what is core gonna get up to?

[European Central Bank]

we now have bcash and segwit 2x in the pipeline.

i'm far from convinced that the 2mb hard fork will happen in the time period they've nominated but let's see. if it doesn't there's a good chance miners will push hard towards bcash.

both options rely on bypassing core which is kinda pathetic as they're being bypassed with their own work.

if it does pass then what will core do? will they continue to contribute to something they disapprove of or toss their cookies and go get jobs elsewhere?

obviously it's a very loose grouping of people but the main ethos has been pretty consistent.

[1715568269]

1715568269

[1715568269]

1715568269

[1715568269]

1715568269

[1715568269]

1715568269

[manselr]

we now have bcash and segwit 2x in the pipeline.

i'm far from convinced that the 2mb hard fork will happen in the time period they've nominated but let's see.

if it does pass then what will core do? will they continue to contribute to something they disapprove of or toss their cookies and go get jobs elsewhere?

obviously it's a very loose grouping of people but the main ethos has been pretty consistent.

The real question here is... what are you going to do with your bitcoins, if the main branch is now developed by Jeff Garzik, which is an obvious US government agent trying to put his blockchain spying shit at a protocol level, and in general other amateur coders?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6n9grc/jeff_garzik_wants_you_to_connect_to_his_bitcoin/

I can't trust my money if the main client is developed by idiots that for starters, can't understand the fact that rushing a hardfork in 3 months is just dumb.

[European Central Bank]

The real question here is... what are you going to do with your bitcoins, if the main branch is now developed by Jeff Garzik, which is an obvious US government agent trying to put his blockchain spying shit at a protocol level, and in general other amateur coders?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6n9grc/jeff_garzik_wants_you_to_connect_to_his_bitcoin/

I can't trust my money if the main client is developed by idiots that for starters, can't understand the fact that rushing a hardfork in 3 months is just dumb.

keep a little in there but put most of it into other things.

i've no idea about garzik's motives or plans, but nothing put together in three months by a closed shop will cut it.

[hatshepsut93]

we now have bcash and segwit 2x in the pipeline.

i'm far from convinced that the 2mb hard fork will happen in the time period they've nominated but let's see. if it doesn't there's a good chance miners will push hard towards bcash.

both options rely on bypassing core which is kinda pathetic as they're being bypassed with their own work.

if it does pass then what will core do? will they continue to contribute to something they disapprove of or toss their cookies and go get jobs elsewhere?

obviously it's a very loose grouping of people but the main ethos has been pretty consistent.

You are assuming that 2x hard fork won't cause chain split, but miners in such situations are still following the economic majority. Very small percentage of miners switched to Bcash now, so if community will pledge its support to legacy chain, miners will stay on it, because it's more profitable. The situation will become clear a few weeks before the fork day, when major services will start issuing their statements regarding potential chain split. A chain split when both chains fight for the succession of "Bitcoin" name can be very hurtful economically and we can easily end up with a huge crash in overall value, if NYA supporters realize that, they might get convinced to drop their 2x fork.

[European Central Bank]

miners are all on board for 2x. looks like places like bitpay are too.

exchanges probably don't care.

the only things holding it back are whether the code is good enough.
and maybe even that won't be enough to stop it.

if it activates then I don't see who's gonna split other than irrelevant minnows.

which still leaves the question of what core will do.

[manselr]

we now have bcash and segwit 2x in the pipeline.

i'm far from convinced that the 2mb hard fork will happen in the time period they've nominated but let's see. if it doesn't there's a good chance miners will push hard towards bcash.

both options rely on bypassing core which is kinda pathetic as they're being bypassed with their own work.

if it does pass then what will core do? will they continue to contribute to something they disapprove of or toss their cookies and go get jobs elsewhere?

obviously it's a very loose grouping of people but the main ethos has been pretty consistent.

You are assuming that 2x hard fork won't cause chain split, but miners in such situations are still following the economic majority. Very small percentage of miners switched to Bcash now, so if community will pledge its support to legacy chain, miners will stay on it, because it's more profitable. The situation will become clear a few weeks before the fork day, when major services will start issuing their statements regarding potential chain split. A chain split when both chains fight for the succession of "Bitcoin" name can be very hurtful economically and we can easily end up with a huge crash in overall value, if NYA supporters realize that, they might get convinced to drop their 2x fork.

There's too much ego involved in this industry. If the intelligent guys tell you your idea is fucking stupid, then you stay quiet and let the engineers do their job. But all these CEO-of-corporation think they are smarter than 100 people in a decentralized open source code project, so they hire their own coders and pretend to fire the people that have kept this thing safe and have developed all the worthwhile technology.

This is a fight for power. All they want is control over the main branch. They can't buy Core, but they can create their own branch with interconnected agendas. Their end goal is get rid of full nodes, so nobody can run full nodes except them. It's a more subtle "Bitcoin Cash".

An increase of blocksize in a year, well planned etc, that is considerable. In 3 months right after segwit? dumbest thing ever.

[franky1]

core need to man up or shut up

1. if they want to cry that others are 'stealing' their code.. then dont cry if there are errors, just admit core had errors
2. sue coinbase employee's that stole core code too, such as litecoin. and all the other altcoins. or even other bitcoin businesses such as BTCC
3. dont cry that others are forking their code.. accept that any alterations makes it no longer their code.

hopefully the 3 options above should reduce their exaggerated drama and reddit fud scripts.

next
if another altcoin can handle 2mb of data.. then shut up with the 'stick with 1mb base block coz internet cant handle more'  fud
if core think 4mb serialised weight is network safe. then atleast shut up saying 2mb blocks are bad..

then just get on and program it.. not waste 3 years doing nothing at all while pretending it takes 3 years to do anything.
its like sitting on your ass for 3 years drinking pepsi and then finally stand up and grab a fruit juice. just to pretend it takes 3 years to make a fruit juice drink

if core actually bothered to make a 2mb base block after the late 2015 table / roadmap plan.. there would be no quarrel..

[pereira4]

core need to man up or shut up

1. if they want to cry that others ar forking their code.. then dont cry if there are errors, its just admitting core as errors

There are no errors. There are errors only when amateur coders like everyone involved in BCash and btc1 and Unlimited etc, add their own lines.

2. dont cry that others are forking their code.. accept that any alterations makes it no longer their code.

No one is crying. But you can't hide facts: The real talent is in code. Amateurs are copy-pasting 99.999999999%, adding some lines and fucking shit up.

PS: We don't need 2MB. No one uses BTC beyond speculation, buying drugs, and the most important: Cold storage.

Centralizing the network because Roger Ver spammed the network is a dumb idea.

Let's talk in one year about a blocksize increase, not in 3 months.

Good look to the hard forkers. Once people are allowed to put their BCC in exchanges, you will need it.

[franky1]

No one uses BTC beyond speculation, buying drugs, and the most important: Cold storage.

your missing the whole point.

also you revealed your hand. you think bitcoin is useless.. so its time you go play in fiat land because you dont care or understand it

Centralizing the network because Roger Ver spammed the network is a dumb idea.

1. actually if you check the timing.. the spam events occured when core wanted their bips activated and wanted to scare people into thinking activations are needed to reduce spam
2. actually if you check the code. core have done more to dilute the 'full node' groups to cause more centralisation, down to being a cludge of non full nodes and less actual full nodes
3. even you are trying to promote centralisation. by REKTing diversity

but anyway all you care about is fiat value, so you go play in fiat land. you have missed the subtle points i was making about what core should be concentrating on.. rather then the drama they cause

[pereira4]

your missing the whole point.

also you revealed your hand. you think bitcoin is useless.. so its time you go play in fiat land because you dont care or understand it

I didn't reveal anything but the truth. These are the 3 main usages nowadays. And how the fuck is being able to store money and move it across borders in a decentralized manner useless?

That is the basic premise, then you build on top of that, unlike having big block sizes when you don't need to, because again, mempool shows we don't need a blocksize increase in 3 damn months. We already saw the BCash disaster. Hardfork in a planned way or not at all.

1. actually if you check the timing.. the spam events occured when core wanted their bips activated and wanted to scare people into thinking activations are needed to reduce spam
2. actually if you check the code. core have done more to dilute the 'full node' groups to cause more centralisation, down to being a cludge of non full nodes and less actual full nodes
3. even you are trying to promote centralisation. by REKTing diversity

but anyway all you care about is fiat value, so you go play in fiat land. you have missed the subtle points i was making about what core should be concentrating on.. rather then the drama they cause

1. I checked the timming and the price has always crashed when XT, Classic, Unlimited, segwit2x, Bcash camp... etc, made their move. The spam is also obvious Verconomics at work.



2. Nonsense. Conservative blocksize: everyone can run whatever node they want.

3. Nonsense. Conservative blocksize: everyone can run whatever node they want.


I obviously care about the sovereignty of bitcoin, otherwise i wouldn't argue about the blocksize, (and the sovereignty of bitcoin is linked to it's value anyway), as you can see with the price crashes everytime big block camp hits the hardfork drums.

[franky1]

you mention spam..
but when i correct your spam comment about timing.. you then meander about price... pffft.. (u failed)
you and billy need to stop reading reddit.. try real research next time

also by you using the word "conservative" just shows that you are just reading a well known and out dated FUD script, where you dont even understand the actual usage of the buzzword in reality.

go play with your fiat. i know its all you care about and waiting for the right time to exit bitcoin and return to fiat. so go.

..

core know 8mb is perfectly fine.. infact 32mb is fine, 8mb is also fine to the people who are anal.. 4mb is super anal fine.. 2mb is extreme anal and in 2015 considered the ultimate compromise just to get cores butt plug removed to move things forward.  

writing code for a 2mb base block should have begun in 2015... but even now mid 2017 core still have the 1mb base block butt plug inserted..
so dont pretend they are doing things methodically over years to test things out carefully.. when they havnt even removed the 1mb butt plug to test it out..

like i said they are gonna finally write something hopefully in 2018 and then pretend it took 2015-2018 to implement it safely.. when reality is.. do nothing for 2 years then remove the 2mb when it suits them.. much like having segwit code on an dang altcoin in 2014-2016.. and only having segwit test ready for bitcoin june to october of 2016.. (might be worth you checking beyond reddit at how 'well tested segwit is' P.S ven now segwit keypairs are not ready for bitcoin mainnet)

[franky1]

anyway.

answering OP's topic question
while remaining sheep of the BScartel. core are gonna waste time with LN and sidechains to dilute demand for full nodes. and then ramp up their 'pruned SPV is the future' so that they can control the full nodes (network consensus vote) leaving the sheep in the cludgy [filtered downstream stripped] area of their tier network either running 2nd tier software or 3rd tier ln software and blame it on onchain bloat[once gmax adds more 'weight' with his CT  features] as the cause why no one is full noding anymore.


its not fud... its obvious and rational logic that can be seen by anyone who isnt a bscartel sheep