Go start your own fork you stupid fuck -

[RawDog]

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

I didn't say we should run the original protocol - you stupid fuck.  Can't you read?

I said that big blocks were part of the original protocol.  You don't ever see merit to any argument because you are unable to comprehend what is being said - just like you do everytime you see something and slant it far into your own twisted understanding.  No wonder Blockstrem loves you as their little bitch shill.

[RawDog]

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?

I am bitching about it because SegWit and other altcoins come in under the notion that GMax has commit access and calls that shit 'Bitcoin' while he tells others to go start their changes to the protocol on a forked chain. 

To be fair, we should fork today on three prongs: - 1) no changes; 2) SegWit and 3) BU. 

ALL miners have to abandon what they are running now and EXPLICITY choose one of the 3 prongs.  Miners who don't take an explicit decision will be mining on a CLOSED chain. 

That system will work to effect a clear decision.  Of course, two prongs will survive and everyone will shit bricks.  But this is the only way to be fair. 

The notion that 95% consensus is going to solve this is crazy.  Just as soon as GMax realizes 95% cannot be achieved, they will declare 85% enough for consensus and invoke SegWit on that.  Otherwise, we would clearly be stuck on 'no changes' forever. 

[franky1]

The notion that 95% consensus is going to solve this is crazy.  Just as soon as GMax realizes 95% cannot be achieved, they will declare 85% enough for consensus and invoke SegWit on that.  Otherwise, we would clearly be stuck on 'no changes' forever.  

pools wont get to 95% for a more rational reason..
unless they see that there are enough nodes to double check the data that competing pools push out

although a soft fork doesnt need nodes to activate. pools rationally wont start sending out funky data unless they see the node network not only accept it but FULLY validate it..

thats the mutual 2 part security.. nodes validate out bad blocks and pools validate in good tx's
they need each other.
even if a feature only needs one side.. both sides are mutually exclusive rather than not involved with each other.
its a double union concept, they work together but on separate things.

hense why doing what the community want will inspire the community and then inspire the pools.

again dynamic block with default starting 2mb base 4mb weight is a
win for scalability community,
win for second layer one time boost community
win for pools confidence

triple win

[HaXX0R1337]

well, last time i have spotted that seriously many people want to start a new altcoin.
I dont know what the fuck is going on, we already have tons of fakecoins, shitcoins, scamcoins etc... there are basically no funds to start a new batch but well, i wanna see them success haha

[Wind_FURY]

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?

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.

Oh really? Do you think it is failing right now? Core is already being "dictatorial" according to some people in the community yet Bitcoin is thriving. The price is going up, usage in the darkmarket is increasing, there are more hackers developing more Bitcoin ransomware and usage will keep increasing.

A dictator is not really a bad thing. Look at the development of Linux. Linus is known to be a dictator but their community and the OS are both flourishing.

[myparentsdisownedme]

well, last time i have spotted that seriously many people want to start a new altcoin.
I dont know what the fuck is going on, we already have tons of fakecoins, shitcoins, scamcoins etc... there are basically no funds to start a new batch but well, i wanna see them success haha

I seriously don't see many new types of coins succeeding but we'll see

[Kakmakr]

well, last time i have spotted that seriously many people want to start a new altcoin.
I dont know what the fuck is going on, we already have tons of fakecoins, shitcoins, scamcoins etc... there are basically no funds to start a new batch but well, i wanna see them success haha

I seriously don't see many new types of coins succeeding but we'll see

If the developers in Bitcoin continue along the direction that they are going now, people will get frustrated and they will move to other options, even if it turns out to be pump n dumps or scam coins. Bitcoin is under attack from all sides, even from within for profits.

< Warning > OP, is a known troll/Shill and threads like this is created to fuel the flames of negativity. Bitcoin has turned into a social experiment for me, and the human behavior is spectacular. < Greed, Jealousy, Hate ... everything is there > Bring the Popcorn, this is FUN! ^smile^  

[deisik]

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.

Oh really? Do you think it is failing right now? Core is already being "dictatorial" according to some people in the community yet Bitcoin is thriving. The price is going up, usage in the darkmarket is increasing, there are more hackers developing more Bitcoin ransomware and usage will keep increasing.

A dictator is not really a bad thing. Look at the development of Linux. Linus is known to be a dictator but their community and the OS are both flourishing

As far as I can see, Core don't have any real power (miners have) so their "dictatorial" habits or manners are irrelevant. And this is in striking contrast to what we see in Linux. Linus (or one of his lieutenants) either approves a change or a patch and it gets included in the kernel or rejects it and it gets thrown away (or redesigned until it gets accepted). This has nothing to do with dictatorship. Linus doesn't tell anyone what to do, he is sort of control department either accepting the work or rejecting it...

In Bitcoin, the miners have the last say

[Wind_FURY]

As far as I can see, Core don't have any real power (miners have) so their "dictatorial" habits or manners are irrelevant. And this is in striking contrast to what we see in Linux. Linus (or one of his lieutenants) either approves a change or a patch and it gets included in the kernel or rejects it and it gets thrown away (or redesigned until it gets accepted). This has nothing to do with dictatorship. Linus doesn't tell anyone what to do, he is sort of control department either accepting the work or rejecting it...

Thank you for putting it in that context, that really clears everything up and that will be a good response to the people who are spreading FUD about how the Core developers are trying to seize control over Bitcoin.

In Bitcoin, the miners have the last say

Then I ask, why is there a need for all the drama from the Bitcoin Unlimited supporters since the miners will decide what is final anyway?

[Xester]

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?

There are different types of people who has different views on the subject. On the view of bitcoin protocols I agree that the argument between groups whose idea contradicts to each other will never end. But there are other side of the pictures, there are more users who have no idea whats happening and doesnt know what the hell the fork or bitcoin protocol is, maybe theres a need to educate this people on what bitcoin is and other technicalities behind it rather than arguing amongst ourselves who is right and who is wrong.

[Killerpotleaf]

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

you should look into what a synthetic-fork is and revise this theory... lol! oh i love to joke.

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.

your perception of the 2 sides are greatly exaggerated.
at this point the two dominant sides are:

"let the free market determine block size dynamically"
and
"let gerg determine block size and discount signature data at his discretion"

when it comes to the second layer.
both sides agree that its cool and both sides what to see it happen.
but they view it slightly differently...

"a very cool experiment that will probably have some use cases, but needs time to mature?"
and
"THE FUTURE OF BITCOIN!"

ofc we have both sides throwing poop at each other...

" segwit will forever destroy bitcoins bits! "
and
" minners will make 100MB  blocks and destroy decentraltion "


aahhhh bitcoin le 2016 the year we failed to scale.
2017 will go more smoothly....

[Holliday]

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

"let the free market determine block size dynamically"
and
"let gerg determine block size and discount signature data at his discretion"

Installing software which has a 1MB anti-spam block size limit in it is a free market choice. This also applies to any other rules included in the software.

...

I can't wait for Bitcoin Unlimited Take Two, where the block reward is dynamically determined by the free market...

[jbreher]

I can't wait for Bitcoin Unlimited Type Two, where the block reward is dynamically determined by the free market...

Unlikely. The BU community approved a motion to implement a user-settable maxblocksize at the initiation of the BU project. As of yet, there has not even been a proposal -- BUIP or otherwise -- for variable block reward.

Holliday, I lurves ya, man. But reducito al absurdium is unbecoming.

[Holliday]

Holliday, I lurves ya, man. But reducito al absurdium is unbecoming.

Look at some of the responses in this thread. You are calling me out as unbecoming because I made a joke?

[digaran]

The average joe doesn't give 2 cents of rat's ass about all the technicality and knowing about forks and such.
Bitcoin isn't just a currency but an idea.
If that idea becomes like ETH and it's forks then we might as well say goodbye to real crypto currency which so far is only bitcoin.

[Killerpotleaf]

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

"let the free market determine block size dynamically"
and
"let gerg determine block size and discount signature data at his discretion"

Installing software which has a 1MB anti-spam block size limit in it is a free market choice. This also applies to any other rules included in the software.

its not, installing that software is more like saying, IDK but i Trust core.

I can't wait for Bitcoin Unlimited Take Two, where the block reward is dynamically determined by the free market...

what's the point the free market would choose the defaults.

dont blieve me? ask a few miners users devs and whoever else... come on..

a key aspect of BU which poeple seem to forget....
its not like some % of the network can't be blocking futher block size increases.
for block size to incress a very large % of the network must agree to accept such a block.

[Holliday]

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

"let the free market determine block size dynamically"
and
"let gerg determine block size and discount signature data at his discretion"

Installing software which has a 1MB anti-spam block size limit in it is a free market choice. This also applies to any other rules included in the software.

its not, installing that software is more like saying, IDK but i Trust core.

I can't wait for Bitcoin Unlimited Take Two, where the block reward is dynamically determined by the free market...

what's the point the free market would choose the defaults.

dont blieve me? ask a few miners users devs and whoever else... come on..

Wait... so users make intelligent choices when building blocks, but are too stupid to choose which software they run?

[Killerpotleaf]

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

"let the free market determine block size dynamically"
and
"let gerg determine block size and discount signature data at his discretion"

Installing software which has a 1MB anti-spam block size limit in it is a free market choice. This also applies to any other rules included in the software.

its not, installing that software is more like saying, IDK but i Trust core.

I can't wait for Bitcoin Unlimited Take Two, where the block reward is dynamically determined by the free market...

what's the point the free market would choose the defaults.

dont blieve me? ask a few miners users devs and whoever else... come on..

Wait... so users make intelligent choices when building blocks, but are too stupid to choose which software they run?

ya!
well just because they dont know / have an opionon on block size dosnt make them stupid...
but anyway.

"stupid users" will accept what ever defaults come with the latest build, "non-stupid users" will  not.

why you no like free market? why you no like freedom? why you such a communist!?

[Killerpotleaf]

what did the BU client say when he saw Core client push a TX?

...

HA the fool forgot to sign!

[deisik]

In Bitcoin, the miners have the last say

Then I ask, why is there a need for all the drama from the Bitcoin Unlimited supporters since the miners will decide what is final anyway?

Maybe, they are just sowing the seeds of discord between miners?

Another thing that I got from the recent talks here is that any change or important update to Bitcoin should be accepted by 95% of all miners (that is called consensus, if I'm not mistaken). In this way, supporters of whatever idea might not actually want so much to get their idea accepted as to get a competing idea rejected. That seems to be a flip side of the consensus preventing insane ideas and concepts from being accepted