Do you trust core?

[jtipt]

Do I Trust core? maybe not. Do I trust BU? absolutely not.  But so far core has done a fine work in running the network, I don't completed trust them but if it's comes to trusting either core or BU I would most likely trust core because they have experience and are running the network decently.

[AngryDwarf]

Core don't run the network, miners do.

[jonald_fyookball]

I don't see any proven facts not to trust them, 

How about their insane economic policies promoting full blocks and high fees?

How about their years-long saga of stalling, including breaking the HK agreement?

How about their censorship (openly addmited censorship on r/bitcoin and generally censoring elsewhere)?

How about their complete lack of communication with the community, except to pass down their one true scaling roadmap from up high?

How about their refusal to compromise with the community in the slightest bit when it comes to scaling, even rejecting 2MB/Segwit?

How about the huge conflict of interest that exists because Blockstream employs Greg Maxwell, Peter Wuille, Matt Corallo, and Luke-Jr?




 

[Xester]

I do not know if I am to believe their statements. I dont trust core at the same time I dont trust BU. I dont trust both of the parties at all since they are making up stories just to destroy each other with the selfish motives. They are creating stories to confuse the public and which make it hard for us as to whom to really believe. But one thing is for sure and that is I will stick with the core since the exchanger within our country have already made a statement that they will only accept bitcoin from the core.

[Slow death]

Do we have a choice?  So far Core had been the major group that make alot of commit to Bitcoin development, and we use it.  As a mere user, what else can we do?  We simply download the software and use it.  Regardless of any political intent, I just want to use a well functioning wallet and a stable bug free network and I believe Core have the capability to deliver it.

This is the problem, for a currency that is said to be decentralized this is more centralized than it seems.

As long as I do not wait for confirmation and do not have to pay high fees... I will not have much to complain about.

[hv_]

Bitcoin is remaining the same without any solution and a important problem is persisting, a problem so big that is cappable of ruining a currency. That upgrade should had been done years ago, not when the problem started to be visible.

As others said. No matter how big the block is, if somebody wants to, it will fill it. So the solution has to be .. something different.
I am not telling that SegWit is the best solution. I don't know.

Now.. from what I've read SegWit took quite a lot of time to be implemented and tested. The problem is indeed visible for long time, but it was not so serious and was revealed during spam tests. Also an interesting fact is that after such "high" period ends, the network clears itself in 1-2 days.

I still believe that somebody has interest in spamming the network, artificially making this problem big indeed.
Right now the mempool is the smallest I've seen in long time. https://btc.com/stats/unconfirmed-tx shows it at under 1MB!

This graph could also be used to show that lots of users are leaving... Put the market share of bitcoin vs rest of altcoins together.

[NeuroticFish]

This graph could also be used to show that lots of users are leaving... Put the market share of bitcoin vs rest of altcoins together.

Some may be leaving, most may not.

I think that you mean "leaving" by the price falling for a while. That was pure speculation, based on the fear of the hard fork and the uncertainty.
As SegWit direction seems to get more traction and BU seems to lose, the price started rising again.

I am not happy with the mempool getting full so often. I am not happy that it's not "fixed" after so many discussions. But there has to be a better solution than BU.
I advocated the "no limit at all" solution until I was proven to be wrong. Now I listen to the ones that seem to know what they are doing and advocating the solution that has a chance to be better than just postpone the problem for some more months.

The marker share comparison give us no information at all. Money flows between BTC and alts and back continuously, making some speculators rich and making the others wonder what's happening.

[AngryDwarf]

The last mempool crisis occurred around the time of the ETF decision. So some of it might have been caused by increased trading activity and arbitrage between exchanges. Maybe it was being spammed by people who did not want the ETF to be approved? Just an hypothesis without proof.

[Lorilikes]

This graph could also be used to show that lots of users are leaving... Put the market share of bitcoin vs rest of altcoins together.

Some may be leaving, most may not.

I think that you mean "leaving" by the price falling for a while. That was pure speculation, based on the fear of the hard fork and the uncertainty.
As SegWit direction seems to get more traction and BU seems to lose, the price started rising again.

I am not happy with the mempool getting full so often. I am not happy that it's not "fixed" after so many discussions. But there has to be a better solution than BU.
I advocated the "no limit at all" solution until I was proven to be wrong. Now I listen to the ones that seem to know what they are doing and advocating the solution that has a chance to be better than just postpone the problem for some more months.

The marker share comparison give us no information at all. Money flows between BTC and alts and back continuously, making some speculators rich and making the others wonder what's happening.

I always thought it should raise more eyebrows when one group repeatedly grows richer on the losses in trading. 

[DooMAD]

Bad premise for a thread.  People place far too much emphasis on trusting or distrusting developers.  It's far cleaner and healthier to see competing codebases as products fighting for market share.  Free and open competition, with everyone attempting to provide a superior product.  Developers can design their product however they like and the market then selects via consensus.  In the event there's ever a gap in the market where users aren't happy with the code, competition in the market will result in another developer providing alternative code for users to run.  You don't have to trust any single group of devs, you just have to place all your belief in a free and open market. 

You also have to fight for that market to remain free and open against all those who would call for centralised protectionism to "shield" the market from a participant they don't personally trust.

It happens every time.  Someone reacts to a group or individual doing something they believe is wrong, so they call upon some sort of authority or central power to fix it.  Not understanding that, in doing so, they are a far bigger threat to the system than the person or persons they don't trust.  The second you introduce a central authority in Bitcoin, it stops working.

Everyone seems to doubt the motives of everyone else.  People fear "takeovers" and "power grabs" on both sides.  It's easy to get bogged down in all that negativity and it's easier still to start casting aspersions on those you see as a hazard to the well-being of the ecosystem.  But the whole thing gets a lot less scary when you remember that the code can't lie.  Neutral and transparent wins every time and that's what Bitcoin is.  If the effects of the code are neutral, obvious and stable, it doesn't matter who coded it, so picking sides is just silly.  The code will speak for itself and the market will choose the code.  Whatever you think about the developers, their intent or their proposals, trust the market to choose the best code available at the time.

In short:

No one cares who you do and don't trust in a trustless system;  No one cares who you think should be in control of a system that no one controls;  No one cares who you think has permission to edit the code in a permissionless system.

[Xester]

seriously, do you trust what they tell you?

If we do not trust the core then who will we trust? I do trust the core since they are keeping bitcoin alive since a long time ago and if if it werent for them bitcoin would be encountering many problems today such as double spending and many more. They are keeping the blockchain alive and continuously making some upgrades to make bitcoin and its transaction much better.

[dinofelis]

Bitcoin, a decentralized and trustless protocol ....

Indeed, in a "trustless decentralized" system, people are looking for agreements by trusted entities to solve their problems

[dinofelis]

Bad premise for a thread.  People place far too much emphasis on trusting or distrusting developers.  It's far cleaner and healthier to see competing codebases as products fighting for market share.  Free and open competition, with everyone attempting to provide a superior product.  Developers can design their product however they like and the market then selects via consensus.  In the event there's ever a gap in the market where users aren't happy with the code, competition in the market will result in another developer providing alternative code for users to run.  You don't have to trust any single group of devs, you just have to place all your belief in a free and open market. 

You also have to fight for that market to remain free and open against all those who would call for centralised protectionism to "shield" the market from a participant they don't personally trust.

It happens every time.  Someone reacts to a group or individual doing something they believe is wrong, so they call upon some sort of authority or central power to fix it.  Not understanding that, in doing so, they are a far bigger threat to the system than the person or persons they don't trust.  The second you introduce a central authority in Bitcoin, it stops working.

Everyone seems to doubt the motives of everyone else.  People fear "takeovers" and "power grabs" on both sides.  It's easy to get bogged down in all that negativity and it's easier still to start casting aspersions on those you see as a hazard to the well-being of the ecosystem.  But the whole thing gets a lot less scary when you remember that the code can't lie.  Neutral and transparent wins every time and that's what Bitcoin is.  If the effects of the code are neutral, obvious and stable, it doesn't matter who coded it, so picking sides is just silly.  The code will speak for itself and the market will choose the code.  Whatever you think about the developers, their intent or their proposals, trust the market to choose the best code available at the time.

In short:

No one cares who you do and don't trust in a trustless system;  No one cares who you think should be in control of a system that no one controls;  No one cares who you think has permission to edit the code in a permissionless system.

I 100% agree with you.  The software monopoly is not good.

[mackenzied]

seriously, do you trust what they tell you?

I used to believe in them, I used to expect them to be able to solve all the problems without any change, but they disappointed me, now it takes too much time, and We charge too high a fee.

[celested]

seriously, do you trust what they tell you?

I used to believe in them, I used to expect them to be able to solve all the problems without any change, but they disappointed me, now it takes too much time, and We charge too high a fee.

Me too, I've trusted it before, but it always disappoints me, now I'm headed for a new solution, which is assessed to solve every problem. I hope it can be successful.

[bartolo]

I trust no one, but I don´t think it's a matter of trust either, it´s a matter of proposals and to know which is the correct one to go ahead. In this aspect Core has an advantage, they are the developers and they are supposed to be the ones who know what they are doing.

[soul-impact]

I trust no one, but I don´t think it's a matter of trust either, it´s a matter of proposals and to know which is the correct one to go ahead. In this aspect Core has an advantage, they are the developers and they are supposed to be the ones who know what they are doing.

Do you think the core can solve the current difficulties? I think no, me and you, and many others, we used to trust them, but what they give us is disappointment. They just want to protect their interests, and they force us to pay a premium for all transactions, but even transactions are not confirmed. so sad!

[foxbat]

Do we have a choice?  So far Core had been the major group that make alot of commit to Bitcoin development, and we use it.  As a mere user, what else can we do?  We simply download the software and use it.  Regardless of any political intent, I just want to use a well functioning wallet and a stable bug free network and I believe Core have the capability to deliver it.

We do not have the right to choose, we can not change anything, but we are their customers, we have the right to give our personal opinion and ask for their modification. Bitcoin was created from the head, but it grows thanks to all of us. Therefore, we need to give a general idea in order to fight. Bitcoin needs to change

[selline]

Do I Trust core? maybe not. Do I trust BU? absolutely not.  But so far core has done a fine work in running the network, I don't completed trust them but if it's comes to trusting either core or BU I would most likely trust core because they have experience and are running the network decently.

Maybe between the believe it or not against core because I didn't know about them if instead they really have the experience or not, but I get from info if they run her work well in running the network finally I would probably trust the core

[25hashcoin]

Hell no. Core is the one blocking scaling and trying to turn bitcoin into a settlement layer. Also their uasf game is the most dumbest and childish thing I've ever seen. Totally compromised by AXA. Educate yourself.