[SHOCK] Core dev and Blockstream employee tells bitcoin users to use fiat!

[franky1]

Then why are most mining pools supporting Segwit and the high fees? They either support it, or they don't really care about it, and prefer short term profits for long term detriment.

68%   say nay/oppose
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-2k.png

ignore the barry silbert closed door meetings. thats just whistles in the wind from the same cartel..

And this is usually this is most businesses's Achiles heel. They just want to make money now, while don't care about the huge problems they will be facing 5 years from now. It is this that I am pointing out.

pools have planned for the next few years... once you do research and stop relying on the reddit stuff that echo chambers in their cabin fever psychological small box.. you se the clearer picture

All businesses should be planning for the long term. But at it looks like they are just doing everything they can just to kick the can down the road. The so called "economic majority" already chose small blocks. So there is really nothing to talk about.

Exchanges, Mining Pools, Merchants, are all in on it. They just want profits now, but not care about the future of Bitcoin.

"economic majority.. pffft

thats more buzzwording from the same cartel.. all they have is 60-80 signatures. and a few of them are repeats of the same guys that try to sign for as many subsidiaries as they own, even the subsidiaries that dont even financially handle bitcoins

[The One]

Really, who would have thought that!! Did you expect miners to mine for fun and make no profit? Perhaps you think only yourself is allowed to make a profit?

This constant attack on miners making profit is the same as workers attacking bosses for making a profit. And the workers forget that profits means more capital investment thus securing jobs.

Too many hypocritical damn socialists, green with envy, on this board.

Just chill the fuck down. I am not a socialist, and normally I have no problem with people making money.

However in this case, they put profit over the health of Bitcoin, which is detrimental for the whole community.
 
Every rational miner knows that in the long term they would make much more profits if the block size were bigger, since more transactions could go through having the network grow and having more users on board, also increasing the price further.

But in this case they are blinded by shortsighted profits, they love 10-50$ fees, but once people stop using Bitcoin, the fees and the price will go back to where it was in 2014. Then they will realize the huge mistakes that they have done.

Remember it's a race against money, they invested a lot in the ASICS, and they put all their bets on BTC price rising. If the price were to go back to 2014 levels, most of them would go bankrupt, and then who will be laughting?

they are not blind by profits...

pools did not raise the fee's or hold down the blocksize.... CORE did
core moved the fee control mechanisms
core didnt add any mechanisms to allow dynamic block size growth when the pools wer getting to the 0.75-0.999mb borders..

even now pools are doing empty blocks to get a few bits of efficiency gain just to ensure their blocks are accepted purely to get the blockreward .

its core that are finger pointing the blame at pools.

remember Luke JR found the exploit that allowed core to bypass node consensus (segwit going soft exploit).. pools did not ask to be the only electorate.

[mindphuq]

bitcoins PoW mining is not insecure nor is it exploited... asic boost is much the same as the GPU days of ATI(openCL) vs Geforce(cuda)

It's not insecure but it's not properly decentralized either. It's just totally stupid to do when there are better ways that don't need some contortions to get it running.

And calling the whole thing "mine" is already bullshit. There is no mining. Coins are not mined. Mining means you dig up dirt to get valuable raw goods out of it, or in a virtual world, you find your "ore" (coins) in a mess of complicated mathematical algorithms, that you do some work to actually calculate something valuable for the network. But that doesn't happen. "Mining" in the crypto world is more like a quiz show where the one who pushes the button first and has the correct answer get's rewarded points on his account by the quizzmaster (or jury in this kind, which is the network) for his efford and luck in being the first one who got a correct number in a lottery.

But with calling it "mining" the normie world (who don't know how PoW works) actually thinks that coins are (and need to be) produced. That there is a complicated mathematical algorithm that creates coins, which is not the case.

Creating a block for the chain is actually something a modern computer can do in seconds. You just need some kind of mechanism to select that one node that's authorized to do so. This is either by wasting energy (Proof of Work) or pure random with proving ownership of coins (Proof of Stake), or even with proving that someone burned some values (Proof of Burn) or was online for a certain amount of time (Proof of Uptime) or has the correct private key (Proof of Authority) and so on, the possibilities are endless.

But PoS in this regard is more honest and also more logical, since it doesn't seperate between those that use the network and those that maintain it.

[franky1]

...

not gonna argue about PoS/PoW
the only thing i and MANY agree on is the crappy buzzwords..

wallet.. holds money..
bitcoin wallet holds KEYS..
so should be called a keyring not a wallet

bitcoin is not a coin but a token/unit of measure. so should have been called something else..

...
but we live in a world where 'remote hosting'(back in my day)  is now called 'the cloud'  (facepalm)
but we live in a world where 'social media'(back in my day)  is now called 'facebook'  (facepalm)

do kids these days even understand what a cloud is.. what a book is

even the BS cartel... fake a node consensus(hard) as being soft by saying UASF.. to fake the ramifications of using it

[mindphuq]

do kids these days even understand what a cloud is.. what a book is

"There is no cloud - just someone else's computer." <- this is actually what some don't get either.

And yes, that the wallet holds keys that are needed to claim ownership over a certain balance is some important information as well when people learn that wallet.dat should be backuped.

[Decentradical]

Well it surely is an indication that today's technology is going over people's heads. And that's not just a matter of it being new, it's also a matter of it being genuinely more abstract and complicated than what humanity has ever had to deal with before. 

I bet most people hearing about Bitcoin believe these mining rigs are server farms for the currency. While of course they aren't. They're just a bunch of stubborn guys racing each other to the bottom, exploiting energy subsidies from developing economies and increasing the difficulty while at the same time undermining the utility of the very product they're producing. If I had a secretaries like that I'd fire them before they run the entire company into bankruptcy because people start demanding their money back. 

[Bit_Happy]

do kids these days even understand what a cloud is.. what a book is

"There is no cloud - just someone else's computer." <- this is actually what some don't get either....

Old fashioned "remote hosting" crashed (really badly) when a single hard drive went out (depending on the RAID setup, if any)
"The cloud" has some advantages, but I agree the buzzword is overused.

[mindphuq]

Well it surely is an indication that today's technology is going over people's heads. And that's not just a matter of it being new, it's also a matter of it being genuinely more abstract and complicated than what humanity has ever had to deal with before. 

I bet most people hearing about Bitcoin believe these mining rigs are server farms for the currency. While of course they aren't. They're just a bunch of stubborn guys racing each other to the bottom, exploiting energy subsidies from developing economies and increasing the difficulty while at the same time undermining the utility of the very product they're producing. If I had a secretaries like that I'd fire them before they run the entire company into bankruptcy because people start demanding their money back. 

Yes, and when people would learn, that they don't need these "server farms" that do some mathematical hocuspokus with megawatts of power to "create money" (which they don't), but could actually do it themself with a mere raspi or a notebook running a wallet, this would be great, would help to have more decentralization and more of a "people's money" as it was meant to.

[franky1]

Yes, and when people would learn, that they don't need these "server farms" that do some mathematical hocuspokus with megawatts of power to "create money" (which they don't), but could actually do it themself with a mere raspi or a notebook running a wallet, this would be great, would help to have more decentralization and more of a "people's money" as it was meant to.

then people will just sybil farm
run 10,000 raspi's from one location to eat a bigger slice if the... (no pun intended) Pie

any system can be co-opted/corrupted given the right time and desire to do it

[mindphuq]

Yes, and when people would learn, that they don't need these "server farms" that do some mathematical hocuspokus with megawatts of power to "create money" (which they don't), but could actually do it themself with a mere raspi or a notebook running a wallet, this would be great, would help to have more decentralization and more of a "people's money" as it was meant to.

then people will just sybil farm
run 10,000 raspi's from one location to eat a bigger slice if the... (no pun intended) Pie

It doesn't matter, if they have all their coins in one wallet or 10000, annual interest always remains the same.

If you had three wallets, one holds 800 coins, the other two 100 and you had an interest of 1% pa, after one year one wallet would be 808 and the other two 101. Thats the same interest as if you had 1000 coins in one: 10 coins interest pa. You just wasted more energy (to run three pie instead of 1) and money (to buy 3 pie instead of just one).

Edit: Math error

[franky1]

Yes, and when people would learn, that they don't need these "server farms" that do some mathematical hocuspokus with megawatts of power to "create money" (which they don't), but could actually do it themself with a mere raspi or a notebook running a wallet, this would be great, would help to have more decentralization and more of a "people's money" as it was meant to.

then people will just sybil farm
run 10,000 raspi's from one location to eat a bigger slice if the... (no pun intended) Pie

It doesn't matter, if they have all their coins in one wallet or 10000.

but then the system is just as 'controlled' as you are crying about bitcoin..
so changing PoW for PoS purely for the hop that the little guy gets a cut,,, last for maybe 3 weeks.. then its business as usual for the big-guns

[Velkro]

The BlockstreamCore devs do not understand the purpose of bitcoin which is peer to peer cash.
Wake Up!!!  

You wake up. U don't have computer knowledge enough to see that Bitcoin is better suited as store of value than cash.
It CAN'T scale well enough while keeping it secure and decentralised. So digital gold with lighting network extension is a way to go.

[mindphuq]

but then the system is just as 'controlled' as you are crying about bitcoin..
so changing PoW for PoS purely for the hop that the little guy gets a cut,,, last for maybe 3 weeks.. then its business as usual for the big-guns

what?
The amount of wallets don't change the total weight you have on the network. You also could run them in x VirtualBoxes and still earn the same amount of interest. Your "control" doesn't change by the number of wallets you run but only by the amount of coins you own.

[RealBitcoin]

pools have planned for the next few years... once you do research and stop relying on the reddit stuff that echo chambers in their cabin fever psychological small box.. you se the clearer picture

It's not buzzwording when all Bitcoin media and community centers echo the same thing.

You have the /r/bitcoin, and many people on this forum saying the same thing. Either they are horribly mis-informed, or this is really the route Bitcoin, as in the community wants to take.

Either way if this is what will happen, fine ,I respect the community's decision. But I won't care if it will go south. In my opinion, people should just vote with the dollar, if you don't like something, leave.


It's like if people are so stupid that if you dangle a carrot before them and drive them into the abyss, then there isn't really much you can expect from a community like this.

I thought an open minded community would be more resistant to dogmatism, but I was wrong. Humans are stupid let's face it. And I don't like to hang around closed minded people.

[Decentradical]

The whole point of PoS is to let the coins (not the wallets) determine the consensus weight.

Yes, bigger wallets would be an issue if a PoS coin isn't dispersed properly (through premines or ICO's), but if PoS had the wallet distribution of say, Bitcoin, you'd need the share of ENTIRE top 1600 wallets to get to 51% network weight. Good luck with that.

[franky1]

but then the system is just as 'controlled' as you are crying about bitcoin..
so changing PoW for PoS purely for the hope that the little guy gets a cut,,, last for maybe 3 weeks.. then its business as usual for the big-guns

what?
The amount of wallets don't change the total weight you have on the network. You also could run them in x VirtualBoxes and still earn the same amount of interest. Your "control" doesn't change by the number of wallets you run but only by the amount of coins you own.

facepalm

but in a PoS system where it randomly selects certain addresses that have atleast X coin
the big-guns can ensure they have many addresses with the minimum funds required (for V2)and also the majority of nodes to ensure they get 'picked' often.

EG some PoS coins see the flaws of PoS v1 and then add new rules like proof of resourse to prove its not just 1 guy getting selected every time... by randomising which node/address gets selected to certify a block.. hense even with PoS v2 sybil farms can counter that.

as i said
so changing PoW for PoS purely for the hope that the little guy gets a cut,,, last for maybe 3 weeks.. then its business as usual for the big-guns

..

same goes for LN
people think they can get rich just leaving the LN node on and taking a nice ct of the "hop" fee of routed payments... pfft HA. what will happen is the seed DNS will be configured so that HUBS get the most action

[RealBitcoin]

The whole point of PoS is to let the coins (not the wallets) determine the consensus weight.

Yes, bigger wallets would be an issue if a PoS coin isn't dispersed properly (through premines or ICO's), but if PoS had the wallet distribution of say, Bitcoin, you'd need the share of ENTIRE top 1600 wallets to get to 51% network weight. Good luck with that.

Exactly, after all the coins are the property of their owners, why would you let 3rd parties who might not have a single coin, determine the future of that coin.



I could just setup a FULL NODE right now, and that would give me 0.013937282% voting power in the Bitcoin network.

That would represent 2281.839721254 BTC worth of power out of the currently existing 16372200 BTC in circulation.


And obviously I don't own anything like 2281.839721254 BTC , in fact currently I own 0 BTC, a big fat 0.

So how can I have  0.013937282% voting power without actually owning  2281.839721254 BTC ? Makes no sense whatsoever.



So we should have a voting system where people vote with their coins , A.K.A  PROOF OF STAKE.

I have actually proposed something similar here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1384124.0


But everyone thought I was crazy. Well who is the crazy one now?

[Decentradical]

Yeah that's how it works. It's simple, elegant and best of all, it's a closed system. Nobody is dumping on anyone, well I guess the stakers are dumping on the non-stakers but considering staking has a negligible initial and operational cost that really is their own fault. 

[mindphuq]

facepalm

but in a PoS system where it randomly selects certain addresses that have atleast X coin
the big-guns can ensure they have many addresses with the minimum funds required and also the majority of nodes to ensure they get 'picked' often.

That's why they are not randomly selected equally just by being there no matter how much they own but randomly selected according to their balance weight. You don't get selected more often when you have 0.001 coins in 1000 wallets than when you just got 1 coin in one.

I think there are certain misconceptions about PoS in the crypto community.

[RealBitcoin]

Yeah that's how it works. It's simple, elegant and best of all, it's a closed system. Nobody is dumping on anyone, well I guess the stakers are dumping on the non-stakers but considering staking has a negligible initial and operational cost that really is their own fault. 

And the secret is that POS doesn't have to be direct, it can also be delegated, into escrow accounts like how NXT has resolved it.

So you don't have to run your your computer 24/7 just so that you can vote. You can delegate your voting power into pool.

But you can also withdraw it if you think the pool is betraying you. But at least you have a right to vote.



In this POW systems with football sized fields of ASICS, things are just so ugly that I don't even know where to begin.

A cryptocurrency has to run like a business, shareholders voting proportional to how much money they own. Otherwise it's just a circus of shills and manipulators.