prediction: this will be the next thing Core attacks

[jonald_fyookball]

http://www.coindesk.com/big-block-bitcoin-movement-embracing-bcoin/

[unamis76]

Maybe not Core, but definitely some Core supporters (or people who allegedly support Core).

I'm astonished that this proposal has been released for so long... I don't think I've ever heard of it before these last few days.

[classicsucks]

They may have already started attacking: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/014004.html

Politically (using that word more often each day) it might be a bad idea for Core to attack Bcoin, because Joseph Poon is one of the key devs for Lightning. Poon is not a person Gmaxwell should be alienating right now, but then again, that hasn't stopped him in the past...

If I read Poon's proposal (https://medium.com/purse-essays/ready-for-liftoff-a5533f4de0b6) correctly, it may be an end run around Segwit. It's still a complicated soft fork, written in Javascript (bleccchhh). He claims that only "minimal changes" are required to wallet software. That would be good if true.

At least it's refreshing to see another competitor enter the ring. May the best idea win!

[jonald_fyookball]

They may have already started attacking: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/014004.html

Politically (using that word more often each day) it might be a bad idea for Core to attack Bcoin, because Joseph Poon is one of the key devs for Lightning. Poon is not a person Gmaxwell should be alienating right now, but then again, that hasn't stopped him in the past...

If I read Poon's proposal (https://medium.com/purse-essays/ready-for-liftoff-a5533f4de0b6) correctly, it may be an end run around Segwit. It's still a complicated soft fork, written in Javascript (bleccchhh). He claims that only "minimal changes" are required to wallet software. That would be good if true.

At least it's refreshing to see another competitor enter the ring. May the best idea win!

how long will it be before someone calls me a bcoin shill?  first i was an xt shill, then i was a bu shill, now apparently i'm a jihan/roger shill... hmmm....

also, what will the jokes be?  BC coin...like back to the dark ages.... can't wait!

[gentlemand]

This bunch sound like they have some actual competence on their side. Let's see what they roll out.

[Pab]

How many proposals we will see,but great instead of double your btc lets triple your btc,more fun.But if that all story wll not find happy end soon we will have dead end

[ebliever]

More like "This will be the next excuse/distraction the BU mining cartel waves around trying to block progress."

[Yakamoto]

If you think that Core isn't going to attack whatever new alternative pops up, you're probably misunderstanding what Core does when it comes to this (or at least the Core online community that is active with that kind of thing). They really want to make sure that they maintain whatever it is they have now, because otherwise they lose a considerable amount of power.

I want to stay impartial, but Core is making it increasingly difficult to do something like that.

[Lauda]

There are serious concerns regarding the viability and safety of this proposal (not to mention the possible background/agenda). There is absolutely no reason to pick this over something that is extensively tested and widely deployed such as Segwit.

"I like extension blocks, but I think there is almost no risk from making the actual blocks bigger, too," bitcoin investor and Bitcoin.com operator Roger Ver, one of the most vocal advocates for Bitcoin Core alternatives, told CoinDesk.

The writer of this article is either paid to write it in this fashion or he/she is an idiot. Roger Ver has zero credibility commenting technology (i.e. proposals).

Bitcoin Unlimited developer David Jerry Chan went so far as to compare the tech favorably to other available solutions.

"I see the proposal as a reasonable and better alternative than SegWit," he said.

Of course he does, that's what he's being paid for.

[jonald_fyookball]

More like "This will be the next excuse/distraction the BU mining cartel waves around trying to block progress."

You are making obvious that you are a shill (or just dumb).   You basically just confirmed that even if the community
moves on from BU to something else (bcoin), you'll still try to point the finger at "BU" or whatever boogeyman you can.
Anything that's not Core roadmap = 'trying to block progress' is your philosophy.  You just made that clear.   Which
means you are shilling for them.

There are serious concerns regarding the viability and safety of this proposal (not to mention the possible background/agenda). 

...and the attacks have begun.

[Lauda]

There are serious concerns regarding the viability and safety of this proposal (not to mention the possible background/agenda).  

...and the attacks have begun.

I am not Core, therefore your thread title is blatantly misleading. You are a shameful example of individuals which are part of this community.
An extensive post as to why the proposal is bad was posted several months before this article was created:
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-January/013510.html

[jonald_fyookball]

I am not Core,
 

And yet you shill for them (support every one of their positions, pretty much attack all else).

therefore your thread title is blatantly misleading.

No, because they themselves (Greg Maxwell,etc) will also attack it and seems like they are already attacking Joseph Poon...
so your logic and thinking are blatantly faulty.

You are a shameful example of individuals which are part of this community.

Shame!  Shame!!!

[Lauda]

And yet you shill for them (support every one of their positions, pretty much attack all else).

You don't seem to understand the definition of the word shill. Do you need an English lesson? I am in disagreement with several Core contributors (i.e. their stances) and have been discussing several alternative approaches.

No, because they themselves (Greg Maxwell,etc) will also attack it and seems like they are already attacking Joseph Poon...so your logic and thinking are blatantly faulty.

That was no attack. This thread is still completely misleading.

Shame!  Shame!!!

I'm really divided between you being paid or just being blatantly ignorant. The former is probably better than being outright stupid and falling for these political games. Then again, 99%random number of the populace does, so I guess you're.. average?

[franky1]

lauda whistles to the wind yet again

not adding any content about the technicals just pointing fingers..

anyway..

extension blocks are still 'iffy' and not a simple solution.
it ends up requiring segwit and still using backdoors to implement it (going soft using the anyoncanspend method for segwit has been admitted as a backdoor)

it also increases the TIER network strategy rather than a peer node network. and opens up more back doors.

having to 'opt-in'  much like 'opting-in to use segwit keys does not 100% fix the promises that all these DCG partner bips keep promising to fix.

so although i like it because its another diverse node away from blockstream(core) domination. the gesture of fixing things is not a real fix.

it ends up leading to as i said more of a tier network.
differing UTXO sets.
different levels of validation nodes
some tx's seen by some nodes but not others..
it just makes a peer network ugly and non consensus and no longer existant...
which is the ultimate betrayal of the bitcoin ethos. because although is then more 'diverse' its a tier network so less decentralised.
plus it relies on back door implementations.

what needs to be done is an actual fix that even people with funds from the last 8 years can use without having to bait themselves into something that separates them from other nodes.(meaning a solution where all nodes see the same thing)

the real fix is to use real nodes consensus and just upgrade the network properly

[jonald_fyookball]

That was no attack. This thread is still completely misleading.
 

You can't seem to follow a simple plot.... Read the title slowly and carefully... PREDICTION...
I'm making a prediction.  I think you need an English lesson!   

[classicsucks]

lauda whistles to the wind yet again

LOL yeah the guy doesn't have many constructive comments in his post history. Anyone saying Ver doesn't know what he's talking about technically is obviously uninformed - if Ver has even half of the millions he says he does, don't you think he has a team of pretty smart people around him? I think what he meant was "Ver doesn't understand Core-speak dogma so is a threat".

so although i like it because its another diverse node away from blockstream(core) domination. the gesture of fixing things is not a real fix.

it ends up leading to as i said more of a tier network.
differing UTXO sets.
different levels of validation nodes
some tx's seen by some nodes but not others..
it just makes a peer network ugly and non consensus and no longer existant...
which is the ultimate betrayal of the bitcoin ethos. because although is then more 'diverse' its a tier network so less decentralised.
plus it relies on back door implementations.

Once again I must agree with you - the tricky business behind Segwit does seem to bleed over into Extension Blocks... and the concept of two simultaneous UTXO sets again seems like a good recipe for FAIL. Not to mention, who wants to run a bunch of crap Javascript with a google backend - ie. how many backdoors amd exploits do you think Node.js has? Nonetheless, as a challenger to Segwit, it will only offer up another alternative. It widens the playing field while highlighting the hacky nature of all of the options on the table.

[Alex.BTC]

extension blocks are still 'iffy' and not a simple solution.
it ends up requiring segwit and still using backdoors to implement it (going soft using the anyoncanspend method for segwit has been admitted as a backdoor)

it also increases the TIER network strategy rather than a peer node network. and opens up more back doors.

having to 'opt-in'  much like 'opting-in to use segwit keys does not 100% fix the promises that all these DCG partner bips keep promising to fix.

so although i like it because its another diverse node away from blockstream(core) domination. the gesture of fixing things is not a real fix.

it ends up leading to as i said more of a tier network.
differing UTXO sets.
different levels of validation nodes
some tx's seen by some nodes but not others..
it just makes a peer network ugly and non consensus and no longer existant...
which is the ultimate betrayal of the bitcoin ethos. because although is then more 'diverse' its a tier network so less decentralised.
plus it relies on back door implementations.

what needs to be done is an actual fix that even people with funds from the last 8 years can use without having to bait themselves into something that separates them from other nodes.(meaning a solution where all nodes see the same thing)

the real fix is to use real nodes consensus and just upgrade the network properly

Yeah Extension Block being based on SegWit doesn't sit well with me either. Who knows if it's just some kind of good cop bad cop routine.

But the Bitcoin well has been poisoned by BlockStream/Core so badly, anything that can immediately get the blockchain out of their death grip is a plus, hopefully after the great escape, there will be big diversity on implementations, then someone come up with a truly great and open solution from scratch.