Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell

[jonald_fyookball]

I would gladly use Bitcoin-core instead of BU if ONLY Bitcoin Core had a GUI setting for me to increase the maximum block size my full node is willing to accept AND a GUI setting to disable and not relay SegWit transactions. Then I would happily keep using Core because I have a certain level of trust towards the Core's codebase.

https://bitcoinec.info/

Seems promising! THANKS MATE!

edit:
from their FAQ it seems they have segwit included in that implementation. I can't accept this. Perhaps I should make a branch of BitcoinEC that would allow user to disable SegWit relaying?

I am not sure if you are really forced to use the Segwit features on this implementation.  It sounds like you're not forced to.  Perhaps you can research that. 

Also, I actually don't care about emergent consensus. I would just set my node to accept blocks smaller or equal to 4 MiB right now and later increase the limit manually. Also should the longest chain include blocks larger than what my node is willing to accept the wallet should alert me that I should consider increasing that limit.

I believe that is exactly how it works.

[1714004120]

1714004120

[1714004120]

1714004120

[hv_]

Roger Ver, open your eyes please.

The reason why the price is going down is because we don't like the BU threat that will give the power over the blocksize to just 5 mining pool operators (or effectively 1 ASIC manufacturer.) I like bitcoin for it's decentralization properties, not because I trust Jihan Wu so much. I will never accept the idiotic idea called "emergent consensus."

Big blocks are great. I definitely want to see safely planned blocksize increase after Segwit. And if it won't be merged in the beginning in Bitcoin Core, I will just support another client, but emergent consensus is still a joke and Segwit is still the obvious way forward.

If you still care about bitcoin, you should reconsider your perspective and look what is best for bitcoin.

You open your eyes. Why is there such a room for a 'threat' at all?

[Hyena]

I am not sure if you are really forced to use the Segwit features on this implementation.  It sounds like you're not forced to.  Perhaps you can research that. 

Well then it's cool but I would like to configure my full nodes to deliberately NOT RELAY SegWit TXs. If they are confirmed in a block then it's fine because then it's outside of my jurisdiction as a full node operator but as long as the TX is not in a block chain I would not like to relay it if it contained SegWit data.

[traincarswreck]

This is exactly what is happening to Bitcoin due to Core's roadmap.
They may be expert programers,  but they don't understand that Bitcoin is only valuable if it is useful, and their roadmap is destroying its usefulness.
Full blocks and the high fees and backlog that they create are destroying Bitcoin's comparative advantage and driving people to use alt coins instead.

Absolute bullshit, based on NO economic theory whatsoever.

Roger is perpetuating a myth, that only those that do not understand economic theory will believe in.  It is absolutely not true that raising bitcoin's transaction capacity will raise its value.  Doing so will destroy bitcoin's quality as a digital gold.  Ver wants control of bitcoin and he wants to break it because he is a power hungry child that has absolutely no understanding of economics.

Satoshi built this system, much like the foundation for the US government system, such that a faction like Ver's brigade CANNOT override the consensus mechanism and usurp the system's security.

There is absolutely no scientifically founded argument for the drivel Ver is spouting which is exactly why he never says anything but things like "Bitcoin is like Starbux therefore...".

Thinking bitcoin needs more and more uses cases and that we must guard bitcoin's utility as a coffee money is to completely not understand bitcoin's macro-economic relationship to our global economy.  Raising bitcoin's transaction capacity solves no significant problem whatsoever.

People like Roger that subscribe to this myth do not understand what money is for. Money as a medium of exchange is not a significant solution to anything.  The significant purpose for money to exist is to provide a pricing mechanism for the markets so that they may operate efficiently.

It is the VALUE proposition that must be guarded in regard to bitcoin and changing the implied tps absolutely alters and effectively destroys the stability of this proposition.

Ver will never enter dialogue with me on this because I will absolutely school him on the subject with truth founded in accepted and basic (macro)-economic argument.

Keep yelling, keep having tantrums, keep banning people from your community who will explain what is wrong with your understanding.  You have only one hope Roger, to destroy your wealth, it's logically impossible to do what you are trying to do. Satoshi is laughing at you, Szabo is laughing at, and anyone who understands economics is appalled by your argument.

You are a communist block-chain Keynesian in (not very good) disguise, you do NOT understand economics and you have no idea what money is for or how it works.

https://medium.com/@rextar4444/the-absurdity-of-communism-and-hard-forking-bitcoin-to-coup-core-4486aa9191c8#.ouf5gdbgz

[chopstick]

Wow, what an epic thread. Some great posts in here.

Now I will add one of my own.

Blockstream's hostile takeover attempt of Bitcoin is very much like a color revolution, the tactics used so far have been very eerily similar to what the CIA does when they target a country or a government for overthrow and replacement by a puppet dictatorship who will bow to US interests.

Except Bitcoin is totally different. And many people involved with bitcoin, aren't stupid. They see easily through this insanity.

Whether Blockstream has anything at all to do with any intelligence agencies is totally irrelevant. They have failed, but there was no way they could possibly succeed, by engaging in the tactics they used to hold the code hostage and control the narrative (censorship) followed by playing the victim they did not get the control they wanted but rather created the perfect opposition that would naturally replace them. And through their lies and through their stupidity they have turned a majority of the bitcoin users / community against them.

Blockstream Core's ideology / tactics is very similar to the Neocons, all they can do is double down, over and over, over and over, hoping that something will change. But of course nothing changes. This is the definition of insanity - when you do the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

It is all playing out beautifully, the interplay is amazing, thank you all for the entertainment.

This is amazing to watch happen. Satoshi's true brilliance is really shining here. He clearly anticipated something like this would happen. Now it's happening, and we all get to watch this grand play, play itself out.

[iamnotback]

Blockstream's hostile takeover attempt of Bitcoin is very much like a color revolution, the tactics used so far have been very eerily similar to what the CIA does when they target a country or a government for overthrow and replacement by a puppet dictatorship who will bow to US interests.

Except Bitcoin is totally different. And many people involved with bitcoin, aren't stupid. They see easily through this insanity.

Repeating what I wrote upthread (but which you ignored apparently), you are stupid.

Until you take the time to understand what is really going on, then you will remain willfully stupid.

[electronicash]

You guys ruined it all.  Bitcoin is now fucked and getting more fucked everyday.  I think the end in near.

i kinda like it ruined this time though so if you hold a bag of it, throw them all away and buy some more alts you think can be a better one. there is no unity there.  besides bitcoin is only for those whales.
now is the time to become a whale too so buy a huge stash of altcoins.

[misterbigg]

you have your side chain patents

It is true that Blockstream has side chain patents but they have also made a defensive patent pledge:
https://blockstream.com/2016/07/19/blockstream-defensive-patent-strategy.html

You are mischaracterizing Blockstream as an evil company looking to gain a monopoly through the use of the patent system, and that is clearly false. It dilutes the value of your message when you resort to distortions such as this.

[jonald_fyookball]

you have your side chain patents

It is true that Blockstream has side chain patents but they have also made a defensive patent pledge:
https://blockstream.com/2016/07/19/blockstream-defensive-patent-strategy.html

You are mischaracterizing Blockstream as an evil company looking to gain a monopoly through the use of the patent system, and that is clearly false. It dilutes the value of your message when you resort to distortions such as this.

He never implied that -- it was just an example of 'things look good right now: you have your funding, you have your patents, etc'.

[rajfak]

Bitcoin be fucked is just temporary , bitcoin still be the best in the future

[RawDog]

It is true that Blockstream has side chain patents but they have also made a defensive patent pledge:
https://blockstream.com/2016/07/19/blockstream-defensive-patent-strategy.html

Biggest joke ever!  'pledge'.  Can be withdrawn the day before the lawsuit is filed.  There is no such thing as a 'defensive patent pledge'.  This is merely a trick for morons. 

[dropt]

Why don't the BU supporters understand that Core has been told by the majority of the wealth (i.e. the whales) that if they fuck with the block size using a HF, then MP will change the PoW hash (or some other method I haven't yet determined), and destroy their HF and bankrupt/punish miners who mine on it.

MP is a loser.  The fact that anyone believes half the shit he says speaks volumes about those people.  750,000btc?  How about signing some messages to prove it.  Oh, don't need that? OK, I have 1.5MM BTC, how about that.

[freeAgent]

I'm in total agreement with Alex.BTC here.  I haven't posted in Bitcointalk for a while, but figured I would voice my opinion since there are accusations being made that block size increase supporters are new accounts, shills, etc.  Well, here's an old account, and I also think the bock size needs to go up.  Core could have done so at any moment, but they refused and now we have a stalemate and a split community.  It's a shame.

[RawDog]

I'm in total agreement with Alex.BTC here.  I haven't posted in Bitcointalk for a while, but figured I would voice my opinion since there are accusations being made that block size increase supporters are new accounts, shills, etc.  Well, here's an old account, and I also think the bock size needs to go up.  Core could have done so at any moment, but they refused and now we have a stalemate and a split community.  It's a shame.

It is more than a shame.  It is a royal fuck up.  Mike Hearn and Gavin said more than 1.5 years ago total chaos would come in time unless a fix was put in.  They sure guessed that one right.  You might not like Hearn and Gavin, but there is no doubt they called this one precisely.  Total fucking shit chaos all over the place.  Even if 8MB came today, it would take more than 6 months to get stable and win back user faith.  Probably too long and Ethereum or Dash will be quite strong by then.  I have to agree with OP - it looks like it is over for bitcoin.  

One thing is sure Gmax is a god-damned idiot.  That fucker single handedly pissed off nearly everyone.  Now we just need a little bit of talent to move over to the other side to strengthen the team at BU.  Then, we'll be fine.

[traincarswreck]

I'm in total agreement with Alex.BTC here.  I haven't posted in Bitcointalk for a while, but figured I would voice my opinion since there are accusations being made that block size increase supporters are new accounts, shills, etc.  Well, here's an old account, and I also think the bock size needs to go up.  Core could have done so at any moment, but they refused and now we have a stalemate and a split community.  It's a shame.

Care to cite any scientific reasoning behind the opinion you are asserting?  

Didn't think so.

It's not that you are a shill, its just that you are speaking to a subject you know nothing about.

 Even if 8MB came today, it would take more than 6 months to get stable and win back user faith.  Probably too long and Ethereum or Dash will be quite strong by then.

Ethereum is not capable of handling the amount of wealth that bitcoin can, it is an unstable project that is FAR from being mature.  Dash solves a fake problem.

[goregrind]

I`m newbie in many things, can you please explain to me what is the difference between real and fake bitcoins? How can we notice the difference?
I understand that some dev`s have different opinion on how should bitcoin be upgraded, many things are complicated for me to understand, can someone clear up things for me?
Whom to trust, I noticed some names, and many people argue what is right, and everyone tell some other story. I`m ordinary man, and I think there is many people here just like I`m, how can we know who tells the truth and really wish good for bitcoin, and who is looking for fast profit?

Its a hard choice - on one side you have the bitcoin developers and thinkers who have devoted their time on making the world a better place
on the other side you have two rich guys that have done nothing for world except make themselves richer.

[RawDog]

I`m newbie in many things, can you please explain to me what is the difference between real and fake bitcoins? How can we notice the difference?
I understand that some dev`s have different opinion on how should bitcoin be upgraded, many things are complicated for me to understand, can someone clear up things for me?
Whom to trust, I noticed some names, and many people argue what is right, and everyone tell some other story. I`m ordinary man, and I think there is many people here just like I`m, how can we know who tells the truth and really wish good for bitcoin, and who is looking for fast profit?

It shouldn't be a hard choice - on one side you have the bitcoin developers and thinkers who have devoted their time on making the world a better place
on the other side you have two rich guys that have done nothing for world except make themselves richer.

typical Hillary voter

[freeAgent]

I'm in total agreement with Alex.BTC here.  I haven't posted in Bitcointalk for a while, but figured I would voice my opinion since there are accusations being made that block size increase supporters are new accounts, shills, etc.  Well, here's an old account, and I also think the bock size needs to go up.  Core could have done so at any moment, but they refused and now we have a stalemate and a split community.  It's a shame.

Care to cite any scientific reasoning behind the opinion you are asserting?  

Didn't think so.

It's not that you are a shill, its just that you are speaking to a subject you know nothing about.

Scientific reasoning as to what?  Support of a block size increase?  http://www.coinfox.info/news/5221-research-10-existing-bitcoin-nodes-are-capable-to-operate-with-200-mb-blocksize

The new study entitled “On Scaling Decentralized Blockchains” was prepared by the Initiative for CryptoCurrencies and Contracts (IC3) at the Jacobs Technion-Cornell Institute. It reveals that approximately 90% of the examined 4,565 nodes (there are currently more than 7,000 nodes) would continue normal operation even with 4 MB blocks. This particular block size would allow to increase the speed of transactions from the current 2,5 to 27 transactions per sec.

This research was conducted a year ago, so the percentage is probably higher now, or you could even move the increase up further.  SegWit is also a "block size increase" in this capacity as it increases bandwidth and storage requirements on nodes in the same way.

[goregrind]

typical

I hope you're all being paid good money for the disservice you are doing to humanity.  

[wormbog]

A very entertaining thread! My favourite part is when Alex.BTC takes the time to attempt a thorough, well-reasoned argument, then completely destroys his credibility with a ridiculous string of insults at the end.

I really wish the discussion would focus on finding a solution a clear majority can rally behind, rather than endless attacks on the "other side". Here are the facts as I see them:

Segwit fixes a lot of problems, the biggest being the transaction malleability problem that is holding back layer 2 solutions. It is well tested and has already been approved by a lot of community members. On the downside, the claim that "segwit is a 2MB block size increase" rings false with a lot of people because it comes with caveats.

EC is poorly tested, and it's easy to see how it could be abused to centralize mining power. But it does provide a quick solution to transaction capacity without caveats.

The "hard forks are dangerous" issue is starting to feel like a non-issue when we have this level of conflict in the community.

Both sides have enough influence to prevent the other side from getting their way. We are currently in a deadlock.

So - what does everyone want? Is there a solution that can satisfy the majority of users? What is it?

Core and its supporters want segwit, primarily because it provides the foundational changes needed for a layer 2 scaling solution (Lightning Network), and other improvements down the line like Schnorr Signatures.

BU and its supporters want an immediate transaction capacity increase.

Both sides want more transaction capacity, and the proposed solutions are not mutually exclusive. I propose a hard fork of bitcoin with 4MB block size increase and segwit included.  

Now, let's debate the merits. Put aside the personal, emotional arguments for a moment. Who can argue that the current deadlock is preferable to a 4MB hardfork with segwit?