[ABCbits]

 

[franky1]

thanks to blythe masters for helping out the bank of england and bank of india with their next generation RTGS platform,
the centralised faster payment service based on cryptocurrency technology is now covered for the mass adoption category of this topic
(there is sarcasm in the thanks)

lets keep bitcoin as an alternative/opposing option to the way of the banks, where there are no barriers to entry.
lets keep it decentralized and lets keep it doing what its supposed to.
it takes time to teach people the difference between money(subcategory of currency that is centrally controlled) and currency(individually valued and traded), so logically it will be a slow adoption process.

even with slow adoption, we still need to increase the capacity buffer to accommodate a growing adoption,without trying to delay such growth to stifle bitcoins utility.

but those wanting fast adoption only care about fiat. so much so they are willing to centralize bitcoin using middlemen authorisation (multisigs) purely for short term FIAT profit so they can run back to FIAT.

those people dont understand money or understand the real need for bitcoin and if they want fast adoption(purely for profit) then they need to be advised to go play with some penny stocks or an altcoin

[thejaytiesto]

Obviously we must choose decentralized and slow adoption. What use does Bitcoin have if the network becomes centralized? This is why we must keep supporting Core. They are conservative, the progress is rather slow but it is solid and well thought, no improvisation and keeping the network decentralized is the priority.

[thejaytiesto]

Obviously we must choose decentralized and slow adoption. What use does Bitcoin have if the network becomes centralized? This is why we must keep supporting Core. They are conservative, the progress is rather slow but it is solid and well thought, no improvisation and keeping the network decentralized is the priority.

lol core is centralized..(a dozen paid coders and 90+ spell checkers, does not mean they are decentralized)

there was a decentralized meeting where the main code implementations and pools got together to try coming to a consensus that all implementations should focus on so that everyone is on the same equal level playing field with no single power house. and all agree on what the new rules should be.

core didnt like it. and went their own way with their own roadmap
there should be no central power house.

there is nothing wrong with core making a strong implementation that follow the agreed rules BY EVERYONE
but here is the but
core dictating the rules and bypassing consensus to slip in their own rule changes by blinding other implementations into blindly passing data that other implementations cant validate signatures. is wrong.
core dictating the rules and ignoring even having a release that has a varient of the rules to allow open choice.. is wrong

core have not been going to meetings with other implementations since, to find a fair level playing field agreement of the direction bitcoin can go. core have gone their own way and done everything to push nah sayers away, instead of listening and communicating and finding an agreement across the network.
core have only been inviting mining pools to social events

all core care about is their contract. they have to release segwit soon to get the next tranche of funding released. its why their segwit code (9 months) has been pushed harder then the consensus meeting of capacity growth that was agreed before a line of segwit was even wrote.

if you think core are "taking their time" they are not.. they are pushing through segwit without 6000 nodes evenn needing to upgrade. and then saying they are ignoring real capacity, under the pretense that they need to take their time.

this is easily highlighted by saying 18 months are needed to activate capacity growth even after the code is reviewed.
this is easily highlighted by not even releasing an implementation to start that 18 month time period
this is easily highlighted by throwing anyone who was going to release a core +capacity growth version off the bus (even luke_jr is soon to get REKT due to him informing his employer he will release a core version with capacity growth)

core should not dominate what rules should change. core should be on the same level playing field with all implementations to agree to what the new rules should be. and then all implementations release their versions with said rules.

People are freely running Core nodes mostly because the other software is dogshit compared to the robust Core software and it's solid dev team. They also are the ones that want to keep the NETWORK decentralized (nodes being viable to kept run by people on their personal computers, anything else is death).
Not to mention even satoshi knew after around 0.1, supporting alternative software was a mistake.

Point denied.

[isen]

The choice is very easy for me,I voted decentralized of course and I don't care how slow the adoption will be.Anything else is against Bitcoin philosophy,If one day Bitcoin becomes centralized then it will die for sure and everyone who uses it will abandon it and move to another cryptocurrency.
 

[franky1]

Obviously we must choose decentralized and slow adoption. What use does Bitcoin have if the network becomes centralized? This is why we must keep supporting Core. They are conservative, the progress is rather slow but it is solid and well thought, no improvisation and keeping the network decentralized is the priority.

lol delaying freedom of choice with words like year development and year grace period.. is not cautious security.. but delay/avoidance tactic to then push through their own rules that doesnt even need 6000 nodes to upgrade/consent to, and activated in under a year

analogy:
"we dont want to get into a car to go to the shop, so we think it will take 2 days to walk it and avoid car crashes.. but we want to invent a motorbike with an invisible side-car and will get to the shops in one day"

core is centralized. (even you admit they are a powerful team)
core is centralized. (a dozen paid coders and 90+ spell checkers doesnt make them decentralized)

much like UK parliament where 650 MP's live in different towns but make decisions together, is not decentralized
much like US government where senators live in different towns but make decisions together, is not decentralized
but core has become the prime minister/president that can sway the debate in their direction, veto and disregard.

in short..
if your are defending the power a group has about the rules.. its not decentralized.
every group should be on the same level in regards to the consensus

as for the social preference of which implementation. then that is not about the rules, but about the function, speed, errors, GUI interface and openness of each team. (total different argument to the consensus mechanism)

[Milkduds]

Faster things are brought in the faster they usually die or miss some glaring red flags that get exploited to death.
Would rather see slow adoption but I am not to keen on handing aspects of bitcoin to any government to regulate and tax.
So slower the better and would rather run bitcoin into uncharted waters than stifle and snuff it out with greedy banks sticking their fingers in the pot.

[unamis76]

Decentralized is the key word. We cannot take it other way, it doesn't matter how much time adoption will take.

[dc1a0]

I chose decentralized as well. If bitcoin became centralized, then it would be easy to corrupt and pervert it to the point that it would be as worthless as fiat is. The day bitcoin becomes centralized will be the day I look for something else that is decentralized to abandon it for.

[thejaytiesto]

Obviously we must choose decentralized and slow adoption. What use does Bitcoin have if the network becomes centralized? This is why we must keep supporting Core. They are conservative, the progress is rather slow but it is solid and well thought, no improvisation and keeping the network decentralized is the priority.

lol delaying freedom of choice with words like year development and year grace period.. is not cautious security.. but delay/avoidance tactic to then push through their own rules that doesnt even need 6000 nodes to upgrade/consent to, and activated in under a year

analogy:
"we dont want to get into a car to go to the shop, so we think it will take 2 days to walk it and avoid car crashes.. but we want to invent a motorbike with an invisible side-car and will get to the shops in one day"

core is centralized. (even you admit they are a powerful team)
core is centralized. (a dozen paid coders and 90+ spell checkers doesnt make them decentralized)

much like UK parliament where 650 MP's live in different towns but make decisions together, is not decentralized
much like US government where senators live in different towns but make decisions together, is not decentralized
but core has become the prime minister/president that can sway the debate in their direction, veto and disregard.

in short..
if your are defending the power a group has about the rules.. its not decentralized.
every group should be on the same level in regards to the consensus

as for the social preference of which implementation. then that is not about the rules, but about the function, speed, errors, GUI interface and openness of each team. (total different argument to the consensus mechanism)

I still don't get how Core is centralized. Again, people are freely choosing to use their software instead of Classic/XT or whatever it's out there nowadays, to validate transactions. People is free to use other software, the majority wants Core because they are the best developers, is that simple.

[franky1]

I still don't get how Core is centralized. Again, people are freely choosing to use their software instead of Classic/XT or whatever it's out there nowadays, to validate transactions. People is free to use other software, the majority wants Core because they are the best developers, is that simple.

your statement is about the social choice of GUI, and or the chances of bugs.

im talking about the decisions of the rules..
NO SINGLE TEAM should make that decision

you only want core to make the rule decisions and then anyone free to choose the fluffy front end GUI

[krishna1]

we are already developed so much and bitcoin is already so cool and perfect but many people have many diffrent opinions with the btc so it is not getting exacyly to a point that what will be the best option and according to me i like slow adoption as bcause everyone knows actully what they are using

[Carlton Banks]

im talking about the decisions of the rules..
NO SINGLE TEAM should make that decision

you only want core to make the rule decisions and then anyone free to choose the fluffy front end GUI

Yes Franky, except it's IMPOSSIBLE to have more than one set of rules running at once, in any system. Duhhhhhhhhh. Because different sets of rules will CONFLICT with one another. Duuuuuuuuh. There can be only one set of rules at once. It's plain and simple logic.

[franky1]

im talking about the decisions of the rules..
NO SINGLE TEAM should make that decision

you only want core to make the rule decisions and then anyone free to choose the fluffy front end GUI

Yes Franky, except it's IMPOSSIBLE to have more than one set of rules running at once, in any system. Duhhhhhhhhh. Because different sets of rules will CONFLICT with one another. Duuuuuuuuh. There can be only one set of rules at once. It's plain and simple logic.

there will be one set of rules running at once.. but allowing nodes to flag if they want something new.
and consensus deciding if the rule should change

EG
if core had 2 versions. one with 2mb base block, one with 1mb base block and 4mb blockweight.
if bitknots had 2 versions. one with 2mb base block, one with 1mb base block and 4mb blockweight.
if BU had 2 versions. one with 2mb base block, one with 1mb base block and 4mb blockweight.
if classic had 2 versions. one with 2mb base block, one with 1mb base block and 4mb blockweight.
if XT had 2 versions. one with 2mb base block, one with 1mb base block and 4mb blockweight.
if BITCOINJ had 2 versions. one with 2mb base block, one with 1mb base block and 4mb blockweight.

then its upto the users to decide with no biases
EG some core fanboys love core the team, but want 2mb capacity instead of 1mb
EG some non-core fanboys hate core the team, but want segwit..

then bitcoin wont care which GUI signalled a majority.. because they all released a version that the majority can happily choose

both people can use the GUI(team) they like, while also having the level playing field and no control over who gets to set/control the rules

we shouldnt be at a point where core slips in a soft rule change requiring no nodes to upgrade to activate.. and then saying people need to run only core to be fully validating nodes or be left as out of date nodes not validating segwit signatures (no longer full nodes)

[Carlton Banks]

No that's idiotic. You cannot expect computer illiterates to make good choices about engineering decisions for a cutting edge peer to peer network. They will make foolish decisions sooner or later, like electorates typically do.

It's far better to let the crypto coding teams work without interference, and then the public can pick which cryptocoin is exhibiting the best perfromance in the real world, after the decisions have been made. If Bitcoin Core screw it up, so be it. It's their software project, not mine, yours or anyone elses.

[franky1]

If Bitcoin Core screw it up, so be it. It's their software project, not mine, yours or anyone elses.

its their software (GUI) but the rules should not belong to core alone, especialy if they only offer one option

but hey screw bitcoin, you can just go play with your monero, right?

[Carlton Banks]

If Bitcoin Core screw it up, so be it. It's their software project, not mine, yours or anyone elses.

its their software (GUI) but the rules should not belong to core alone, especialy if they only offer one option

Ok, you can't really expect me to believe that you understood 5 minutes ago that more than one set of rules can't operate at once, and now you're pretending as if that particular logic has been disappeared using your magic sentence? Um, not sure what to say exactly. Keep taking the tablets?

[franky1]

If Bitcoin Core screw it up, so be it. It's their software project, not mine, yours or anyone elses.

its their software (GUI) but the rules should not belong to core alone, especialy if they only offer one option

Ok, you can't really expect me to believe that you understood 5 minutes ago that more than one set of rules can't operate at once, and now you're pretending as if that particular logic has been disappeared using your magic sentence? Um, not sure what to say exactly. Keep taking the tablets?

one rule runs..
based on the consensus agreement of the majority (activation parameter of a high majority)
where the consensus is not reach by biased belief of which team is best. but by what rule is best because ALL TEAMS have a version to allow free unbiased choose of the rules they want without worrying about the team.

EG core fanboys can happily vote for 2mb because they are downloading a core version with 2mb. without having to sacrifice their ideology of core.
EG non core fans can happily vote for segwit because they are downloading bitcoinknot with segwit. without having to sacrifice their ideology of bitcoinknot.
EG non core fan can happily vote for segwit because they are downloading bitcoinj version with segwit. without having to sacrifice their ideology of bitcoinj.

---

EG core fanboys can happily vote for segwit because they are downloading a core version with segwit. without having to sacrifice their ideology of core.
EG non core fan can happily vote for 2mb because they are downloading bitcoinknot version with 2mb. without having to sacrifice their ideology of bitcoinknot.
EG non core fan can happily vote for 2mb because they are downloading bitcoinj version with 2mb. without having to sacrifice their ideology of bitcoinj.

[South Park]

No that's idiotic. You cannot expect computer illiterates to make good choices about engineering decisions for a cutting edge peer to peer network. They will make foolish decisions sooner or later, like electorates typically do.

It's far better to let the crypto coding teams work without interference, and then the public can pick which cryptocoin is exhibiting the best perfromance in the real world, after the decisions have been made. If Bitcoin Core screw it up, so be it. It's their software project, not mine, yours or anyone elses.

This is a very Sun Tzu thing to do, in The Art of War Sun Tzu recommends that politicians stay away and let the generals take the decisions related to war. We must let the engineers take the decisions they are the ones that know what they are doing.

[franky1]

No that's idiotic. You cannot expect computer illiterates to make good choices about engineering decisions for a cutting edge peer to peer network. They will make foolish decisions sooner or later, like electorates typically do.

It's far better to let the crypto coding teams work without interference, and then the public can pick which cryptocoin is exhibiting the best perfromance in the real world, after the decisions have been made. If Bitcoin Core screw it up, so be it. It's their software project, not mine, yours or anyone elses.

This is a very Sun Tzu thing to do, in The Art of War Sun Tzu recommends that politicians stay away and let the generals take the decisions related to war. We must let the engineers take the decisions they are the ones that know what they are doing.

art of war!
opposite to the art of peace and community and agreement

after all bankers know how money creation works.. lets leave our finances managed and controlled by bankers.. lets let them choose negative interest rates and freezing accounts, lets continue letting a single group decide everything for us.