other on public platforms and debate should be centered on making Bitcoin better.

by stopping the contention and to work together.
having extra buffer forces nothing. but allows natural growth. its better to have features and not need to use them straight away, rather than avoid features and argue that one company should be the decision makers.

bitcoin should include alot more features and alot more buffer. then let the community decide which ones they want to use.

for instance the blocklimit.
increasing the buffer does no harm, because its ultimately the miners that decide if they want to make bigger blocks. so its their preferencial settings that mean the most.

not increasing it means that some implementations will have the higher settings and some dont. and this contention will cause a fork.

refusing any feature is bad. it causes not only social conflict but also chain conflicts (forks and orphans)

blockstream should never ever ever have gained peoples blind faith to delay things just to suit their agenda.

[lumeire]

It's fully normal that, when people think that the persons that rule something does not act in their interest anymore, they start to act in a way that supports their interest.

I'm not sure if classic can do that though. But it is a legit thing to disagree and do your own thing.

Besidest that, I think you misunderstand "divide et imperia". It means let two different groups fight each other and then win as the third party. Common thing the US is doing before they invade countries.

In bitcoin I don't see the third party and it's not like a third party could overwhelm all bitcoiners somehow.

That is, for now. Whe'd never know wen that third party would come and take over, or in what form. It may not be a person or even an organization, as it can be as simple as an idea.

I get what OP wants to say. This division isn't helping at all, but you see, this is the way to achieve a consensus. The US went first to a civil war before emerging as a global power. Maybe after this we'd be in the right path.

[SebastianJu]

It's fully normal that, when people think that the persons that rule something does not act in their interest anymore, they start to act in a way that supports their interest.

I'm not sure if classic can do that though. But it is a legit thing to disagree and do your own thing.

Besidest that, I think you misunderstand "divide et imperia". It means let two different groups fight each other and then win as the third party. Common thing the US is doing before they invade countries.

In bitcoin I don't see the third party and it's not like a third party could overwhelm all bitcoiners somehow.

That is, for now. Whe'd never know wen that third party would come and take over, or in what form. It may not be a person or even an organization, as it can be as simple as an idea.

I get what OP wants to say. This division isn't helping at all, but you see, this is the way to achieve a consensus. The US went first to a civil war before emerging as a global power. Maybe after this we'd be in the right path.

I agree. Bitcoin is really weak now. Not the price but bitcoin itself is pretty fragile. And it will become worse since I don't see a solution that will come fast enough to prevent the downspiral to move on.

And yes... a weak bitcoin would be the time to attack. Hopefully no plan is behind.

[randy8777]

the community can't return back to how it was before all this nonsense started. it has just started. prepare yourself for more splitting up of the community. i am quite sure that once every 3 to 6 months there will be a new alternative popping up claiming to be the change we all have been waiting for. the only way we can support core is by continuing to run the core client, and nothing else.

[Amph]

the only way is to find a good compromise between the contenders, if they can come up with something with sub-consensus between their best intentions, then, they would settle an agreement, on that thing that they both see as a good for the future of bitcoin

[icecube45]

altcoins are the division personified honestly, especially the non bitcoin fork coins like monero and nxt

[Kprawn]

We will always be divided because we have different views on what is beneficial for Bitcoin. The people on the one side {Core} seem to think that a smaller block size, combined with other side-chains

will solve the problem of scalability and on the other side {Classic} you have the people, who wants to jump to bigger block sizes immediately to solve the scalability problem with one solution. Each of

these sides have the same goal in mind, but with a different approach. Time will tell what roadmap will be the best, but one thing is certain, and that is scalability in the short term.. will be addressed by

both implementation. 

[Lauda]

We will always be divided because we have different views on what is beneficial for Bitcoin.

Not always. We can clearly see that as we have a second contentious fork attempt.

The people on the one side {Core} seem to think that a smaller block size, combined with other side-chains  will solve the problem of scalability and on the other side {Classic} you have the people, who wants to jump to bigger block sizes immediately to solve the scalability problem with one solution. Each of these sides have the same goal in mind, but with a different approach.

I don't think that Classic supporters believe that "bigger block sizes immediately to solve the scalability problem with one solution", because that is completely false. A block size increase is no solution of any sort, it is a kick of the can down the road and always will be.

i am quite sure that once every 3 to 6 months there will be a new alternative popping up claiming to be the change we all have been waiting for. the only way we can support core is by continuing to run the core client, and nothing else.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Bitcoin Reloaded in a few months.

[Kakmakr]

the only way is to find a good compromise between the contenders, if they can come up with something with sub-consensus between their best intentions, then, they would settle an agreement, on that thing that they both see as a good for the future of bitcoin

Good point, but what will this be regarding the current situation? We have people who deliberately throttle down the block size to pave the road for side chains and then we have another group trying to do a power grab. These two groups are deeply divided at this moment and I cannot see how any of them will make any compromise. ^hmmmm^

[franky1]

not always. We can clearly see that as we have a second contentious fork attempt.

its only a contention when some blockstream fanboys do all they can to refuse to upgrade.. thats the whole meaning of the word contention.

bitcoin is suppose to be that all rules should be put into all implementations that way there is no control.
but if one power house veto's any logical upgrade then that makes blockstream the power grabber.. because they only want to do things one way..

[Dinki]

This division might actually be good for bitcoins, it keeps developers on their toes to keep improving on past achievements.