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

[gmaxwell]

Did any of you even read the comment you are supposedly outraged over?

Then use fiat. Pretty sure they'll charge you more than 0.5% for the same service.

Someone complains about the fee their wallet is assessing for a 71 input transaction-- one as large as 40 or so median sized transactions.

Luke suggests that they'd get charged more if they used fiat instead.

You can happily debate if Luke is write or wrong there (esp. if you consider the value preservation of the currency... ), but it's incorrect to say that he's just telling someone to use fiat.

[1713561417]

1713561417

[1713561417]

1713561417

[1713561417]

1713561417

[1713561417]

1713561417

[1713561417]

1713561417

[deisik]

community voices a problem.. blockstream solution: cut off tongues until no problems can be voiced. then announce that all problems must have been solved due to no one voicing problems anymore

devs should be coming up with solutions to problems not fairy tale hopes of solutions with promises of dreams coming true if everyone just goes to sleep for a couple years

Okay, community voices a problem, miners can solve the problem, as simple as it gets. So what the fuck are you talking about consensus here? And whose consensus miners need, that of developers or that of community after all? Make up you mind finally. If it is community, then you can't possibly say something like "community voices a problem" since that essentially means they are giving miners their consent to fork Bitcoin while the latter don't do anything. Or should I thus conclude that this is not what miners actually want?

And they in fact don't want to solve the problem voiced by community?

you dont understand consensus

consensus is about making BITCOIN grow in a way the community can unite around

And so what?

You already said that the community had voiced the problem. You didn't say that someone from that community complained about something (which wouldn't count as a "majority report"). As to me, that pretty much counts as consensus. Basically, the community tells miners that they should fix the problem and they already have their agreement. Other than that, you still ignore my major point, i.e. if there is a real problem as severe as some claim here (a question of life and death, so to speak), there shouldn't be any issues with reaching the consensus you talk about so much

[franky1]

Did any of you even read the comment you are supposedly outraged over?

Then use fiat. Pretty sure they'll charge you more than 0.5% for the same service.

Someone complains about the fee their wallet is assessing for a 71 input transaction-- one as large as 40 or so median sized transactions.

Luke suggests that they'd get charged more if they used fiat instead.

You can happily debate if Luke is write or wrong there (esp. if you consider the value preservation of the currency... ), but it's incorrect to say that he's just telling someone to use fiat.

Gmaxwell your the one that removed many of the fee controls.. so shut up and go make some new fee priority formulae's instead of the blockstream mantra 'just pay more or go play with fiat'

in the UK i can wire transfer money to family at NO cost!! and guess what else they receive it in seconds.
i can access funds at an ATM at NO cost!!
i can buy stuff at a grocery store at no transaction fee cost!!

yep. people buying bitcoin via localbitcoins wire transfer are not being charged "0.5%" by banks in the UK. so get your head out the sand stop trying to make bitcoin become fiat. and make bitcoin better than fiat

[franky1]

And so what?

You already said that the community had voiced the problem. You didn't say that someone from that community complained about something (which wouldn't count as a "majority report"). As to me, that pretty much counts as consensus. Basically, the community tells miners that they should fix the problem and they already have their agreement. Other than that, you still ignore my major point, i.e. if there is a real problem as severe as some claim here (a question of life and death, so to speak), there shouldn't be any issues with reaching the consensus you talk about so much

there is a problem..
there have now been 3.. yes THREE 'agreements' of a consensus... but then the blockstreamist cartel go and rip up that agreement.

also
your obsessed about miners!!
until you understand what consensus is. because its not about miners. its about nodes and miners in a symbiotic relationship. so telling miners to do X while the nodes can only do Y is not consensus.

[deisik]

until you understand what consensus is. because its not about miners. its about nodes and miners in a symbiotic relationship. so telling miners to do X while the nodes can only do Y is not consensus.

No problem with that

But it just proves that you don't see my point altogether. Basically, you say that nodes (which seem to be representing community) don't agree to what miners are allegedly screaming so loudly about (at least, that's what some dudes here are asserting). The latter necessarily means that what these miners are saying and claiming is not in fact as urgent as they want it to look. That pretty much proves that their real intents and purposes are different from what they claim (which is what my point essentially revolves around). As I said before, you can't have it both ways

[aarturka]

[franky1]

LOL

the bait of the 'cheap segwit'

2015 - blockstream: WE promise you 75% discount
... blockstream remove fee control mechanisms, raise price 200x (2000%)
2018 - blockstream: WE promised you 75% discount, but never promised you 75% cheaper than 2015's prices

[franky1]

until you understand what consensus is. because its not about miners. its about nodes and miners in a symbiotic relationship. so telling miners to do X while the nodes can only do Y is not consensus.

No problem with that

But it just proves that you don't see my point altogether. Basically, you say that nodes (which seem to be representing community) don't agree to what miners are allegedly screaming so loudly about (at least, that's what some dudes here are asserting). The latter necessarily means that what these miners are saying and claiming is not in fact as urgent as they want it to look. That pretty much proves that their real intents and purposes are different from what they claim (which is what my point essentially revolves around). As I said before, you can't have it both ways

nooo

the community is everyone.

its not just miners screaming for more tx capacity.. please stick with reality.

pools cant just make big blocks because user nodes are not set to accept them.
users nodes cant accept big blocks, because half a dozen devs wont get their head out the sand and code a clean version for users and pools

[deisik]

until you understand what consensus is. because its not about miners. its about nodes and miners in a symbiotic relationship. so telling miners to do X while the nodes can only do Y is not consensus.

No problem with that

But it just proves that you don't see my point altogether. Basically, you say that nodes (which seem to be representing community) don't agree to what miners are allegedly screaming so loudly about (at least, that's what some dudes here are asserting). The latter necessarily means that what these miners are saying and claiming is not in fact as urgent as they want it to look. That pretty much proves that their real intents and purposes are different from what they claim (which is what my point essentially revolves around). As I said before, you can't have it both ways

nooo

the community is everyone

Superb, this is where you get cornered

You have just given the miners a perfect reason to loudly and vocally scream about virtually anything. Since the community is everyone (and don't forget about his mangy dog) but no one will ever be happy with everything, the miners can safely claim whatever they want about how much they care for Bitcoin and everything, and then go on squeezing profits as per usual without any fear that their proposals will ever get implemented for real. BU is a glaringly conspicuous example of just that, no one meant it to kick off for real

[Decentradical]

We can mince words about how to define 'the community'.   

'Miners' and 'users' are two different groups of people and their interests are completely contrary to one another. 

Proof of Work is perverse. Bitcoin is the fat bloated canary in the coalmine and when it dies the miners move on moving on to throttle the next coin they can mine, control and suck dry, like a swarm of locusts. 

Why do you think so many coins are desperately trying to move to Proof of Stake?

[franky1]

Superb, this is where you got cornered

You have just given the miners a perfect reason to loudly and vocally scream about virtually anything. Since the community is everyone (and don't forget about his mangy dog) but no one will ever be happy with everything, the miners can safely claim whatever they want about how much they care for Bitcoin and everything, and then go on squeezing profits as per usual without any fear that their proposals will ever get implemented for real. BU is a glaringly conspicuous example of just that, no one meant it to kick off for real

you seem obsessed about miners

lol

if you were to imagine bitcoin as a company.. miners are just the secretary. they just get paid for collating the data in a certain format.
nodes are the bosses who decide what is acceptable and devs are the employee's that make the product that the bosses want

yes we the users are the bosses, we verify the secretaries work and trash the secretaries work thats not right. we decide what should happen to bitcoin and the devs (employees) listen and do what the bosses say

but right now the devs are on strike. they want to take bitcoin in a new direction. refusing to make products we want and only wanting to make what they think is best.

they tried to bypass the bosses consent thinking that if they got the secretary to sign off on the paperwork that the devs/employees could take over the company.. but no..

now the devs are trying to sack the secretary by trying to sway the bosses to presume the strike is the secretaries fault.. and then to give into employee(dev) demands to change the companies product into what the devs want to produce. but that wont really work either.

the ultimate solution is the obstructionist devs should just go get another job for another company(coin) and the the bosses(nodes) can find other employee's to make the products the bosses want.

...
we should not be treating devs as gods. they are temporary and yes miners are temporary too..
many devs hav moved onto other projects and many more will in the future.. blockstream dont care about bitcoin. they just want to fill their C.V with certain work history to impress their next boss (hyperledger). they are even willing to jump over to competing companies(litecoin). but that should not mean we give into their whims just to keep them around a few months longer. especially with their actions that have caused issues over the last 3 years.

yes devs removed fee control mechanisms, ignored orders to make real bigger blocks, ignored orders to truly get txsigops under control, they just done some cludgy math workaround patches rather then real clean work.

segwit is not a solution. its still a patchwork of cludge to send bitcoin in circles with the same empty HOPE of 7tx/s with no actual promise/guarantee of achieving.
while leaving the backdoor open to mess with bitcoin more. doing all of that while pointing their fingers at the secretary(pool)..

its time bitcoin remembers its manifesto/ethos and purpose for existing.. and let the blockstreamist devs go. rather then promote them into bing the boss

[franky1]

We can mince words about how to define 'the community'.   

'Miners' and 'users' are two different groups of people and their interests are completely contrary to one another. 

Proof of Work is perverse. Bitcoin is the fat bloated canary in the coalmine and when it dies the miners move on moving on to throttle the next coin they can mine, control and suck dry, like a swarm of locusts. 

Why do you think so many coins are desperately trying to move to Proof of Stake?

consensus, when actually acknowledged and utilised properly, works
but devs avoid consensus.

also those wanting PoS dont care about longevity/security. they just hope for a slice of the reward pie without doing any work. EG they dont want to be the boss validating secretaries/ reviewing devs work and they dont want the secretary to be paid better than the boss. instead they just want to be share holders getting weekly dividends, all for the cost of signing a piece of paper

[Jordan23]

Superb, this is where you got cornered

You have just given the miners a perfect reason to loudly and vocally scream about virtually anything. Since the community is everyone (and don't forget about his mangy dog) but no one will ever be happy with everything, the miners can safely claim whatever they want about how much they care for Bitcoin and everything, and then go on squeezing profits as per usual without any fear that their proposals will ever get implemented for real. BU is a glaringly conspicuous example of just that, no one meant it to kick off for real

you seem obsessed about miners

lol

if you were to imagine bitcoin as a company.. miners are just the secretary. they just get paid for collating the data in a certain format.
nodes are the bosses who decide what is acceptable and devs are the employee's that make the product that the bosses want

yes we the users are the bosses, we verify the secretaries work and trash the secretaries work thats not right. we decide what should happen to bitcoin and the devs (employees) listen and do what the bosses say

but right now the devs are on strike. they want to take bitcoin in a new direction. refusing to make products we want and only wanting to make what they think is best.

they tried to bypass the bosses consent thinking that if they got the secretary to sign off on the paperwork that the devs/employees could take over the company.. but no..

now the devs are trying to sack the secretary by trying to sway the bosses to presume the strike is the secretaries fault.. and then to give into employee(dev) demands to change the companies product into what the devs want to produce. but that wont really work either.

the ultimate solution is the obstructionist devs should just go get another job for another company(coin) and the the bosses(nodes) can find other employee's to make the products the bosses want.

...
we should not be treating devs as gods. they are temporary and yes miners are temporary too..
many devs hav moved onto other projects and many more will in the future.. blockstream dont care about bitcoin. they just want to fill their C.V with certain work history to impress their next boss (hyperledger). they are even willing to jump over to competing companies(litecoin). but that should not mean we give into their whims just to keep them around a few months longer. especially with their actions that have caused issues over the last 3 years.

yes devs removed fee control mechanisms, ignored orders to make real bigger blocks, ignored orders to truly get txsigops under control, they just done some cludgy math workaround patches rather then real clean work.

segwit is not a solution. its still a patchwork of cludge to send bitcoin in circles with the same empty HOPE of 7tx/s with no actual promise/guarantee of achieving.
while leaving the backdoor open to mess with bitcoin more. doing all of that while pointing their fingers at the secretary(pool)..

its time bitcoin remembers its manifesto/ethos and purpose for existing.. and let the blockstreamist devs go. rather then promote them into bing the boss

This is last the girl needing to be calling out obsession. You're pathetically obsessed. Look at all your post. Seriously go get laid. At least you didn't blame racism this time.

[The One]

This is something I am worried about, if this continues and there is no suitable direction, the bitcoin may be left behind, and the other altcoin throne. Currently, bitcoin is in the development process, it should not get into any trouble. Conversely, altcoin is growing so quickly, it surprised me.

firstly, dont worry about price.. or market cap drama. thats all just ups and downs that will always occur, anyone can make an alt with 5 trillion coins premined, sell 1 coin on an exchange for just $1 and cause that altcoin to get a $5trillion market cap.

devs can be ass-hats.. the sooner they change their ways the better. i just wish blockstream would hurry up and jump ship to hyper ledger so the real bitcoin passionate devs can get on with improving bitcoin without the puppet strings holding them up

what does concern most and can significantly change the paradigm is if bitpay/coinbase switched their merchant tools from bitcoin to something else.. which many of the DCG cartel are thinking litecoin would be the option if it came down to it.

in short if you can no longer buy real world items from the thousands of merchants that accept bitcoin currently, because it all switched over to another coin.. then bitcoin will get affected

Perhaps that's the intention by known/unknown forces wanting to destroy Bitcoin by stiffling its capacity and scaling. Until they get their way.

[dothebeats]

Idk about you but Lukejr for me seemed to be one of those guys who has the capability to make changes in a very desperate manner but is somehow arrogant and wants to make changes for his personal agenda. Coming from one of the main devs of the code, why the need to express his irritation to the people who only want to use their money wisely? The people who advocates changes for bitcoin are also the ones stalling the development all in all. Nice.

[The One]

Did any of you even read the comment you are supposedly outraged over?

Then use fiat. Pretty sure they'll charge you more than 0.5% for the same service.

Someone complains about the fee their wallet is assessing for a 71 input transaction-- one as large as 40 or so median sized transactions.

Luke suggests that they'd get charged more if they used fiat instead.

You can happily debate if Luke is write or wrong there (esp. if you consider the value preservation of the currency... ), but it's incorrect to say that he's just telling someone to use fiat.

Gmaxwell your the one that removed many of the fee controls.. so shut up and go make some new fee priority formulae's instead of the blockstream mantra 'just pay more or go play with fiat'

in the UK i can wire transfer money to family at NO cost!! and guess what else they receive it in seconds.
i can access funds at an ATM at NO cost!!
i can buy stuff at a grocery store at no transaction fee cost!!

yep. people buying bitcoin via localbitcoins wire transfer are not being charged "0.5%" by banks in the UK. so get your head out the sand stop trying to make bitcoin become fiat. and make bitcoin better than fiat

Agree.
Agree depending on the ATM.
Disagree as transaction cost are added on the cost of good/services. One pays indirectly... sorry, playing semantics here.

[Decentradical]

We can mince words about how to define 'the community'.  

'Miners' and 'users' are two different groups of people and their interests are completely contrary to one another.  

Proof of Work is perverse. Bitcoin is the fat bloated canary in the coalmine and when it dies the miners move on moving on to throttle the next coin they can mine, control and suck dry, like a swarm of locusts.  

Why do you think so many coins are desperately trying to move to Proof of Stake?

consensus, when actually acknowledged and utilised properly, works
but devs avoid consensus.

also those wanting PoS dont care about longevity/security. they just hope for a slice of the reward pie without doing any work. EG they dont want to be the boss validating secretaries/ reviewing devs work and they dont want the secretary to be paid better than the boss. instead they just want to be share holders getting weekly dividends, all for the cost of signing a piece of paper

Why would a secretary be paid more than a boss, especially for doing work that a boss could simply automate? Where's the logic in that?

Miners aren't doing any important work. That's an illusion created by the difficulty arms race they're caught up in. A few individuals with industrial scale gear having a complete monopoly on a whole currency. Those aren't secretaries, they're  more like the Federal Reserve.

You actually said it yourself. It's the nodes that do everything. Mining is just a wasteful, exclusive occupation that give those with factory-sized mining gear control of everything.

With Proof of Stake, everyone can run a full node if they want to. The equipment and energy costs are about as expensive as running a small ventilator to air your room. This also means that anyone who wants 'dividends' on their coins, can get them, all in equal proportion to the coins they own. Rich wallets get 1%, small wallets gets. There's no competition, wallets aren't in an arms race with each other and most important of all, those who secure the network are also the same people that actually use the network. Lobbying for higher fees would only shoot themselves in their own foot. Everyone wants the smallest transaction fees possible.

Cheap and fast transaction fees are the driving force of any economy. It allows for higher liquidity, competition in business rather than in rent-seeking. It's what allowed capitalism to defeat autocratic regimes with ease. And the same will one day happen with antiquated systems like proof of work.


For real though, a company that has secretaries striking up ALL of the profit is pretty ass backwards and won't survive long.

[25hashcoin]

Did any of you even read the comment you are supposedly outraged over?

Then use fiat. Pretty sure they'll charge you more than 0.5% for the same service.

Someone complains about the fee their wallet is assessing for a 71 input transaction-- one as large as 40 or so median sized transactions.

Luke suggests that they'd get charged more if they used fiat instead.

You can happily debate if Luke is write or wrong there (esp. if you consider the value preservation of the currency... ), but it's incorrect to say that he's just telling someone to use fiat.

Stop trying to overthrow bitcoin for your shitty Blockstream profits. You are literally killing bitcoin. Stop wasting time with damage control on forums and do something worthwhile for once.

[25hashcoin]

Idk about you but Lukejr for me seemed to be one of those guys who has the capability to make changes in a very desperate manner but is somehow arrogant and wants to make changes for his personal agenda. Coming from one of the main devs of the code, why the need to express his irritation to the people who only want to use their money wisely? The people who advocates changes for bitcoin are also the ones stalling the development all in all. Nice.

Go to reddit. All Lukejr, Gmaxwell, Adam Back do is play damage control for Blockstream. Pathetic. They are responsible for crippling bitcoin. Time to fork away from toxic Blockstream/Core.

[Kabul]

Superb, this is where you got cornered

You have just given the miners a perfect reason to loudly and vocally scream about virtually anything. Since the community is everyone (and don't forget about his mangy dog) but no one will ever be happy with everything, the miners can safely claim whatever they want about how much they care for Bitcoin and everything, and then go on squeezing profits as per usual without any fear that their proposals will ever get implemented for real. BU is a glaringly conspicuous example of just that, no one meant it to kick off for real

you seem obsessed about miners

lol

if you were to imagine bitcoin as a company.. miners are just the secretary. they just get paid for collating the data in a certain format.
nodes are the bosses who decide what is acceptable and devs are the employee's that make the product that the bosses want

yes we the users are the bosses, we verify the secretaries work and trash the secretaries work thats not right. we decide what should happen to bitcoin and the devs (employees) listen and do what the bosses say

but right now the devs are on strike. they want to take bitcoin in a new direction. refusing to make products we want and only wanting to make what they think is best.

they tried to bypass the bosses consent thinking that if they got the secretary to sign off on the paperwork that the devs/employees could take over the company.. but no..

now the devs are trying to sack the secretary by trying to sway the bosses to presume the strike is the secretaries fault.. and then to give into employee(dev) demands to change the companies product into what the devs want to produce. but that wont really work either.

the ultimate solution is the obstructionist devs should just go get another job for another company(coin) and the the bosses(nodes) can find other employee's to make the products the bosses want.

...
we should not be treating devs as gods. they are temporary and yes miners are temporary too..
many devs hav moved onto other projects and many more will in the future.. blockstream dont care about bitcoin. they just want to fill their C.V with certain work history to impress their next boss (hyperledger). they are even willing to jump over to competing companies(litecoin). but that should not mean we give into their whims just to keep them around a few months longer. especially with their actions that have caused issues over the last 3 years.

yes devs removed fee control mechanisms, ignored orders to make real bigger blocks, ignored orders to truly get txsigops under control, they just done some cludgy math workaround patches rather then real clean work.

segwit is not a solution. its still a patchwork of cludge to send bitcoin in circles with the same empty HOPE of 7tx/s with no actual promise/guarantee of achieving.
while leaving the backdoor open to mess with bitcoin more. doing all of that while pointing their fingers at the secretary(pool)..

its time bitcoin remembers its manifesto/ethos and purpose for existing.. and let the blockstreamist devs go. rather then promote them into bing the boss

so that means we can not trust  bitcoin anymore, right? we should move on to the new cryptocurrency or something that can replace bitcoin as a new type of online payment and online currency. Am I correct?