Go start your own fork you stupid fuck -

[RawDog]

This is crazy that everyone who doesn't agree with nullc has to go start a new altcoin.  But when nullc wants to introduce RADICAL changes to the protocol, he somehow expects to do it on top of Bitcoin thus forever changing the Bitcoin protocol to something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. 

wtf?

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5fgckq/nullc_ive_been_telling_them_to_go_and_create/

[1713991602]

1713991602

[1713991602]

1713991602

[1713991602]

1713991602

[1713991602]

1713991602

[odolvlobo]

This is crazy that everyone who doesn't agree with nullc has to go start a new altcoin.  But when nullc wants to introduce RADICAL changes to the protocol, he somehow expects to do it on top of Bitcoin thus forever changing the Bitcoin protocol to something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.  

wtf?

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5fgckq/nullc_ive_been_telling_them_to_go_and_create/

The real problem is that too many people believe that the developers of Core are in charge of Bitcoin.

I believe that the desire for someone to be in charge is (and will always be) the biggest threat to Bitcoin, and that is why I still give Bitcoin a relatively high chance of failure.

[Kprawn]

Well the banks did it, why not everyone else? Why do they need to ride on Bitcoin's back to get somewhere? They know it takes time to build

a network around a Alt coin and they are too lazy to go through all of that. I just want someone to create a Bitcoin that can scale, without all

the "extras" added to line the pockets of a few individuals. If someone creates that Alt coin, I will buy it and use it. If I see that we are getting

fucked over by SegWit/LN ... I will move over to something that works...   ... I am sick of all this fighting.

[Holliday]

No one can force someone else to run software against their will.

The community is clearly divided between those who want to keep the block chain as lean as possible in order to preserve decentralization at the cost of on chain scaling, and those who want to put every transaction under the sun in the permanent ledger that all full nodes must keep a copy of forever.

These two sides will never see eye to eye! There is no point in furthering the perpetual argument.

Therefor, the best solution is one side to create a block which the other side refuses to acknowledge.

Forking will resolve these differences in the blink of an eye.

[franky1]

No one can force someone else to run software against their will.

The community is clearly divided between those who want to keep the block chain as lean as possible in order to preserve decentralization at the cost of on chain scaling, and those who want to put every transaction under the sun in the permanent ledger that all full nodes must keep a copy of forever.

These two sides will never see eye to eye! There is no point in furthering the perpetual argument.

Therefor, the best solution is one side to create a block which the other side refuses to acknowledge.

Forking will resolve these differences in the blink of an eye.

the solution is
dynamic 2mb base 4mb weight.
remember 4mb weight is still 4mb weight.. thus not causing any more bloat harm than core is allowing. but HOW that data is used within the weight and also what that can be utilised for changes.

both sides win and then let the freedom of how users transact decide what happens

oh and that solution does not cause an intentional split. just some temporary orphan drama if the % adoption is not high enough before adoption, hense a 95% is only a 5% risk which pools have already found acceptable

win win win

[Holliday]

the solution is
dynamic 2mb bas 4mb weight.

both sides win and then let the freedom of how users transact decide what happens

If you think you have the solution, the point is that there is no need to discuss it further. Implement it, mine it, and move forward from the endless "I have the correct solution" discussions.

[RawDog]

the solution is
dynamic 2mb bas 4mb weight.

both sides win and then let the freedom of how users transact decide what happens

If you think you have the solution, the point is that there is no need to discuss it further. Implement it, mine it, and move forward from the endless "I have the correct solution" discussions.

Yeah, and nullc and his shills get to manipulate the protocol and all miners will just follow along.  every other chain has to go out and start their own alt.   Why doesn't nullc have to start a new chain when he introduces new ideas to the protocol?  Why does nullc get to call his new altcoin 'Bitcoin' and impose those changes on the 'majority' chain? 

If SegWit and Lightning are truly better, then nullc and his gang should be delighted to start a new chain and rid themselves of the 16million BTC load that comes with staying on the old chain. 

Because like the others, there is no chance to start a new chain.  So, saying: 'go do your fork' goes two ways.  Let that fucker nullc go do his fucking alt on a new chain too.

[Holliday]

the solution is
dynamic 2mb bas 4mb weight.

both sides win and then let the freedom of how users transact decide what happens

If you think you have the solution, the point is that there is no need to discuss it further. Implement it, mine it, and move forward from the endless "I have the correct solution" discussions.

Yeah, and nullc and his shills get to manipulate the protocol and all miners will just follow along.  every other chain has to go out and start their own alt.   Why doesn't nullc have to start a new chain when he introduces new ideas to the protocol?  Why does nullc get to call his new altcoin 'Bitcoin' and impose those changes on the 'majority' chain? 

If SegWit and Lightning are truly better, then nullc and his gang should be delighted to start a new chain and rid themselves of the 16million BTC load that comes with staying on the old chain. 

Because like the others, there is no chance to start a new chain.  So, saying: 'go do your fork' goes two ways.  Let that fucker nullc go do his fucking alt on a new chain too.

Therefor, the best solution is one side to create a block which the other side refuses to acknowledge.

[franky1]

the funnier part of Gmaxwell (nullc)
is that he works for blockstream.. who work for hyperledger(bankers altcoin)

I've been telling them to go and create their fork for over a year now.

The fact of the matter is that for a least a few of the vocal people involved do not actually want a fork and don't really believe that users want it either. They just want to disrupt Bitcoin, create FUD, and slow technical progress while then invest in competing systems.

as for the last sentence i underlined from him. he loves his fiat and monero income.. get has not stable bitcoin income/if any.
blockstream got MILLIONS of dollars for a team of say 40.. thats nearly $2million each if equally split. with maxwell being he cheif tech/supervisor im sure his cut is much higher.

he has lost all care and desire for bitcoin. all his idea's have been to push the community apart with:
intentional splits.. not consensual upgrades
increasing fee's to throw third world unbankable countries out of bounds of using bitcoin

now he is pushing hard with his colleagues for LN (bank 2.0) which has many and high fee's

going against blockstream is not disrupting bitcoin. its instead preventing banker dictatorship twisting bitcoin away from "permissionless affordable peer-to-peer currency with no barrier of entry" to what blockstream want, which is "permissioned hubs with fee's, penalties, settlement delays, and chargebacks"


permissioned: LN= dual signed multisig ...buzzword: 'bidirectional channels' managed by hubs
fee's: open channel onchain fee, LN swap fee, multihop fee, hub management fee, close channel onchain fee
penalties: not signing in acceptable time, denying payment
settlement delays: coin maturity after confirmation onchain (CLTV)
chargeback: output revoke codes (CSV)


the devs:


who they really work for and got millions of dollars investment from.. (hyperledger)

[Gimpeline]

the solution is
dynamic 2mb bas 4mb weight.

both sides win and then let the freedom of how users transact decide what happens

If you think you have the solution, the point is that there is no need to discuss it further. Implement it, mine it, and move forward from the endless "I have the correct solution" discussions.

Yeah, and nullc and his shills get to manipulate the protocol and all miners will just follow along.  every other chain has to go out and start their own alt.   Why doesn't nullc have to start a new chain when he introduces new ideas to the protocol?  Why does nullc get to call his new altcoin 'Bitcoin' and impose those changes on the 'majority' chain? 

If SegWit and Lightning are truly better, then nullc and his gang should be delighted to start a new chain and rid themselves of the 16million BTC load that comes with staying on the old chain. 

Because like the others, there is no chance to start a new chain.  So, saying: 'go do your fork' goes two ways.  Let that fucker nullc go do his fucking alt on a new chain too.

Welcome to Ethereum 2.0
Disaster in 3..2...1

[franky1]

Welcome to Ethereum 2.0
Disaster in 3..2...1

yep thats what maxwell wants. so his monero and his bosses hyperledger can rule supreme

[calkob]

This is crazy that everyone who doesn't agree with nullc has to go start a new altcoin.  But when nullc wants to introduce RADICAL changes to the protocol, he somehow expects to do it on top of Bitcoin thus forever changing the Bitcoin protocol to something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.  

wtf?

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5fgckq/nullc_ive_been_telling_them_to_go_and_create/

The real problem is that too many people believe that the developers of Core are in charge of Bitcoin.

I believe that the desire for someone to be in charge is (and will always be) the biggest threat to Bitcoin, and that is why I still give Bitcoin a relatively high chance of failure.

Not a new thing for thousands of years humann beings have looked to a leader to lead them, #sadstateofaffairs we are very easily lead.

[deisik]

the solution is
dynamic 2mb bas 4mb weight.

both sides win and then let the freedom of how users transact decide what happens

If you think you have the solution, the point is that there is no need to discuss it further. Implement it, mine it, and move forward from the endless "I have the correct solution" discussions.

I guess this can hardly be questioned

Really, if you think that your system is superior to its competitors, why raise meaningless and endless arguments, debates and discussions about that in a futile attempt to prove anything to anyone? Just stick to it and let your competitors use their inferior systems to your advantage. Talk is cheap, after all

[franky1]

Not a new thing for thousands of years humann beings have looked to a leader to lead them, #sadstateofaffairs we are very easily lead.

blockstream=hitler

[franky1]

Therefor, the best solution is one side to create a block which the other side refuses to acknowledge.

^ his solution, ban each others ip to avoid consensus by refusing to acknowledge eachother....... basically an intentional split reworded.(gmaxwell twin?)

the point is that there is no need to discuss it further.

^ his solution, dont mention the problem just shut up and stand in the corner. let the bankers advertise uninterrupted

i can see where Holliday's allegiances lay.. very obvious what his desires are.

[Holliday]

Therefor, the best solution is one side to create a block which the other side refuses to acknowledge.

^ his solution, ban each others ip to avoid consensus by refusing to acknowledge eachother....... basically an intentional split reworded.(gmaxwell twin?)

the point is that there is no need to discuss it further.

^ his solution, dont mention the problem just shut up and stand in the corner. let the bankers advertise uninterrupted

i can see where Holliday's allegiances lay.. very obvious what his desires are.

I think you underestimate the ability of authorities around the world to force ISPs in their jurisdictions to block Bitcoin network traffic in order to protect against flavor-of-the-week bogeymen.

At that point, it becomes a cat and mouse game. The leaner the requirements (bandwidth) to facilitate a working Bitcoin network, the easier it is to maintain it in the face of direct censorship.

I filter EVERYTHING through that lens. We have basically ONE asset (you could argue other cryptocurrencies as well) on the planet which can't be controlled by some authority. I don't want to lose it.

When we have a worldwide decentralized wireless mesh network in place which is capable of hosting the Bitcoin network with blocks bigger than 1MB, I will gladly support increasing the direct on-chain scaling of Bitcoin. Until then, we should use layers that can be peeled away in a worst case scenario situation.

Bitcoin means one thing to me: Freedom. I'm willing to wait a long time and pay handsomely in order to write into the permanent ledger that every full node must keep a copy of forever. I can use cash and credit cards for everything else.

All transactions do not need to be censorship-proof in a world where censorship-proof transactions exist.

As far as "ignoring the problem", I strongly believe that everyone who wants to increase the on-chain capacity simply by increasing the block size is ignoring the problem. There are real trade-offs and I will err on the side of a lean, robust block chain every single time.

Anyway, instead of attacking me, why don't you do something constructive and enact your solution and let it compete on the market? I'm not screaming for change in another new thread every day, I'm perfectly content to have everything remain in stasis for years to come. I'm not interested in "Bitcoin for the mainstream" and I personally don't believe the average mainstream debt slave cares about Bitcoin in the slightest.

[franky1]

I think you underestimate the ability of authorities around the world to force ISPs in their jurisdictions to block Bitcoin network traffic in order to protect against flavor-of-the-week bogeymen.

At that point, it becomes a cat and mouse game. The leaner the requirements (bandwidth) to facilitate a working Bitcoin network, the easier it is to maintain it in the face of direct censorship.

I filter EVERYTHING through that lens. We have basically ONE asset (you could argue other cryptocurrencies as well) on the planet which can't be controlled by some authority. I don't want to lose it.

When we have a worldwide decentralized wireless mesh network in place which is capable of hosting the Bitcoin network with blocks bigger than 1MB, I will gladly support increasing the direct on-chain scaling of Bitcoin. Until then, we should use layers that can be peeled away in a worst case scenario situation.

Bitcoin means one thing to me: Freedom. I'm willing to wait a long time and pay handsomely in order to write into the permanent ledger that every full node must keep a copy of forever. I can use cash and credit cards for everything else.

All transactions do not need to be censorship-proof in a world where censorship-proof transactions exist.

As far as "ignoring the problem", I strongly believe that everyone who wants to increase the on-chain capacity simply by increasing the block size is ignoring the problem. There are real trade-offs and I will err on the side of a lean, robust block chain every single time.

Anyway, instead of attacking me, why don't you do something constructive and enact your solution and let it compete on the market? I'm not screaming for change in another new thread every day, I'm perfectly content to have everything remain in stasis for years to come. I'm not interested in "Bitcoin for the mainstream" and I personally don't believe the average mainstream debt slave cares about Bitcoin in the slightest.

i talked about ISP issues many times im fully aware i even broke it down into how easily it is for ISP's to do it

ok. another worse case scenario.

a government could via united nations/interpol set up a sudden international tactical strike

this can be done by
https://bitnodes.21.co/
getting all the IP's and finding out which ISP that ip belongs to.
EG in the UK its under 230..in the U.S its under 1500

so imagine tomorrow under 230 homes out of 20 million households have their internet disconnected
at the same time
in america under 1500 homes out of 100mill households have their internet disconnected
and so on
even things like proxies are useless because the landline has been literally cut off for upto 6000 locations
think its impossible? its not. ISP's have millions of customers and regularly turn the internet off on 10's of thousands of users every week due to breach of contract/non payment of bill.

they would also take bitnodes and other DNS seeding locations offline to further cause drama of new node locations not being able to link up, though smart people will just join an IRC channel and request a list of working ip addresses to manually add node connections

as for the network
what would happen is that the countries with no "partnerships" to whatever agency is organising this tactical strike will continue on. and people who are affected would need to either move house or go to court to get their internet ban lifted or change ISP which can take upto 10 days in some cases.

again it wont require an all out "ban the internet" of 1.5billion people. but instead disconnecting the land lines of under 6000 people to cause alot of drama and issues.

the solution is to get more diverse. instead of bitcoin nodes running in just 91 countries it needs to be running in all 200 countries. and also needs to be running via satalite and other non landline/ISP reliant methods

the data/bloat is not an issue.

you do realise that 1mb base 4mb weight is the end-sum acceptable and same bloat as 2mb base 4mb weight.. the difference is that its actually utilised better, not holding it back at 1.8mb(lean) to then later utilise the spare 2.2mb for other features, but instead allowing more just lean transactions through. at a metric of 3.6mb(lean) with 0.4mb for other features

also breaking the network into layers only works if the layers didnt have to rely on eachother
the downside of that. is that then really is an altcoin..

also by being completely detachable makes people more careless, and less scrutinising things because they think if everyone has moved over to the bankers hyperledger (like your hinting) then its ok if bitcoin dies because peoples funds are no longer on bitcoin.

again the banker endgame agenda, get people to not care about bitcoin because they dont understand the "service" they were directed towards.

my mindset is to scrutinise and look at all attack vectors of bitcoin to keep bitcoin strong. and yea i am not here to kiss some banker paid devs ass or trust a dev .. after all if they decide to retire (satoshi) have medical reasons to stop(hal finney) quit(hearn) or join the bankers (hearne maxwell wuille).. where would we be left when they are not cough "maintaining" the code" cough

we need to think about bitcoins network first. not what devs want, not what bankers want. especially if what the devs and bankers want differs from the ethos of decentralised permissionless peer-to-peer currency with no barrier of entry

[klarki]

Will not a split the community?

[RawDog]

Bitcoin means one thing to me: Freedom. I'm willing to wait a long time and pay handsomely in order to write into the permanent ledger that every full node must keep a copy of forever. I can use cash and credit cards for everything else.

Just because the application you personally love so much is well served by a crippled version of Bitcoin, the 1MB came later and is not a part of the original protocol, now you say everyone else's favorite applications can just fuck off. 

Since 'store of value' is all YOU need, then other's concerns about deploying the network for other utility - are just not important to you. 

Very dumb argument. 

[Holliday]

Bitcoin means one thing to me: Freedom. I'm willing to wait a long time and pay handsomely in order to write into the permanent ledger that every full node must keep a copy of forever. I can use cash and credit cards for everything else.

Just because the application you personally love so much is well served by a crippled version of Bitcoin, the 1MB came later and is not a part of the original protocol, now you say everyone else's favorite applications can just fuck off. 

Since 'store of value' is all YOU need, then other's concerns about deploying the network for other utility - are just not important to you. 

Very dumb argument. 

If we were still running "the original protocol" Bitcoin would be useless, so I don't really see any merits to that argument.

I never suggested everyone with a different opinion should "fuck off". What I suggested was that everyone can choose to run the software they want, and ultimately if you are running a version which allows for blocks of any size, at some point someone is going to have to create a block larger than 1MB (otherwise, what is the point of all this expended effort) at which point the network will fork. I'm perfectly fine with that. It will certainly solve this rift in the community in a hurry.

Also, let's not pretend that I'm the only person who views Bitcoin as a store of value in opposition to what "everyone else" wants. The community is clearly divided with support on both sides of this three year old argument (otherwise we wouldn't still be arguing about it). I want both sides to get what they want. Bitcoin's very nature provides a path to end. Why are you bitching about that?