Banks have bought the Core Team

[NUFCrichard]

I don't think that banks really care about Bitcoin, very few will understand it at a level to understand the block size debate.

There is less chance that they understood the block size debate, understood it in advance and managed to pay off the core team, who they would assume are going to look after Bitcoin's best interests, to do something that may be against Bitcoin's best interests!

Some things just happen, not everything is a big conspiracy!

[Holliday]

He considered the P2P phase of enthusiasts (useful idiots) just a phase to get bitcoin accepted, but that would be fading away when network and mining competition would naturally lead to an oligarchy of miners/full nodes,  with blocks of about 1 GB.

Oh how I wish to be one of those "useful idiots" finding block after block on my CPU...

[Hydrogen]

Craig Wright was paid $200 million by "investors"(probably banks).

But nevermind that. Core is the real danger?  

I think people forget bitcoin was never designed to compete with credit cards by procesings thousands of transactions per second.

If people want a crypto currency that can compete with credit cards, maybe they should make an alt coin rather than blaming core developers for staying true to Satoshi's original vision.

[Amph]

buying core team will not stop bitcoin either, core team is just there for support, isn't dictating the fate of bitcoin which is based on consensus for your information

and banks last tiem i checked were creating their own version of the blockchain, but centralized, i don't think they will give a damn about bitcoin anymore

i also don't like the centralization hub of LN, but currently there are no other better solution than segwit to scale, and i'm sure we can't wait forever to find a better one

[dinofelis]

I think people forget bitcoin was never designed to compete with credit cards by procesings thousands of transactions per second.

If people want a crypto currency that can compete with credit cards, maybe they should make an alt coin rather than blaming core developers for staying true to Satoshi's original vision.

It was.  Funny how people say that now.

http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/

[btcxyzzz]

Segwit is created
Segwit plans to launch an off-chain network AKA fractional reserve system.
A lighting network AKA paypal scheme.
A high fees for on chain txs AKA bank wires fees.

Of course it is, this world would be a very different place if it wasn't like that, but that was pretty much expected. Money from the people, for the people is stil an ideal.

[jonald_fyookball]

Segwit cannot be rolled back because to non-upgraded clients, ANYONE can spend Segwit txn outputs.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5aktik/segwit_and_anyone_can_spend_questions/

In any case, the correct remark in that thread is that rolling back a soft fork, is a hard fork.

In the same way that imposing a 1 MB block limit was a soft fork, to UNDO it, you need a hard fork.

So, if you do a hard fork to roll back, you have to correct for that "anyone can spend" trick to introduce new stuff that the old nodes don't understand, but will accept as valid.

If you want an even simpler (non technical) explanation: 

Segwit transactions are in a new format from traditional bitcoin transactions. 

You can stop creating new segwit transactions, but existing segwit transactions
that are already in blocks will still need the segwit code to validated them,
in order to keep the blockchain ledger accurate.

[stompix]

So are we really discussing a flame post made by a newbie with a single post?
Really?

How many stories we have already about banks, governments, wall street, reptilians, soros  and god know who else bribing each of the rival team?

[Xester]

Satoshi Nakamoto quote:

"on: December 11, 2010, 11:39:16 PM"" 'It would have been nice to get this attention in any other context. WikiLeaks has kicked the hornet's nest, and the swarm is headed towards us.'

Current Core Devs are compromised.

Banks/Goverments thought about a way to stop Bitcoin, but Bitcoin can't be stopped not even compromising the "Dev Team" so they saw this block size debate and they saw the perfect opportunity to do it: if bitcoin can't be stopped: lets transform it into another of us.

Nothing with the same specifications as money created by Banks or Paypal alike institutions can compete with them, because they are and will be the best on their space, so converting Bitcoin into another one means anihilating it or stopping its rise, only a superior technology can kill them.


Segwit is created

Segwit plans to launch an off-chain network AKA fractional reserve system.

A lighting network AKA paypal scheme.

A high fees for on chain txs AKA bank wires fees.


And the above mentioned is the worst option this secret organism has in play; their best option is their 95% approval consensus that will never happen since 25% of miners don't even care about consensus, do you really believe segwit was really made to been approved? wake up!

Any lock or deletion of this topic is clear evidence of current Bitcoin sabotage by the well known secret entities.

I dont want to disagree with you since there is also a possibility that you might be true but since you lack clear evidence to support your claim then your post will be considered as a conspiracy theory or was just done to damage the credibility of segwit. But if you are true and want to convince the community about this very important matter then at least provide some proofs to shed some light to the readers.

[franky1]

isn't dictating the fate of bitcoin which is based on consensus for your information

1. core bypassed consensus with the going soft backdoor. thus node consensus cant vote for or veto out. core thought that bribing pools with lots of paid weekend vacations was the fast route to get a "yay" activation quick

2. core have now found out that pools are saying nay/abstaining... cor have just last month found out the half baked sgwit is not as compatible as promised..
but rather than accepting its not an easy 'yay'. you have to ask... are core supporting pools, are they asking pools and the community what would be acceptable and thus making a plan B version of a 1merkle segwit with dynamics and a low txsigop limit and other community uniting features... nope

3. blockstream(core) have employed a guy to be the face(samson mow) for really FORCING the half baked segwit for upto another year and a half (UASF quote up to the end of 2018*)

4. blockstream(core) are not accepting 'consensus' saying 'nay' in any form... its just push or delay as their only options.. not make a recode that is community requested with features that would make it a 'yay'

please look beyond reddit and look at the reality, else this half baked segwit drama will continue until 2019*

*http://www.uasf.co/

Can BIP148 be cancelled?
Yes. In the event that the economic majority does not support BIP148, users should remove software that enforces BIP148. A flag day activation for SegWit would be the next logical steps and require coordination of the community, most likely towards the end of 2018.

[jorneyflair]

Where is the point in saying that Bitcoin Core Dev Team is owned by banks?
That is kind of funny of me, I never believe in such a conspiracy theory, and this one is actually the same!

Indeed, I also doubt that SegWit will be implemented, because 95% is a really big percantage, when Im sure that not every miner cares about the whole conensus, if he prefers Bitcoin unlimited or Segwit.
For now, it looks like that hard-fork has way bigger chance to be done, than seeing SegWit on bitcoin core.

I really hope that LTC will do SegWit, and it will maybe show up the rest of miners, which solution is the best.

[dinofelis]

1. core bypassed consensus with the going soft backdoor.

This is not really the case as long as they maintain the 95% threshold, no ?  

And no, node count explicitly doesn't matter, because bitcoin is a hashrate consensus system, explicitly rejecting node counting, which has no meaning, because it can easily be faked by Sybil attacks, and has no relationship to economic stake either.  People with essentially zero stake in bitcoin have just as much voting power than whales owning several percent of the stash if you count nodes.  Maybe even more, because bitcoinless geeks or people with special interests may have more nodes running than busy coin holders that are not technically versed into doing so, and have, for instance, most of their stuff on exchanges or online wallets, or are using a light wallet like electrum.

The danger is when they turn to less than 95% blocks soft fork, like LTC is doing.

[franky1]

1. core bypassed consensus with the going soft backdoor.

This is not really the case as long as they maintain the 95% threshold, no ?  

And no, node count explicitly doesn't matter, because bitcoin is a hashrate consensus system, explicitly rejecting node counting, which has no meaning, because it can easily be faked by Sybil attacks, and has no relationship to economic stake either.  People with essentially zero stake in bitcoin have just as much voting power than whales owning several percent of the stash if you count nodes.  Maybe even more, because bitcoinless geeks or people with special interests may have more nodes running than busy coin holders that are not technically versed into doing so, and have, for instance, most of their stuff on exchanges or online wallets, or are using a light wallet like electrum.

The danger is when they turn to less than 95% blocks soft fork, like LTC is doing.

pool X can have 20million exahash. and other pools can have just 5 peta hash
meaning the blocks from pool X could show as most common block being solved and hitting the threshold.

but if at a certain event. they were to make something that doesnt meet the rules of the nodes. its rejected in 2 seconds

what results in lots of orphans/rejects until a block is found that meets the rules.

nodes only build on blocks which nodes accept and seeing as exchanges look at the blockchain through their node they only see block and tx data of blocks their node accepts.

so to spend a pools reward. a pool has to make a block that a exchanges node would accept. and thats all about ensuring that the majority of nodes accept that block so that when the nodes sync with each other they are building a chain of blocks they are happy with and can see the tx's inside to spend what they can see.

thus pools are reliant on node acceptance

its a symbiotic relationship .. not just pools and not just nodes.. but both meeting the same set of rules they can both agree on and build on to reduce and prevent orphan drama..
this is consensus.

pools could however get a few select nodes that agree on a certain rule to blindly follow without the symbiotic syncing consensus mechanisms causing orphan drama.. by literally banning opposition. this is then altcoin making by avoiding the consensus and forming their own network.

[dinofelis]

1. core bypassed consensus with the going soft backdoor.

This is not really the case as long as they maintain the 95% threshold, no ?  

And no, node count explicitly doesn't matter, because bitcoin is a hashrate consensus system, explicitly rejecting node counting, which has no meaning, because it can easily be faked by Sybil attacks, and has no relationship to economic stake either.  People with essentially zero stake in bitcoin have just as much voting power than whales owning several percent of the stash if you count nodes.  Maybe even more, because bitcoinless geeks or people with special interests may have more nodes running than busy coin holders that are not technically versed into doing so, and have, for instance, most of their stuff on exchanges or online wallets, or are using a light wallet like electrum.

The danger is when they turn to less than 95% blocks soft fork, like LTC is doing.

pool X can have 20million exahash. and other pools can have just 5 peta hash
meaning the blocks from pool X could show as most common block being solved and hitting the threshold.

but if at a certain event. they were to make something that doesnt meet the rules of the nodes. its rejected in 2 seconds

Well, if until that point, they were following the rules, they have cranked up the difficulty on the "right" chain by a factor of 20 billion, right.  So now that they "stop making valid blocks" the rest of the world, with its 5 peta hash, will be able, at the given difficulty, to make a block
in about 300 000 years, and hope to get somewhat smaller difficulty in about 600 million years.   That's about the time it took for jellyfish to evolve into humans.

But it is true that your faithful nodes will reject happily all the blocks that come every 10 minutes from the nasty pool, and will wait for 300 000 years before they get a good block again.  As such, all people having "good coins" will at least hodle for 300 000 years

Or, they will finally accept those "illegal blocks" in order to finally get rid of their coins against a bargain, but at least, before their superdupergreatgrandchildren are old.

[franky1]

Well, if until that point, they were following the rules, they have cranked up the difficulty on the "right" chain by a factor of 20 billion, right.  So now that they "stop making valid blocks" the rest of the world, with its 5 peta hash, will be able, at the given difficulty, to make a block
in about 300 000 years, and hope to get somewhat smaller difficulty in about 600 million years.   That's about the time it took for jellyfish to evolve into humans.

But it is true that your faithful nodes will reject happily all the blocks that come every 10 minutes from the nasty pool, and will wait for 300 000 years before they get a good block again.  As such, all people having "good coins" will at least hodle for 300 000 years

Or, they will finally accept those "illegal blocks" in order to finally get rid of their coins against a bargain, but at least, before their superdupergreatgrandchildren are old.

nope.

the questionable pool would see their blocks are being rejected and in less time(than300k years) the pool will stop wasting its time making bad blocks costing the electric bill of 20mill exahash over 300k years.. and start thinking dang it.. lets start making blocks that follow the rules. or why are we bothering..

P.S
you can actually change the retarget rules without breaking the retarget rules to offset the 300k years doomsday.
EG
instead of:(in laymans)
if last 2016 blocks found in over 1210000 secs then lower difficulty..

do:(in laymans)
if last 2016 blocks found in over 1210000 secs then lower difficulty..
AND
if at 1210000 secs since last retarget, less than 2016 blocks found then lower difficulty..

which doesnt break any rules. but also helps ensure the difficulty adjusts every 2 weeks

[leopard2]

I do not understand. Segwit makes blocks larger and more efficient.

No one is forced to use LN (right?). You can do more onchain transactions with Segwit than you can today.
 

Core's goal has to be stall onchain scaling as much as possible.  Segwit offers only a modest increase in transaction capacity while
actually making transactions more complicated and likely taking more capacity... and years later than most have wanted it.

By artificially restricting on chain capacity, Blockstream hopes to price ordinary users off the main chain and force them to use their
LN solution.

It is better to simply increase the blocksize but Core has done everything possible to stop that.

Core wants to increase from 1MB to 4MB and that is more than enough for the time being....

The idea of unlimited blocks is nonsense. Should 32MB blocks really be required, the blockchain will be so bloated that no one except professional datacenters can handle it.

Not very Satoshi-ish. 

[leopard2]

BTW the non-rollback-ability / non backwards compatibility is what pisses me off about Segwit but it is the lesser evil between Segwit and BU

sure extension blocks might work but they have as much support as Ron Paul 

[dinofelis]

The idea of unlimited blocks is nonsense. Should 32MB blocks really be required, the blockchain will be so bloated that no one except professional datacenters can handle it.

Not very Satoshi-ish. 

That's nevertheless exactly Satoshi's original vision, with 1 GB blocks and only full nodes in data centers.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1876752.msg18659688#msg18659688

[AngryDwarf]

BTW the non-rollback-ability / non backwards compatibility is what pisses me off about Segwit but it is the lesser evil between Segwit and BU

sure extension blocks might work but they have as much support as Ron Paul 

There are other big block solutions available that don't use Bitcoin Unneeded levels of complexity with its acceptance depth mechanism.
It could be argued Emergent Consensus has been proved to work in an informal manner. Miners upped the block sizes they mined in a consensus move until they hit the 1MB limit. All it requires is for the block limit to be removed and miners to advertise the block size they are willing to accept, and then miners will produce bigger blocks when there is a consensus minimum acceptance size advertised. It is just formalising what used to happen before the 1MB limit was hit.

[jonald_fyookball]

The idea of unlimited blocks is nonsense. Should 32MB blocks really be required, the blockchain will be so bloated that no one except professional datacenters can handle it.

Not very Satoshi-ish. 

That's nevertheless exactly Satoshi's original vision, with 1 GB blocks and only full nodes in data centers.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1876752.msg18659688#msg18659688

Actually it would only be 0.27 gig blocks and that's when we get to visa level... and by that time storage will be even cheaper than today.