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

[ComputerGenie]

What you are arguing seems to make little sense...

There's a perverse irony in your fanboy "argument" to his claim. You do get that your claim is that a decentralized Core will not follow the will of the decentralized majority, in any instance where they personally disagree with the decentralized majority, and that makes them not centralized, right? 

Core following the beliefs of Core makes Core a "centralized entity". There's a reason you can only be a Catholic priest if you're Catholic, and it's much like how one doesn't get to be a true Core dev* if one doesn't hold a specific belief system.





*the guys that get paid for working on Core and can, literally, control what Core is/does; not the "contributes" who have deluded themselves and others into thinking they are "devs"

[ComputerGenie]

While it would certainly be better to have everything out in the open, the simple fact is, Core could be producing this code themselves.   It's merely that you choose not to because it conflicts with your preferred vision of development...

That's possibly the best non-delusional comment ever I've read on the subject of Core. Core will never go against Core, not even if 99.9999999999% of the rest of everyone using/involved in Bitcoin sees something different.

[JayJuanGee]

What you are arguing seems to make little sense...

There's a perverse irony in your fanboy "argument" to his claim. You do get that your claim is that a decentralized Core will not follow the will of the decentralized majority, in any instance where they personally disagree with the decentralized majority, and that makes them not centralized, right?  

Core following the beliefs of Core makes Core a "centralized entity". There's a reason you can only be a Catholic priest if you're Catholic, and it's much like how one doesn't get to be a true Core dev* if one doesn't hold a specific belief system.





*the guys that get paid for working on Core and can, literally, control what Core is/does; not the "contributes" who have deluded themselves and others into thinking they are "devs"

You suggest that I am some kind of fan boy of core, and where's your evidence?  I am describing what I see as facts and dynamics and speculation about outcomes and not taking sides.

The irony is that you are attempting to make core out as if it were centralized and it is not...  where's your evidence?  Anything convincing in that regard?

Anyone can submit whatever the fuck they want for consideration to the core github in order that their BIP can be considered based on logic and facts.

It should be pretty clear that there is really no need for 2mb or a hardfork or a downgrading of consensus guidelines, and those propositions are supported by evidence and logic.  

So the fact that a bunch of nutjob core folks happen to agree with those points and principles does not make them centralized.  Helrow?  

You argue that core folks are centralized or they have some kind of common bias?  and where the fuck is your evidence?  Some are getting paid?  So fucking what?  Is there some kind of connection that shows they are controlled?  They can express whatever ideas they want and as individuals they seem to agree that there is no need for a 2mb upgrade, there is no need for a hardfork and there is no need to change consensus... Those are ideas that they seem to agree upon, at least at the moment, and each of them seems to be free to change his opinion in that regard, if he feels like it.

I think those kinds of claims about centralization of core are nonsense because they are not based on evidence or logic but instead some scant conspiracy theories.  You have any convincing evidence or logic in support of the supposed centralization of core?

While it would certainly be better to have everything out in the open, the simple fact is, Core could be producing this code themselves.   It's merely that you choose not to because it conflicts with your preferred vision of development...

That's possibly the best non-delusional comment ever I've read on the subject of Core. Core will never go against Core, not even if 99.9999999999% of the rest of everyone using/involved in Bitcoin sees something different.

Again, more nonsense from you ComputerGenie.  The core individuals can do whatever they want.  There is no religion involved.  If you can convince them to change their minds based on evidence and logic, then that would be great, rather than just asserting that they have some kind of unbreakable alliance.. which is nonsense... stick to the substance of arguments, please.

[ComputerGenie]

The irony is that you are attempting to make core out as if it were centralized and it is not...  where's your evidence? [lunacy removed for brevity]...

My evidence is the thousands of hour of logs that Core has made public.

You wax on about how "anyone" can "submit" "anything", but you conveniently ignore that submitting something is meaningless.
I think you need to click here and learn this word.

[-ck]

And just to move away from the political discussion for a moment and discuss the topic at hand, it appears they're finalising details of the 2MB hard fork.

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-June/000060.html

According to this, the hard fork will happen only 3 months after segwit gets activated.

The first beta is being released tomorrow.

[Variogam]

According to this, the hard fork will happen only 3 months after segwit gets activated.

Actually it is (144 * 90) blocks, or around 3 months.

https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/blob/segwit2x/src/consensus/consensus.h

/** BIP102 block size increase - time until HF activated */
static const unsigned int BIP102_FORK_BUFFER = (144 * 90);

[JayJuanGee]

The irony is that you are attempting to make core out as if it were centralized and it is not...  where's your evidence? [lunacy removed for brevity]...

My evidence is the thousands of hour of logs that Core has made public.

You wax on about how "anyone" can "submit" "anything", but you conveniently ignore that submitting something is meaningless.
I think you need to click here and learn this word.

ComputerGenie is asserting, without evidence or logic, that Core is an "Oligarchy." 

This is not a new idea - but it is a repeated accusatory theme that big block nut jobs want to assert because they want to change bitcoin governance and to make bitcoin easier to change by reducing consensus down from 95% to 80% or some other convenient number in order that bitcoin can be taken over by any group of folks who can muster up 80% by hook or by crook.

There may be circumstances in which a softfork can be made or some kinds of changes that are likely to be non-controversial and low consensus to get the ball rolling.. .but as soon as we start to talk about making significant and controversial changes, then we better be looking at really high levels of consensus, and 95% seems to serve pretty well for such.. maybe that can be tweaked, but does not seem to be a bad thing...

My understanding is that making changes to bitcoin should be fucking hard, and that is why we are not going to get too many changes that are going to be able to achieve 95% consensus.. That is a feature, not a bug, as big blocker nutjobs frequently erroneously argue about wanting to make bitcoin "more flexible."  Yeah, let's make bitcoin so fucking flexible that any tom, dick or harry can take it over, that would be good, right?  Is that what you want ComputerGenie?

[ComputerGenie]

...Yeah, let's make bitcoin so fucking flexible that any tom, dick or harry can take it over, that would be good, right?  Is that what you want ComputerGenie?

I'm not sure if you're intentionally being obtuse or if you're just that dense.

• In a decentralized system, the major majority isn't just "any tom, dick or harry". Because, English.
• In a centralized system, the major majority is ignored by the oligarchy. Because, English.
• Please, explain how the thousands of hours of Core conversation logs isn't "evidence" of what happens to/in/with Core....

[JayJuanGee]

...Yeah, let's make bitcoin so fucking flexible that any tom, dick or harry can take it over, that would be good, right?  Is that what you want ComputerGenie?

I'm not sure if you're intentionally being obtuse or if you're just that dense.

• In a decentralized system, the major majority isn't just "any tom, dick or harry". Because, English.
• In a centralized system, the major majority is ignored by the oligarchy. Because, English.
• Please, explain how the thousands of hours of Core conversation logs isn't "evidence" of what happens to/in/with Core....

First, this is not a democracy, meaning majority rules.  If majority rules, then bitcoin would truely get destroyed, no?  One of the whole points about being difficult to change is that we are starting out with a system that is not broken, and is disruptive and there is a lot of incentives from status quo govt and financial institutions to destroy it.

Second, what evidence are you suggesting in terms of Core conversations are meant to support your supposed oligarchy assertion?  You want me to read the whole thing or is there some summary of it?  What kinds of points are being made to cause it to fit a definition of "oligarchy?"  Are there some folks who are actually wanting to contribute and that want to get in that cannot?

[Paashaas]

Segwit2x code will be released today, let's see how that works out. I'm still getting a headache about that rushed HF.

Imo, we need Segwit and pump every singel potential out of it before considering a HF.

[JayJuanGee]

Segwit2x code will be released today, let's see how that works out. I'm still getting a headache about that rushed HF.

Imo, we need Segwit and pump every singel potential out of it before considering a HF.

I think that you are in-line with the thinking of most of the core members, Paashaas, - so that might mean that you are part of the oligarchy? 

The new definition of oligarchy, according to ComputerGenie, seems to be that if you share similar ideas as core, then either you are one of them and part of an oligarchy or you are a "fan boy."

[ComputerGenie]

First, this is not a democracy, meaning majority rules.  If majority rules, then bitcoin would truely get destroyed, no?  One of the whole points about being difficult to change is that we are starting out with a system that is not broken, and is disruptive and there is a lot of incentives from status quo govt and financial institutions to destroy it...

The main problem with having any sort of conversation is that you're conflating the idea of "difficult to change by design" and "difficult to change because a minority refuse to allow a change to be made". The difficulty in all of this is finding a change that is needed and Core (deemed the "official devs" by the masses that they ignore the wishes of) is willing to accept.
In a "perfect world", the protocol moves forward because Core is willing to allow the changes needed to the existing platform rather than creating a separate platform; sadly, we don't live in that world. Sadly, we live in a world where Core does what Core wants, the rest of us can be damned, and any changes have to be approved by Core or risk becoming an altcoin.

The issue isn't one of being hard to change by protocol design (current or otherwise), the issue is that it's hard to change because of mass adoption of Core wallets early on (so any protocol change must also include non-protocol conformity with Core software in order to survive). It's quite sad to see your mind miss out on the scope of all of this.

...Second, what evidence are you suggesting in terms of Core conversations are meant to support your supposed oligarchy assertion?  You want me to read the whole thing or is there some summary of it?...

The fact that you haven't, renders your opinions moot under the weight of actual facts.

[Sithara007]

Segwit2x code will be released today, let's see how that works out. I'm still getting a headache about that rushed HF.

Imo, we need Segwit and pump every singel potential out of it before considering a HF.

Oh... I almost forgot that it was going to get released today. How many days it will take to find the bugs, if there are any? Honestly, I hope that no major bugs will be found. But considering the fact that this was rushed through, I am worried.

[Paashaas]

Segwit2x code will be released today, let's see how that works out. I'm still getting a headache about that rushed HF.

Imo, we need Segwit and pump every singel potential out of it before considering a HF.

I think that you are in-line with the thinking of most of the core members, Paashaas, - so that might mean that you are part of the oligarchy? 

The new definition of oligarchy, according to ComputerGenie, seems to be that if you share similar ideas as core, then either you are one of them and part of an oligarchy or you are a "fan boy."

Well, i dont kiss Core's asses i just want the best for Bitcoin. a HF need full support with a working code. ( Lightning needs bigger blocks anyway in the foreseeable future)

I was ok with BU at the start but when i realized that BU was bugged i didnt supported it anymore, i was stunned how many guys where ok with that

[JayJuanGee]

First, this is not a democracy, meaning majority rules.  If majority rules, then bitcoin would truely get destroyed, no?  One of the whole points about being difficult to change is that we are starting out with a system that is not broken, and is disruptive and there is a lot of incentives from status quo govt and financial institutions to destroy it...

The main problem with having any sort of conversation is that you're conflating the idea of "difficult to change by design" and "difficult to change because a minority refuse to allow a change to be made".

You seem to be doing your own conflating and trying to act as if you are making some kind of meaningful argument.

You keep asserting your conclusion over and over and over.. that core is not receptive to new ideas and attempting to suggest that they are some kind of unified body that is unreceptive to change.

From my understanding there have been a large number of upgrades to bitcoin over the years, and even in recent times, too; however this scaling debate one has become the most controversial largely because it has been an attempt to change governance... and making threats of hardforking ever since about the middle of 2015 with the introduction of XT.  Maybe there were additional threats at governance changes, but there has been a lot of credibility lost when there are strenuous arguments being made for a technological change that really is not necessary.. and the real objective is to change governance and make bitcoin easier to change...

If some kind of technological change were so benefitial and advantageous, then it will be able to achieve the necessary consensus, such as 95% - otherwise, bitcoin is not broken and it can continue to work as it was desiged to be a immutable decentralized secure means for storage and transfer of value.

The difficulty in all of this is finding a change that is needed and Core (deemed the "official devs" by the masses that they ignore the wishes of) is willing to accept.

Again, there is no need to a bunch of whining masses if they do not understand what they are whining about and if they are making shit up.  If there is no technological need that can be justified by facts and/or logic, then there is no need to make the change, even if the whining masses assert that they perceive there is a problem that does not exist.. or that the proposed remedy creates more problems than it cures.

In a "perfect world", the protocol moves forward because Core is willing to allow the changes needed to the existing platform rather than creating a separate platform; sadly, we don't live in that world.

There is already a system in place for BIPs.

Sadly, we live in a world where Core does what Core wants, the rest of us can be damned, and any changes have to be approved by Core or risk becoming an altcoin.

Well if you cannot get enough support for your BIP, then maybe you threaten to fork off and you could either become the new bitcoin or you could end up being an alt.. you are correct.

The issue isn't one of being hard to change by protocol design (current or otherwise), the issue is that it's hard to change because of mass adoption of Core wallets early on (so any protocol change must also include non-protocol conformity with Core software in order to survive). It's quite sad to see your mind miss out on the scope of all of this.

could be that there is a system and dynamic in place, already, like you suggest.  But since the software is open source, can't you just tweak the software, if you believe that there is a better software for folks to run, and then little by little you become the majority and even the super majority.. If you have some kind of superior plan that is obvious to the people, then what wrong with running and attempting to promulgate that better plan (running software for example?)  Oh you want it given to you?  You want your new software just to be accepted because a bunch of people are whining but they have not yet written the supposedly superior software?

...Second, what evidence are you suggesting in terms of Core conversations are meant to support your supposed oligarchy assertion?  You want me to read the whole thing or is there some summary of it?...

The fact that you haven't, renders your opinions moot under the weight of actual facts.

Yeah, right.  A sign of a disingenuous argument is to suggest that you know something that I don't know but refuse to describe what that supposed something is?  The fact of the matter is that we cannot know everything and participate in everything, but we can still have opinions based on what we do know.  From what I understand, in bitcoin the status quo is represented by the software that is being run, and if you want to change the status quo, you have the burden of production (regarding evidence) and the burden of persuasion (regarding logic) if you want that status quo to change, otherwise the status quo stays in place.  Yep, there is some advantage in the status quo, but merely because it is not changing does not mean that they are reluctant to change or that they are not receptive to change, it more likely means that the ones attempting to change the status quo to something else have not met their burdens of production or their burdens of persuasion.. therefore the presumption of the continuation of the status quo continues... that is where we are at in bitcoin.  

Now currently, it appears that there is a certain level of consensus that is building around seg wit and it is likely to meet its burdens in order to get adopted into bitcoin in the coming months.  

1) the 2mb blocksize limit does not seem to be close enough for implementation, 2) the hardfork does not seem to be close enough for implementation and 3) changes in governance does not seem close enough for implementation - however, in the future, some or all of these matters could change, and maybe they will be more readily be at the point where they can reach sufficient consensus and be implemented into bitcoin?

[Netnox]

I was ok with BU at the start but when i realized that BU was bugged i didnt supported it anymore, i was stunned how many guys where ok with that

Desperate times need desperate measures. People were getting fed up with sky high fees and extreme delays in confirmation time. Everyone was looking for some sort of solution, and back then BU looked like the only viable resolution. That's why people like me initially supported the BU.

[ComputerGenie]

@JayJuanGee
I love how you attempt to invalidate what I have to say about Core by attempting to say that it's wrong for me to say that you should learn about Core through the direct words/deeds/beliefs of Core. You're right, I should just do like you did and cement my base beliefs on what I've read from 4th party interpretations.  

[JayJuanGee]

@JayJuanGee
I love how you attempt to invalidate what I have to say about Core by attempting to say that it's wrong for me to say that you should learn about Core through the direct words/deeds/beliefs of Core. You're right, I should just do like you did and cement my base beliefs on what I've read from 4th party interpretations.  

At this point, we are not getting anywhere and you are not even engaging in substantive discussions of the topic.

You want to bash on Core, and that does not even seem to be the topic of this thread.

We have a very likelihood that seg wit is going to pass and get locked in, but surely that is not a done deal yet.

You seem to have a beef about the 2mb portion, and the hardfork and the changing of consensus.  Those are issues that are going to go into the future, and you are suggesting that core is obstructing such, but really without giving evidence, except for saying that I should read the github and not even describing what I should look for, except maybe just to try to find some kind of evidence of an oligarchy and connections that are not allowing the presentation and serious consideration of proposals.


Anyhow it seems that we are on a decent track with this segwit portion, and maybe we are going to be able to resolve some of these other matters over the coming months too, otherwise if we cannot reach sufficient consensus on the other items then the status quo will carry on, no?  And you will complain about the status quo, without really providing specifics accept for asserting that the system is somehow biased against you and people with proposals like yours?

[ComputerGenie]

...We have a very likelihood that seg wit is going to pass and get locked in, but surely that is not a done deal yet...

That is the crux of the topic, and the part that you fail to realistically grasp. There is no "if", "maybe", or "likelihood"; Core wants segwit, thus Bitcoin will have segwit (if Core didn't want segwit, then Bitcoin would never have segwit*).


*Again, as reference/"evidence" I direct you to read the actual logs of Core discussions on how things are adopted into/by Core

[JayJuanGee]

...We have a very likelihood that seg wit is going to pass and get locked in, but surely that is not a done deal yet...

That is the crux of the topic, and the part that you fail to realistically grasp. There is no "if", "maybe", or "likelihood"; Core wants segwit, thus Bitcoin will have segwit (if Core didn't want segwit, then Bitcoin would never have segwit*).


*Again, as reference/"evidence" I direct you to read the actual logs of Core discussions on how things are adopted into/by Core

I don't have to read some amorphous and non-specific "logs" in order to know that a large number of core developers have been passionately pushing for the signaling and support of segwit since at least late 2016 - probably before the ability to signal the code was even released.

So, I don't understand why you would want to argue about whether I understand that particular point that Core is pushing for segwit.. that is a given, no?

Signaling of segwit has been largely between about 24% and 36% for many months before this segwit2x and New York agreement came about.  So, even though core devs largely did not participate in the NYA or even agree to various terms of segwit2x, it appears that segwit2x is going to provide some momentum to accomplish consensus at the 95% level, which certainly seems to be what a large number of core devs (maybe all of them) wants.

Like I said before segwit is not a done deal, so we will have to see how it plays out and make sure that the 95% consensus evolves through these various signalings and running of various codes.

Regarding your assertion that there is some kind of fatalism or that seg wit is going to get done no matter what, you seem to be overstating the case. Sure there may be other cards up the sleeves of core devs to play in the even that seg wit were not to get activated through this segwit2x thing-a-majigie, but that does not seem to matter too much, if we get seg wit prior to the need for them to play any such other cards, if they were to exist. 


So, again, I am not sure about the direction in which we are going in this conversation, now, because you seem to want to make amorphous claims about the alleged corruption of Core devs while not dealing with certain actual facts, including that seg wit is likely to be activated in the coming months, implemented and locked in through the efforts of a broad swath of the community - and that is how 95% consensus is looking to be possible through the various proposals that have been made (including BIP9 and BIP148 and BIP141) and how they have been reconciled through BIP 91 in order to get us a decent likelihood of segwit getting locked in - apart from unnecessary negative accusations about Core, right?

So, segwit is the first part, and seems to have been agreed to, and then the other parts might be a bit more difficult and ongoing regarding 2mb increase, hardfork and/or attempts at changes to consensus.  What else do we have to talk about?  Some of this is playing out, and you seem to just want to attack core, and I am losing track of what additional points you want to make maybe in regards to these other aspects, besides the segwit portion?