The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support.

[25hashcoin]

http://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/innovation/major-bitcoin-firms-invest-1m-in-rootstock-to-take-on-ethereum-threat/

relevant.

jihan wu is a rootstock investor, as is barry silbert.

include bitpay's little u turn and it looks like an almost complete takeover by one party. i don't know where bitfury fit.

Nice that we have an easy way of knowing who's getting tossed aside after #UASF

[dinofelis]

I am happy that you are excited. Now do you even have any Bitcoins?

Only a few, that I bought a few years back as a reserve to buy VPN and VPS services on the internet.  Buying bitcoin being a hassle, I thought I'd buy myself some reserve for later, so that I don't have to deal with that every time.  In the mean time, that stuff took so much value that I think that for everything I'll ever buy with bitcoin, I have more and more than enough !

That said, I'm not using bitcoin any more to buy stuff, because someone told me they could go to $500 000.- a piece.  If that's a case, I buy several houses for all of my children.  So I put them apart, and will cash out whenever that moment arrives.

I'm only interested in bitcoin and crypto for mainly intellectual and political reasons.  I thought it was a great invention to build underground economies, even though it contained a lot of design flaws.  I'm now very very sceptical about this.  I even think that bitcoin, and its other crypto imitations, have spoiled the opportunity to build an underground economic system with a true cryptographic money, because of the speculative greed function that was built into it.  if ever someone invents a true crypto currency, nobody will use it because one will not be able to speculate on it and become rich quickly, and in the mean time, the powers that be have been alerted to the stuff by the crazy values to which these gambler's coins have been gone.  I was full bitcoin when Silk Road was thriving.  But in the mean time, I became very sceptical about it being anything else but a gambler's toy.

And as you see, no matter how I despise raw speculation, I'm tricked in doing it now myself with my "internet money" that I got for reasons of using a covert currency.  I won't be using bitcoin in any case any more because I also learned how it can be traced back to my buying them on an exchange.  I think open ledgers are very dangerous for monetary affairs.  I am now only in favour of obscured ledgers.  My long time favorite is monero on that level, but even though I don't like the economic model of zcash, and have other issues with it, after all, it is also quite good at hiding your actions.

That said, I'm extremely interested in the behaviour of these systems, because they learn me something of what to avoid in anarchist systems - and I even start to doubt they are possible, because the slightest design errors make it turn into centralized power games which are worse than the things one is trying to fight (states).

There is another aspect of crypto currencies that interests me.   I believe that in the not so far future, the dominant species on earth will be machines, and we will be, at best, their pets or their cattle.  But I always wondered how these machines would develop an invisible society.  I think crypto currencies and smart contracts is what was missing from the picture.  Now, they can.  Humanity is then just a transitional species in the evolution of intelligence, towards more intelligent machines.  When that step is completed, our dominance will be disposed off in ways we won't understand, the same way that dogs don't understand that they are pets.

[The One]

The core Devs were too late to act...
ASIC Mining = Centralized business
...

There seems to be a confused irony in your statements. It seems that you think that a decentralized Bitcoin should remain centralized around the devs of a specific wallet. Or am I reading that all wrong?

What is it you don't understand? Devs set the rules. If the rules are broken, the whole system becomes broken. This system is broken for what it is and devs should fix it.

Everything has a starting point. Satoshi created bitcoin and he was in the center of the bitcoin's blockchain system for a while. Means bitcoin was centralized around Satoshi but he didn't like it so he tried to make it decentralized with the support of the people, us. ASIC companies hacked the code, he failed.

Now the core devs can accomplish what satoshi couldn't. They can set new rules and save bitcoin from being centralized.

NO. That is centralisation.

Dev can only propose.... like everyone else.

[mindrust]

The core Devs were too late to act...
ASIC Mining = Centralized business
...

There seems to be a confused irony in your statements. It seems that you think that a decentralized Bitcoin should remain centralized around the devs of a specific wallet. Or am I reading that all wrong?

What is it you don't understand? Devs set the rules. If the rules are broken, the whole system becomes broken. This system is broken for what it is and devs should fix it.

Everything has a starting point. Satoshi created bitcoin and he was in the center of the bitcoin's blockchain system for a while. Means bitcoin was centralized around Satoshi but he didn't like it so he tried to make it decentralized with the support of the people, us. ASIC companies hacked the code, he failed.

Now the core devs can accomplish what satoshi couldn't. They can set new rules and save bitcoin from being centralized.

NO. That is centralisation.

Dev can only propose.... like everyone else.

It is not. They can (and should be able to) set the rules to prevent centralization. You just can't accept it if the community (or the miners) want to have a centralized currency. This needs to be interrupted by a greater force.

Satoshi didn't propose anything when he is creating bitcoin. He didn't ask our opinion. He set the fucking rules and he went missing. Before he is gone, he transferred his ability to set rules to the core devs.

edit: yes igot a typo.have fun with it. 

[dinofelis]

It is not. They can (and should be able to) set the rules to prevent decentralization.

Freudian typo ? 

[jonald_fyookball]

It is not. They can (and should be able to) set the rules to prevent centralization. 

Except they actually didn't.  They tried to centralize with their full retard 1mb blocksize...and that's why they are being thrown out of power.

[25hashcoin]

It is not. They can (and should be able to) set the rules to prevent centralization. 

Except they actually didn't.  They tried to centralize with their full retard 1mb blocksize...and that's why they are being thrown out of power.

Only one getting overthrown is jihan and his asic boost that he pays you to shill you pathetic cuck.

[The One]

So it is O.K. for big mining companies to make deals without asking the community's opinion behind the closed doors but it is not O.K. to change the PoW algo to prevent these kind of situations.

I didn't sign up for a centralized piece of shit coin and a toy for big companies.

We must drain the swamp.

I suspect they need to do some programming first, assuming they haven't, before giving the community a chance to see the codes.

[ComputerGenie]

...[stuff]...

How is it that you do not grasp the idea that the devs of 1 single wallet should never be able to centralize a protocol around themselves and their own wishes? That is the antithesis of "decentralized"!
Your claim is the same as saying all banks in the world should 100% adopt all beliefs, and practices, of Shazam, even to the exclusion of common banking practices.
There is nothing less decentralized than giving a handful of people total control of a protocol.  

[The One]

So it is O.K. for big mining companies to make deals without asking the community's opinion behind the closed doors but it is not O.K. to change the PoW algo to prevent these kind of situations.

I didn't sign up for a centralized piece of shit coin and a toy for big companies.

We must drain the swamp.

   

Most bitcoin investors have been asking for bigger blocks for years now. 

Complete bullshit lies, troll. Most want Segwit first.

Most don't know what segwit IS. They just blindly follow the developers (Core) and watch the BTC price movement, which is what most people care about. Instead they should be caring about the future uses of Bitcoin, not just buy/sell on exchanges. Which is akin to issuing shares on the stockmarket and people asking what the company do. Nothing, no uses, just buy and sell shares all day/week/month etc. No P/L account.

[Denker]

http://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/innovation/major-bitcoin-firms-invest-1m-in-rootstock-to-take-on-ethereum-threat/

relevant.

jihan wu is a rootstock investor, as is barry silbert.

include bitpay's little u turn and it looks like an almost complete takeover by one party. i don't know where bitfury fit.

I've watched the presentation today.
Very very disappointing! I guess RSK ist mostly Vapoware so far. This was nothing!!
Barely any person was listening by the way.
And they were talking about KYC as well by the way.
My opinion about rsk has completely changed. Especially since Jihan is invested.
To me they switched to the dark side as well. This is why it's not surprising they agreed to such a lame attempt of agreement today.

[Carlton Banks]

...[stuff]...

How is it that you do not grasp the idea that the devs of 1 single wallet should never be able to centralize a protocol around themselves and their own wishes? That is the antithesis of "decentralized"!
Your claim is the same as saying all banks in the world should 100% adopt all beliefs, and practices, of Shazam, even to the exclusion of common banking practices.
There is nothing less decentralized than giving a handful of people total control of a protocol.  

That's right, but people are freely choosing the protocol design that Core devs have proposed up to now, to wit, the current Bitcoin exchange rate.


You're making the Bitcoin Unlimited argument: that every single aspect of the protocol should be user changeable, "because decentralisation".


So, go ahead. Create a Bitcoin fork, where the block reward, total 21 million supply, node connections limit, blocksize, signature algo, mining hash algo, everything and anything is a radio button or checkbox for the user to change at will, "because the free market", right?

You'll discover you're wrong, and that using a carefully designed mixture of decentralised user transactions, made possible by unified, singular and centralised rules and protocol designs, is the pragmatic way, i.e. what actually works in the real world, as opposed to your theoretical fetishised ideological fantasy land.

But seriously do it, create a "Bitcoin Democracy fork", I will be buying in alot of popcorn with my (actually valuable) real BTC

[megashira1]

Just watched the live broadcast of Consensus 2017 scaling debate.
What do you make out of it ?

Seems that almost everyone is OK to go to 2MB and segwit...

Provide link please.

[The One]

Does anyone know where the false dichotomy started that claims "one must be for BU if they are against segwit"? 

Correct and equally pathetic.

All i am advocating is a simple increase to 2mb with further increase built in the future.

One step at a time.

Both Core and BU want to introduced too many features in one go.

One step at a time.

[The One]

I visibly get offered an experiment over what has deciding power in bitcoin: full nodes or miners.  Wow !  Thanks, guys !  Could you get your timings right to try both simultaneously, just to get the correct experimental conditions ?  I propose, all full nodes go UASF, and all miners go MAHF simultaneously.  Let us see who wins

Note that if the result is two bitcoins, that is even better:
1) everybody has twice as many coins as before (or maybe three ?)
2) much more transaction room, because now you have two (or three) chains, you can run two (or three?) full nodes, the decentralization doubles (or triples ?)

 

Would that be a trifork?

[ComputerGenie]

Just watched the live broadcast of Consensus 2017 scaling debate.
What do you make out of it ?

Seems that almost everyone is OK to go to 2MB and segwit...

Provide link please.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiCSgzZI_Og

[The One]

The core Devs were too late to act...
ASIC Mining = Centralized business
...

There seems to be a confused irony in your statements. It seems that you think that a decentralized Bitcoin should remain centralized around the devs of a specific wallet. Or am I reading that all wrong?

What is it you don't understand? Devs set the rules. If the rules are broken, the whole system becomes broken. This system is broken for what it is and devs should fix it.

Everything has a starting point. Satoshi created bitcoin and he was in the center of the bitcoin's blockchain system for a while. Means bitcoin was centralized around Satoshi but he didn't like it so he tried to make it decentralized with the support of the people, us. ASIC companies hacked the code, he failed.

Now the core devs can accomplish what satoshi couldn't. They can set new rules and save bitcoin from being centralized.

NO. That is centralisation.

Dev can only propose.... like everyone else.

It is not. They can (and should be able to) set the rules to prevent centralization. You just can't accept it if the community (or the miners) want to have a centralized currency. This needs to be interrupted by a greater force.

Satoshi didn't propose anything when he is creating bitcoin. He didn't ask our opinion. He set the fucking rules and he went missing. Before he is gone, he transferred his ability to set rules to the core devs.

edit: yes igot a typo.have fun with it. 

Yes, the users are the last line of defence against centralisation by virtue of selling their coins. Those who don't probably don't care about decentralisation/centralisation and only want to make a quick buck or two.

[infer]

look like there are very people come here to see a revolution. Go Bitcoin. We all expect that Bitcoin will be changed the protocol and become better in the next few months. 2mb is better than 1mb. we are very tired with the extralarge fee
By the way, I thought that we require more than 95% to activate the segwit. How can we able to activate with more than 80%?

[EarlyBirdSpecial]

With bitcoin adding segwit, I wonder what's going to happen to a lot of altcoins as a result.  This is going to be a very interesting year.

[European Central Bank]

http://www.coindesk.com/consensus-2017-bitpay-ceo-bitcoin-fork/

the bitpay ceo doesn't seem to have a problem with multiple chains. i think a few people do.