Do you trust core?

[mackenzied]

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

To be honest, bitcoin core has a lot of experience, they are capable enough to lead the bitcoin to continue to grow, however, they seem too selfish, or somehow, they do not solve the trouble. Of bitcoin, so they are forced to change.

[DooMAD]

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.

There seem to be some misconceptions being bandied about the forums regarding Core's stance on UASF.  To clarify, Core isn't supporting UASF at this time.  They're still arguing amongst themselves about the pros and cons of merging BIP 148.  Some of them believe it's too aggressive and could potentially result in a contentious split, while others may be in favour.  It's mainly a group of users and a Litecoin dev involved right now, so Core are mostly just watching from the sidelines to see how it shapes up.  I don't think they're going to do anything rash.

Don't be fooled by the overconfidence of the most vocal UASF proponents who might give the false impression that everyone, including Core, agrees with them.  That remains to be seen.  They make a lot of noise, but aren't backing it up with much in the way of action.  There are only ~800 nodes expressing support for it, out of a total of ~7200 currently reachable nodes worldwide.  That's about 11% of the network.  There's a huge distance to go in a short space of time if they want to activate in August.

This is cryptoland, where the golden rule is "never say never", so I could be wrong, but I don't rate their chances that highly at the moment.  Unless things change rapidly over the next few weeks, UASF = non-event.

[hv_]

On a logical base core cannot really be pro UASF, since they said (?) SW is a compromise and they defined a long activation time and a high threshold to kick in absolutely safe.

They said with this: a compromise is only live with sufficient time and maximum support

Why now rush this in with a rant like style and risk split for a compromise? They feel fine doing nothing...before fuck sth up.

[ImHash]

asic s9 chip design 2015
asicboost theory 2015
both in production 2015
public released spring 2016

segwit 2merkle envisioned december 2015
in production spring 2016
public release october 2016

feb-march 2017 gmax finds flaw in 2merkle soft segwit.
cant redesign 2merkle segwit.
april 2017 gmax call asics a attack that knew about segwit and was designed specifically to stop segwit

..
logic fail (unless time travel is possible)

Of course time travel is possible, have you seriously ever dreamed of something and after a few days it comes true?
I wonder how did you come up with ASICboost all of a sudden in this post?
SW will kill ASICboost period, no need to beg them not to.

[arlinxoha]

I think where the money is concerned you can not trust anyone.
How do you expect trust from those you do not like? But hope you can. So need to be alert.

[freedomno1]

I trust reliable working code, whoever designs it does not matter to me as long as it resolves an issue.
Then it is up to a community of miners nodes etc to do something with that code and come to a consensus.
Decentralized yet organized.

[hv_]

He is some ranting against BScore:


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1997310.0


I only trust the dense bitcoin network core seen there. 

[Kprawn]

Do you trust any person who are being paid to develop a technology that might disrupt Billion dollar businesses like MoneyGram and Western

union or possibly the whole banking sector? The moment when you get paid to do something, you have to follow instructions from someone.

Do you think for one moment the Bitcoin Unlimited team are doing this for the fun? They are getting paid too.. and this makes them corruptible

and unbiased. I trust nobody... not even Satoshi Nakamoto. {because I do not know who he/she or they are}

[hv_]

Do you trust any person who are being paid to develop a technology that might disrupt Billion dollar businesses like MoneyGram and Western

union or possibly the whole banking sector? The moment when you get paid to do something, you have to follow instructions from someone.

Do you think for one moment the Bitcoin Unlimited team are doing this for the fun? They are getting paid too.. and this makes them corruptible

and unbiased. I trust nobody... not even Satoshi Nakamoto. {because I do not know who he/she or they are}

Oh wait. Youve forgotton evil Linus from Linux, yeah. You just cannot trust anybody. This is why bitcoin needs to scale on chain. The most trustless way we have now since 2009!

[cellard]

They've kept people's savings in bitcoin safe for 7+ years or 8, I lost the count. That is all that matters. The software must be solid, and I must be able to run a bitcoin full node, everything else doesn't matter. I couldn't care less about buying coffee with bitcoin if that means i can't run a full node, they seem to agree with this so they are good to go.

The hardforkers will fail because the other devs will make them lose money, it's a matter of time.

I hope we don't have 2 fucking bitcoins by the end of the year because my bitcoin saving will suffer.

[TrumpD]

The main problem with core is that they are not a cohesive group, the positive thing is that most people involved want bitcoin to do well. They have my trust because I dont see them compromising for their own personal interest. 

[hv_]

They've kept people's savings in bitcoin safe for 7+ years or 8, I lost the count. That is all that matters. The software must be solid, and I must be able to run a bitcoin full node, everything else doesn't matter. I couldn't care less about buying coffee with bitcoin if that means i can't run a full node, they seem to agree with this so they are good to go.

The hardforkers will fail because the other devs will make them lose money, it's a matter of time.

I hope we don't have 2 fucking bitcoins by the end of the year because my bitcoin saving will suffer.

Sure. My car was also fine first 7 years. But then it needed a HF.

Shit. The HF is 3 years shifted and kicked down the road because of very human lazy aproach or interest conflicts inside BScore. This car is OLD and misses new modern scaling inside. They want to lift the wreck on waky plane and close planes doors now.

[sgbett]

They've kept people's savings in bitcoin safe for 7+ years or 8, I lost the count. That is all that matters. The software must be solid, and I must be able to run a bitcoin full node, everything else doesn't matter. I couldn't care less about buying coffee with bitcoin if that means i can't run a full node, they seem to agree with this so they are good to go.

The hardforkers will fail because the other devs will make them lose money, it's a matter of time.

I hope we don't have 2 fucking bitcoins by the end of the year because my bitcoin saving will suffer.

You only need to a run a full node to mitigate the risk involved in accepting a high value of payments from untrusted third parties. You do not need to run a node to spend or save bitcoin. Do you have a specific use case that requires you to run a full node?

You said everything else doesn't matter. I respectfully disagree. I think the value of bitcoin matters, and I think it derives that value from being useful. I think that increasing the cost of transactions reduces that utility. On chain is still a scarce resource regardless of blocksize, because of the marginal cost of mining a transaction.

[European Central Bank]

not particularly, but they are competent. the opposing team is both incompetent and vocally malevolent.

core has voiced concerns that chime with me far more than anything the mining cartels have come up with.

[Minecache]

Single males = On-chain scaling (bigger blocks). This is real money.
Married men = Off-chain scaling (SW/lightning). This is fairy dust.

Power corrupts, and the easiest way to gain power is to join the banks or the state, get married and have a bunch of children. New souls are the easiest to possess. Why do you think grandmothers always want more grandchildren? They're corrupt. They possess no power of their own, so they need to prey on innocent victims. A grandmothers worst enemy is a strong, independent, single male with no partners. Men are the source of gods light. Women only want to possess it. Prophet versus profit. God versus the natives.

Has anyone else noticed that females (or feminized males) have pretty much taken over the banking sector and the government? I'm not completely sexist either. A 20-year old girl traveling by herself can remain independent, but as soon as she has children or gets into a position of power she becomes corrupt.

Wives and mothers and grandmothers will always advocate for off-chain scaling, so they can steal power from future generations.

That's some strong shit you're smoking there bud.

[hv_]

Single males = On-chain scaling (bigger blocks). This is real money.
Married men = Off-chain scaling (SW/lightning). This is fairy dust.

Power corrupts, and the easiest way to gain power is to join the banks or the state, get married and have a bunch of children. New souls are the easiest to possess. Why do you think grandmothers always want more grandchildren? They're corrupt. They possess no power of their own, so they need to prey on innocent victims. A grandmothers worst enemy is a strong, independent, single male with no partners. Men are the source of gods light. Women only want to possess it. Prophet versus profit. God versus the natives.

Has anyone else noticed that females (or feminized males) have pretty much taken over the banking sector and the government? I'm not completely sexist either. A 20-year old girl traveling by herself can remain independent, but as soon as she has children or gets into a position of power she becomes corrupt.

Wives and mothers and grandmothers will always advocate for off-chain scaling, so they can steal power from future generations.

That's some strong shit you're smoking there bud.

Hehe, yeah. But with his effotrs he came to right conclusion. The way is the goal. Proof of Smoke PoS

[The One]

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!

Why do you assume it was spamming and now the spamming has stopped.

With high fees it is perfectly reasonable to assume that users are making less transactions based on the huge amount of complaints and Core don't care.

[European Central Bank]

Why do you assume it was spamming and now the spamming has stopped.

With high fees it is perfectly reasonable to assume that users are making less transactions based on the huge amount of complaints and Core don't care.

because it has always coincided with maximum agitation about block sizes. it happened around unlimited time and then eased off when unlimited looked like a piece of shit. it has now also magically eased off with the sewit2x thing.

if people stopped transacting as they are now then fees would never have been so high.

[European Central Bank]

A voice of reason:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4zkpxj/jihan_wu_blocksize_is_a_minor_issue_that_cost_the/

"We need a plan that will not drag the community into the blocksize issue from now on. For the growth of Bitcoin, blocksize is a minor issue that cost the community so much damage."

now that's something i can get behind no matter who says it. i don't know if it's possible but it's something that should be aimed for.

[hv_]

Some more insight into interest conflicts and closed door meeting or face to face promises.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1998082.0