[Carlton Banks]

Yeah Franky. Except the only people prosecuting a war have been the 2MB-or-die shills, unless you want to roll out that "Core started it" canard again

[mobnepal]

I think its better to have slow adoption and decentralization. However i don't think country trying to adopt bitcoin and regulate its exchanges makes bitcoin centralized because if you don't reveal that you own this much bitcoin than even those authority couldn't calculate how much tax they should collect from you. If you don't exchange those bitcoin for fiat than you can do normal anonymous, decentralized and tax free transaction with bitcoin like before.

Adoption over bitcoin will surely come in future and for sure adoption will be in slower rate, bitcoin is supported by large community and citizens will surely use it even when government try to stop its uses in their country.

[DPAY2016]

It's hard to be complete decentralized. Just look recent ETH drama.

[franky1]

Yeah Franky. Except the only people prosecuting a war have been the 2MB-or-die shills, unless you want to roll out that "Core started it" canard again

you think its a war.
because you dont want your king to let the community to live freely. you defend such a king to make people hate neighbouring villages rather then enlighten your king that he should be trading and communicating with the whole community.

edit:
Except the only people prosecuting a war have been the "segwit or fuck off to an altcoin"(hoping they join you on monero), unless you want to roll out that "core is king" canard

by the way.. luke JR is releasing a 2mb version of core
will you accept that a core team has 2mb code.. or shun luke JR in a REKT campaign? and shout doomsdays to tell people not to download it? even if a core team wrote it?

simple question will you shun luke JR in a REKT campaign due to 2mb CORE TEAM code?

[Carlton Banks]

Yeah Franky. Except the only people prosecuting a war have been the 2MB-or-die shills, unless you want to roll out that "Core started it" canard again

you think its a war.
because you dont want your king to let the community to live freely. you defend such a king to make people hate neighbouring villages rather then enlighten your king that he should be trading and communicating with the whole community.

No, you're advocating the equivalent of kicking in the door to an someone elses house, moving your preferred householders into the house, crowing "free-market competition, bitches!"

[franky1]

Yeah Franky. Except the only people prosecuting a war have been the 2MB-or-die shills, unless you want to roll out that "Core started it" canard again

you think its a war.
because you dont want your king to let the community to live freely. you defend such a king to make people hate neighbouring villages rather then enlighten your king that he should be trading and communicating with the whole community.

No, you're advocating the equivalent of kicking in the door to an someone elses house, moving your preferred householders into the house, crowing "free-market competition, bitches!"

bitcoin is not a house. bitcoin is a land. and everyone on the land should have equal voice to come to a majority to decide the rules of the land. and then they can decide if they want a pink, blue or orange house to live on while following the rules of the majority everyone decided on.

simple question will you shun luke JR in a REKT campaign due to 2mb CORE TEAM code?
edit, will you kick lukeJR out your leaders house?

[Carlton Banks]

Listen, you've been rambling on about "Luke-jr's fork this" and "Luke-jr's fork that" for months, and no-one knows what your talking about, even now. Spare us the incoherent explanation, I'm not sure I can brave it for the umpteenth time

(you do realise that I only skim-read your posts, don't you? I am abundantly aware that you practically commit my posts to memory )

[franky1]

simple question will you shun luke JR in a REKT campaign due to 2mb CORE TEAM code he will release?
just like you REKT others who released code with the same rule..

come on grow some balls and answer.
unless you fear your answer destroys your rhetoric of the "trust of core team" and reveals its the centralization control that your actually advocating

[Carlton Banks]

Franky, the very fact that you are, and have always been, the sole source of this information about Luke-jr wanting to start an independent fork of Bitcoin makes me suspicious. It can't be as significant as you're projecting it as if it's just not surfacing anywhere except in your posts. You're the only one shouting about it at the top of your voice, and you're not very reliable.

Not only that, but you only ever feel the need to beat me with this particular stick. It smells strongly of your story-twisting personal attack tactics.

[franky1]

Franky, the very fact that you are, and have always been, the sole source of this information about Luke-jr wanting to start an independent fork of Bitcoin makes me suspicious. You're the only one shouting about it at the top of your voice, and you're not very reliable.

gmaxwell mentioned it (your best bud)
luke himself mentioned it
mining pools mentioned it
adam back (another friend of yours) mentioned it

they all had a few meetups and stuff to discuss it. (many round tables)
so its not secret knowledge. its just you want to fail at pretending you dont know so you can avoid answering, yet over many months you have been very vocal about the details to show you do actually know about it.

so grow some balls..
will you rekt luke when he releases the 2mb code? again remember its CORE CODE, not independent code.

will you defend luke JR and say he is part of core and the code is vetted by the team.. so its acceptable
or will you REKT luke..

im presuming you will REKT luke because you accidentally tarnished core code made by core team member as "independent".. oops you slipped up and revealed your mindset.

[Carlton Banks]

It's your bizarrely worded descriptions that led me to believe that it's an independent fork. Maybe if you weren't using massively exaggerated rhetoric to report it, there would be no confusion.

It's pretty obvious that whatever the Core team have discussed in relation to increasing the base size is not happening any time soon. You're trying to create a false equivalency: doubling the base block size in 2018 is not the same as doing it 2015, as you foolishly advocated. Give it up, you're more interested in me and what I think than you are in progress in Bitcoin, it seems.

[DPAY2016]

It's your bizarrely worded descriptions that led me to believe that it's an independent fork. Maybe if you weren't using massively exaggerated rhetoric to report it, there would be no confusion.

It's pretty obvious that whatever the Core team have discussed in relation to increasing the base size is not happening any time soon. You're trying to create a false equivalency: doubling the base block size in 2018 is not the same as doing it 2015, as you foolishly advocated. Give it up, you're more interested in me and what I think than you are in progress in Bitcoin, it seems.

I completly agree with your words.

[Conus]

I am concerned with mass adoption right now.  I think if that would happen, it may burn it out.  If it is adopted through out the world, then there will be regulations put in place to protect as our government sees fit.  For this, I am sure they will want some sort of fee, which case I think will start to crash the system as we know it.  Just my opinion.

[zimmah]

If it's centralized, there's no benefit over the banks, and it wouldn't matter if it's mass adopted, because they would still rob you blind.

The biggest strength of bitcoin is the fact that it's decentralized. If you take that away, bitcoin is worthless.

[yayayo]

[...]

So, which one is better, decentralized, but very slow adoption OR centralized, but mass adoption happened? To be honest, i don't know which one is better

If you don't know that you're probably wrong here. Bitcoin without decentralization is the same like fiat using Paypal. Bitcoin's value is destroyed in the process.

I also don't understand why you think that mass adoption rules out decentralization. Please explain.

It makes me sad to see an ever increasing number of Bitcoin users pouring into this forum, who are solely focusing on Bitcoin fiat price valuation and mass adoption without caring about Bitcoin's essential property as a decentralized currency. Such people are apparently clueless of why Bitcoin has value at all. In my opinion these people can not be considered true Bitcoiners, they are just fiat scam money speculators. I don't mind if they leave, because they are perverting the original idea behind Bitcoin.

ya.ya.yo!

[JeffBrad12]

Recently we saw some country/city have legalize bitcoin which means could accelerate bitcoin adoption, let merchants accept bitcoin and let people use bitcoin without worry.
But, we also know it means bitcoin slowly become centralized because regulation, user verification, taxes and eliminate anonymous service as well.

So, which one is better, decentralized, but very slow adoption OR centralized, but mass adoption happened? To be honest, i don't know which one is better

You're already having the answer because everything is your mentioned is having the advantages and disadvantages... and so all of the answers will be vague for me.... but what about the subject of your question if this is about bitcoin and if that is centralized and that's not different with fiat and what the people is need for making bitcoin in this day?

[Herbert2020]

Recently we saw some country/city have legalize bitcoin which means could accelerate bitcoin adoption, let merchants accept bitcoin and let people use bitcoin without worry.
But, we also know it means bitcoin slowly become centralized because regulation, user verification, taxes and eliminate anonymous service as well.

i don't agree with the start of your post.
in my opinion making bitcoin legal or in other words regulations doesn't mean bitcoin is becoming centralized. we are all living in a society so we all have to obey the rules even if they are not to our liking like paying taxes but that doesn't make it centralized by any means.

So, which one is better, decentralized, but very slow adoption OR centralized, but mass adoption happened? To be honest, i don't know which one is better

decentralization is one of the best features of bitcoin and if it is lost/removed then a big part of bitcoin is lost. so a decentralized and slow adoption is a lot better.

[piloder]

Better to see bitcoin decentralized and remain anonymous till it survives or forever. Current adoption level is even enough to hold high price for bitcoin and as bitcoin is listed in trading platform many traders are actively buying bitcoin to hold for future. Adoption will surely increase in future, no need of any bank or company buying bitcoin for quick adoption.

[pereira4]

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)

You are overcompensating things. People choose to run the Core software, this means they like the developer team and how they get things done.
Everyone is free to try to improve the software, but of course it needs to go under revision by experts, as you have been told, if we let every idiot out there push their code into the project it would be a disaster, specially when there are tons of trolls trying to ruin Bitcoin out there.

[franky1]

You are overcompensating things. People choose to run the Core software, this means they like the developer team and how they get things done.
Everyone is free to try to improve the software, but of course it needs to go under revision by experts, as you have been told, if we let every idiot out there push their code into the project it would be a disaster, specially when there are tons of trolls trying to ruin Bitcoin out there.

and i ask all those thinking the debate is just about what "team" to trust.

will you be ok with a core team release of 2mb.. or be part of the rekt campaign to push that implementation into obscurity due to it not being a blockstream domination plan.

again worded differently though, by being done by the team you love. will you then finally accept it as a option the community should happily download. or reject it due to fear of core losing central control by offering a feature that other implementations already offer, making core on a level playing field with other implementations by allowing the community true freedom of choice without bias..

as always for core fanboys, its never about the code, never about the feature. its all about core controlling the decisions to centralize bitcoin