Bitcoin Forum
August 17, 2022, 05:23:45 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 23.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: So it looks like Cobra is planning on passing on the Bitcoin.org domain  (Read 2142 times)
mindrust
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2618
Merit: 2237



View Profile
May 25, 2020, 08:49:12 AM
 #61

seg2x was a corporate takeover. Funnily they see same thing in blockstream.  Cool

You can't really escape corps in the end.




▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄    ▄▄▄▄                  ▄▄▄   ▄▄▄▄▄        ▄▄▄▄▄   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄    ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
 ▀████████████████▄  ████                 █████   ▀████▄    ▄████▀  ▄██████████████   ████████████▀  ▄█████████████▀  ▄█████████████▄
              ▀████  ████               ▄███▀███▄   ▀████▄▄████▀               ████   ████                ████                   ▀████
   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█████  ████              ████   ████    ▀██████▀      ██████████████▄   ████████████▀       ████       ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████▀
   ██████████████▀   ████            ▄███▀     ▀███▄    ████        ████        ████  ████                ████       ██████████████▀
   ████              ████████████▀  ████   ██████████   ████        ████████████████  █████████████▀      ████       ████      ▀████▄
   ▀▀▀▀              ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀   ▀▀▀▀   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▀▀▀▀        ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀        ▀▀▀▀       ▀▀▀▀        ▀▀▀▀▀

#1 CRYPTO CASINO & SPORTSBOOK
▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄
▄█▀▄▄▀▀█▀▀▀█▀▀▄▄▀█▄
▄█▀▄▀▀█ ▄█▄▄▄█▄ █▀▀▄▀█▄
▄▀▄██▄▄▀▀▄▄ ▀▄▄▀▀▄▄██▄▀▄
▄█ ████ ███▌▐███ ████ █▄
█ ████ ████ ███ ████ ████ █
█ ████ ███ ▄▄▄▄▄ ███ ████ █
█ ████ █▀▄█▀▀▀▀▀█▄▀█ ████ █
▀█ ████ ██ ▄▀▀▀▄ ██ ████ █▀
▀▄▀██▀█▄▄ ▀▀▀▀▀ ▄▄█▀██▀▄▀
▀█▄▀█▄▄▀▀█████▀▀▄▄█▀▄█▀
▀█▄▀▀██▄▄▄▄▄██▀▀▄█▀
▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀
OFFICIAL
BETTING
PARTNER
.INSTANT & FAST..
.TRANSACTION.....
.PROVABLY FAIR..
......& SECURE......
.24/7 CUSTOMER.
.............SUPPORT.
BTC      |      ETH      |      LTC      |      XRP      |      XMR      |      BNB      |     more
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1660713825
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1660713825

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1660713825
Reply with quote  #2

1660713825
Report to moderator
1660713825
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1660713825

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1660713825
Reply with quote  #2

1660713825
Report to moderator
hv_
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2352
Merit: 1054

Clean Code and Scale


View Profile WWW
May 25, 2020, 08:57:40 AM
 #62

seg2x was a corporate takeover. Funnily they see same thing in blockstream.  Cool

You can't really escape corps in the end.

on protocol level / layer - yes u can

  >  stick to the only legit one (open up pure capacity is not a protocol layer issue)

On app layer - best economics will win

Carpe diem  -  understand the White Paper and mine honest.
Fix real world issues: Check out b-vote.com
The simple way is the genius way - Satoshi's Rules: humana veris _
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 3080
Merit: 6907


ESG, KYC & AML are attack vectors on Bitcoin


View Profile
May 25, 2020, 09:09:00 AM
Merited by Room101 (2)
 #63

[edited out]
and btw: esp for SEGVID-17 there wasn't - only in 'agree' of the 2x - you remember ?

I remember both segwit and 2x being proposed and various packages, but only the segwit portion passed with overwhelming consensus.

The 2x portion was neither able to gain considerable consensus and also resulted in a forkening into bcash... 

There was another hardfork that was proposed to try to force the 2x into bitcoin after segwit had already passed to get added, but that proposal was largely withdrawn several weeks before it was going to go into effect when the supporters of such nonsense saw that they could not get large support.

[edited out]

I broadly agree with all of the above, changing the protocol should always be difficult. And I guess everything becomes political in the end. Smaller block are better, as I said, it's just before Roger and his moronic minions took one side of the debate, there was more consensus that at some point an increase would be needed. Looking back I guess it was not very clear we would win the argument against an unelected cabal instituting segwit2x without community agreement, so the entrenched positions were a necessity. It's just now the political situation is such that layer two kind of has to work, because there is no going back. So the side we all picked back then is the side we have to stick with, because any kind of conversation now seems to be a signal you are siding with the idiots, rather than a separate argument. Hopefully BCH will reach its logical price floor of 0 at some point, which might make things easier.

I'm sure if it was reasonable to increase the blocks or to hardfork, then it will happen.  I doubt that people in bitcoin are so opposed for the mere sake of being opposed, but of course, if there are some folks who are not really looking at the technicals and the practicality, and they are merely just trying to break bitcoin with disingenuine  assertions, then they are going to receive greater hostility from bitcoiners.. and bitcoiners will be in a defensive posture, as you seem to be suggesting is the case. 

Roger ver and his ilk were not really concerned about technicalities.  They were just using that as a ruse to whine about bitcoin governance.  Roger ver wanted more of a say in bitcoin.. and he was getting laughed at by developers and told that he was dumb and he took it personally.. but that did not make him smart about anything because he thought that he should get more say because he had a lot of bitcoins and he was bitcoin jesus who evangelized bitcoin blah blah blah, but in reality he acted just as a stubborn child that just wants to get his way and NOT to work with others or to even try to get consensus because he was smarter than everyone else (in his mind)... it was probably inevitable that he was going to find a reason to split or to fight no matter what.. that seems to be a personality flaw that he has.

Of course, we have to deal with ESG, KYC & AML, but each of them are attack vectors on Bitcoin to be avoided or minimized.

Put BTC here: 35EVP8EePt8dyvKHaB7bXaRmKLm22YgRCA

How much alt coin diversification is necessary? if you are investing in Bitcoin, then perhaps 0%?
DooMAD
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3150
Merit: 2419


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile WWW
May 25, 2020, 10:53:48 AM
Merited by JayJuanGee (1)
 #64

and btw: esp for SEGVID-17 there wasn't - only in 'agree' of the 2x - you remember ?

No.  I don't remember that.  Because that's not what happened.  I remember BIP91 activating with consensus.  Here is the BIP in question.  Notice a total lack of reference to 2x.  SegWit was agreed by the network.  2x was only "agreed" by some businessmen who suddenly realised they didn't have the influence they thought they had.  Stop attempting to re-write history with made-up nonsense, unless you want to wipe out what little credibility you have left.



In an attempt to get the topic somewhat back to the bitcoin.org domain itself, there has been a fair amount of discussion about concerns over Lightning and how it isn't ready for the average user yet.  On that note, I quite like the "helper" on the Choose your wallet page.  If you tick the box that says you're a new user, rather than an experienced one, it doesn't recommend Lightning enabled wallets:



I think this is a responsible approach and would hope that, whoever does gain ownership of the domain, that feature remains in place until such a time as Lightning had matured to a suitable level.

Let's try not to allow the trolls to further derail the topic with their revisionist fairytales.

hv_
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2352
Merit: 1054

Clean Code and Scale


View Profile WWW
May 25, 2020, 10:57:31 AM
 #65

without the NYA and the 2X - Bespoke Agreement

Segwit would ve never happened

Cobra knows that


it is history now - but it won't matter much in the future, cause btc cannot curate that one

Bitcoin can - its genes are too anti fragile

Carpe diem  -  understand the White Paper and mine honest.
Fix real world issues: Check out b-vote.com
The simple way is the genius way - Satoshi's Rules: humana veris _
pooya87
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2814
Merit: 7222


Days of petrodollar are numbered


View Profile
May 25, 2020, 04:02:29 PM
 #66

My reasons for opposing segwit2x was not technical
this is exactly what i have been trying to discourage people from doing!
i can't clarify it any more than this, sorry. and now we are going off-topic.

Cøbra
Bitcoin.org domain administrator
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 123
Merit: 469


View Profile WWW
May 25, 2020, 05:20:01 PM
Merited by LoyceV (6), mindrust (5), fabiorem (1)
 #67

The legacy of the block size debate is it exposed the politics behind how Bitcoin actually works. I remember when I got into Bitcoin, just like everybody else, the first thing I admired was how this system was designed without anybody in control. Nobody could freeze your transactions, nobody could charge you back, there was no central authority. Bitcoin doesn't care whether you're a murderer, saint, North Korean dictator, or a 12 year old. Bitcoin just is, it works for everybody without passing judgement. When you start out, it's really easy to see Bitcoin as being something that exists in objective reality, just like every other piece of software, and even physical gold. The problem though is that this isn't true; Bitcoin is subjective money. Satoshi didn't fully understand the implications of his invention, and that's not a dig at him either because most inventors don't.

Let's take physical gold as an example. Gold exists in objective reality, whether you ascribe value to gold or not is up to you, but were somebody to give you physical gold and you had the tools to verify the purity of it, you can't deny the reality that it is gold. Gold is the most objective form of money, but even fiat money is quite objective. With fiat money, the value and trust comes from government, this leaves less room for interpretation and subjectivity than you might think. Even though Donald Trump might be president, if you were to take the angriest liberal alive, somebody who doesn't even believe in the legitimacy of his presidency and government, even he won't refuse dollars because "those dollars were printed by Trump, his government is illegitimate, therefore those aren't real dollars, sorry". Even if this liberal has lost trust in the legitimacy of the head of the executive branch of his government (the branch that prints money), the power of fiat money is so strong that it blocks him from following his beliefs down to their logical conclusion, he still holds on to the collective delusion of the dollar, to do otherwise wouldn't even enter his mind.

For whatever reason, Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general behave more subjectively. Perhaps it's because these systems are individualistic; you verify the blockchain yourself, you don't trust anybody else to do it for you, why would you? Bitcoin exists as an idea in your head, each Bitcoin user is different with respect to changes they would accept or reject. Almost all Bitcoiners would reject the 21 million limit being increased; but there exist gray areas like block size, where the tolerance and threshold for change is really subjective and varies wildly from user to user. I'd probably be OK with the block size being doubled. You might not be. You might want it reduced. Let's hypothesize there was a change that split the community cleanly in half: for whatever reason, one half of the community accepted the change, the other half rejected. This then led to a blockchain fork, with equal amounts of hash power, would anybody be able to objectively say which fork was the real Bitcoin?

Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV are years ahead of us with some of these issues, rather than ignore the politics present in these systems, as Bitcoin is doing, they seem to be fully embracing it. Economically this will damage them short term, but by figuring this stuff out, they are learning some important lessons. With the BSV fork, we saw that it's possible for a divergent chain to be valued more than it's competing origin chain, even if it's only temporary. Bitcoiners feel a natural disgust when they look at what's going on in these communities, especially when they hear about Bitcoin Cash developers taxing miners and stuff like that, but the disgust they feel is coming from a place of insecurity, because these divergent Bitcoin spin-offs are exposing what was always hidden under the surface of Bitcoin too. It's not something that can be articulated well, but after the block size debate it was something that could be felt; a feeling that Bitcoin was a lot more subjective and therefore more vulnerable than we'd hoped.

Bitcoin is not apolitical money, it's hyperpoliticized money. Throughout history, when people in communities disagreed with each other, they simply killed each other until a winner emerged. This proved to be a less than ideal way to resolve disputes, so over time more democratic ways of deciding things emerged. Whether through violence or through voting, politics is played in a very narrowly defined battlefield and everybody intuitively understands that it doesn't go beyond its scope. These cryptocurrency systems bring politics into money itself, in ways that aren't predictable and for which there aren't any parallels in thousands of years of human history. Imagine a world in which a democrat and republican can't exchange value with one another, without an intermediate neutral form of money, because they disagree on money itself, one is using democrat dollars and the other is using GOP bucks -- both with totally different ideals and visions.

If I were to put you in a time machine and drop you off into the year 2120, and assuming Bitcoin still existed (or something claiming to be it). You would have to spend days researching every split and fork, every upgrade, the history of tradeoffs behind every dispute, etc, to finally settle on which variant of Bitcoin running at that time was the real Bitcoin. People still hate Roger Ver, years after Bitcoin Cash forked off because he's exploiting Bitcoin's biggest flaw, the fact that it can be subjectively redefined; Roger Ver is just the first, if Bitcoin really catches on, over the next few decades Bitcoin will be redefined again and again by some of the most powerful people and entities in the world, and just like those obscure BCH/BSV guys, one day we too might find ourselves on some dark lonely corner of the internet screaming into nothingness about "the real Bitcoin", to a world that doesn't care.
mindrust
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2618
Merit: 2237



View Profile
May 25, 2020, 06:26:47 PM
Last edit: May 25, 2020, 06:47:40 PM by mindrust
Merited by Cøbra (5)
 #68

^That's why I said: "Maybe it is a failed project."

These thoughts didn't come to me instantly. It started few months ago while I was translating nullius' famous post (Bitcoin: The Social Phenomenon) to Turkish. It is a brilliant post but something, something bugged the fuck out of me. Let's see this part for example:



Newbies and people who never used Bitcoin may wonder why Bitcoiners get angry about fake-“Bitcoin” forks.

Some of that anger is principled outrage.  There are people who deeply believe in Bitcoin’s principles of financial freedom.  Some of them have devoted to those principles their careers, their passions—they have devoted their lives to Bitcoin!  Of course, they will be angry when they see Bitcoin attacked by liars and scammers promoting fake-“Bitcoin”.

... replace bitcoin with bcash now...

Part of the genius of Bitcoin is that it turns greed and selfishness toward the common good:  If you have Bitcoin, you want to protect your savings, so you must stand against people who try to devalue it.  Otherwise, you risk losing your savings.

Everybody who has Bitcoin, has an incentive to protect Bitcoin.  If you have Bitcoin, then you are making the world a better place when you defend the value of your own money.  You can’t avoid protecting Bitcoin, if you want to protect your own money.  And if you have Bitcoin, then an attack against Bitcoin is not only an attack against some idealistic theory:  It’s a financial attack on you, personally!  Of course, you should be angry about that.

It hit me like lightning... This exact same thing could be said for the eth (or bch) holders too. If you fight to protect your wealth, they'll fight back to protect theirs. In the end, biggest troll army with the most funding will win.

Gold has no problems like that. Why teh fuck should I fight an army of trolls to protect my wealth everyday?

Nobody can call gold silver. With proper inspection methods, you can prove it that it is gold. Nobody can deny it. It is the ultimate truth.

Like carrying my life savings in that new risky tech wasn't stressful enough, now I have to be a fucking rambo. Fuck this.




▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄    ▄▄▄▄                  ▄▄▄   ▄▄▄▄▄        ▄▄▄▄▄   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄    ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
 ▀████████████████▄  ████                 █████   ▀████▄    ▄████▀  ▄██████████████   ████████████▀  ▄█████████████▀  ▄█████████████▄
              ▀████  ████               ▄███▀███▄   ▀████▄▄████▀               ████   ████                ████                   ▀████
   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█████  ████              ████   ████    ▀██████▀      ██████████████▄   ████████████▀       ████       ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████▀
   ██████████████▀   ████            ▄███▀     ▀███▄    ████        ████        ████  ████                ████       ██████████████▀
   ████              ████████████▀  ████   ██████████   ████        ████████████████  █████████████▀      ████       ████      ▀████▄
   ▀▀▀▀              ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀   ▀▀▀▀   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▀▀▀▀        ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀        ▀▀▀▀       ▀▀▀▀        ▀▀▀▀▀

#1 CRYPTO CASINO & SPORTSBOOK
▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄
▄█▀▄▄▀▀█▀▀▀█▀▀▄▄▀█▄
▄█▀▄▀▀█ ▄█▄▄▄█▄ █▀▀▄▀█▄
▄▀▄██▄▄▀▀▄▄ ▀▄▄▀▀▄▄██▄▀▄
▄█ ████ ███▌▐███ ████ █▄
█ ████ ████ ███ ████ ████ █
█ ████ ███ ▄▄▄▄▄ ███ ████ █
█ ████ █▀▄█▀▀▀▀▀█▄▀█ ████ █
▀█ ████ ██ ▄▀▀▀▄ ██ ████ █▀
▀▄▀██▀█▄▄ ▀▀▀▀▀ ▄▄█▀██▀▄▀
▀█▄▀█▄▄▀▀█████▀▀▄▄█▀▄█▀
▀█▄▀▀██▄▄▄▄▄██▀▀▄█▀
▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀
OFFICIAL
BETTING
PARTNER
.INSTANT & FAST..
.TRANSACTION.....
.PROVABLY FAIR..
......& SECURE......
.24/7 CUSTOMER.
.............SUPPORT.
BTC      |      ETH      |      LTC      |      XRP      |      XMR      |      BNB      |     more
john_doe
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 137
Merit: 100


View Profile
May 25, 2020, 07:01:13 PM
 #69

Part of the genius of Bitcoin is that it turns greed and selfishness toward the common good:  If you have Bitcoin, you want to protect your savings, so you must stand against people who try to devalue it.  Otherwise, you risk losing your savings.

Everybody who has Bitcoin, has an incentive to protect Bitcoin.  If you have Bitcoin, then you are making the world a better place when you defend the value of your own money.  You can’t avoid protecting Bitcoin, if you want to protect your own money.  And if you have Bitcoin, then an attack against Bitcoin is not only an attack against some idealistic theory:  It’s a financial attack on you, personally!  Of course, you should be angry about that.
Why would anyone attack ("try to devalue") other coins in the first place? Isn't it possible for all coins to co-exist peacefully?

If you believe my post is helpful and you feel like donating a small amount, please use this address: 165i2m6WNT3v4KPWbFesKhceaXf2shcUDR
mindrust
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2618
Merit: 2237



View Profile
May 25, 2020, 07:02:05 PM
 #70

Part of the genius of Bitcoin is that it turns greed and selfishness toward the common good:  If you have Bitcoin, you want to protect your savings, so you must stand against people who try to devalue it.  Otherwise, you risk losing your savings.

Everybody who has Bitcoin, has an incentive to protect Bitcoin.  If you have Bitcoin, then you are making the world a better place when you defend the value of your own money.  You can’t avoid protecting Bitcoin, if you want to protect your own money.  And if you have Bitcoin, then an attack against Bitcoin is not only an attack against some idealistic theory:  It’s a financial attack on you, personally!  Of course, you should be angry about that.
Why would anyone attack ("try to devalue") other coins in the first place? Isn't it possible for all coins to co-exist peacefully?

Your loss is their gain.

Just like FIAT's loss is BTC's gain, BTC's loss is Altcoins' gain.

The difference is, you cannot rename USD or gold into something else.




▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄    ▄▄▄▄                  ▄▄▄   ▄▄▄▄▄        ▄▄▄▄▄   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄    ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
 ▀████████████████▄  ████                 █████   ▀████▄    ▄████▀  ▄██████████████   ████████████▀  ▄█████████████▀  ▄█████████████▄
              ▀████  ████               ▄███▀███▄   ▀████▄▄████▀               ████   ████                ████                   ▀████
   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█████  ████              ████   ████    ▀██████▀      ██████████████▄   ████████████▀       ████       ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████▀
   ██████████████▀   ████            ▄███▀     ▀███▄    ████        ████        ████  ████                ████       ██████████████▀
   ████              ████████████▀  ████   ██████████   ████        ████████████████  █████████████▀      ████       ████      ▀████▄
   ▀▀▀▀              ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀   ▀▀▀▀   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀  ▀▀▀▀        ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀        ▀▀▀▀       ▀▀▀▀        ▀▀▀▀▀

#1 CRYPTO CASINO & SPORTSBOOK
▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄
▄█▀▄▄▀▀█▀▀▀█▀▀▄▄▀█▄
▄█▀▄▀▀█ ▄█▄▄▄█▄ █▀▀▄▀█▄
▄▀▄██▄▄▀▀▄▄ ▀▄▄▀▀▄▄██▄▀▄
▄█ ████ ███▌▐███ ████ █▄
█ ████ ████ ███ ████ ████ █
█ ████ ███ ▄▄▄▄▄ ███ ████ █
█ ████ █▀▄█▀▀▀▀▀█▄▀█ ████ █
▀█ ████ ██ ▄▀▀▀▄ ██ ████ █▀
▀▄▀██▀█▄▄ ▀▀▀▀▀ ▄▄█▀██▀▄▀
▀█▄▀█▄▄▀▀█████▀▀▄▄█▀▄█▀
▀█▄▀▀██▄▄▄▄▄██▀▀▄█▀
▀▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀▀
OFFICIAL
BETTING
PARTNER
.INSTANT & FAST..
.TRANSACTION.....
.PROVABLY FAIR..
......& SECURE......
.24/7 CUSTOMER.
.............SUPPORT.
BTC      |      ETH      |      LTC      |      XRP      |      XMR      |      BNB      |     more
john_doe
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 137
Merit: 100


View Profile
May 25, 2020, 07:16:01 PM
 #71

Your loss is their gain.

Just like FIAT's loss is BTC's gain, BTC's loss is Altcoins' gain.

The difference is, you cannot rename USD or gold into something else.
I'm not sure how that fits with the fact that one could very well support multiple coins for their different features, for example Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash and Monero and gold and ...

If you believe my post is helpful and you feel like donating a small amount, please use this address: 165i2m6WNT3v4KPWbFesKhceaXf2shcUDR
jojo69
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2548
Merit: 3573


1/21000000 , the only math you need to know


View Profile
May 25, 2020, 07:17:03 PM
 #72

same as it ever was

This is not some pseudoeconomic post-modern Libertarian cult, it's an un-led, crowd-sourced mega startup organized around mutual self-interest where problems, whether of the theoretical or purely practical variety, are treated as temporary and, ultimately, solvable.
Censorship of e-gold was easy. Censorship of Bitcoin will be… entertaining.
serveria.com
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624
Merit: 1035


Balls of steel. This time is different.


View Profile WWW
May 25, 2020, 07:23:48 PM
 #73

Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV are years ahead of us

The moment you regret there's no facepalm emoji on bitcointalk....  Grin

Dying bear, fearful,
cold, alone, gazes sadly
at the rising moon
©strawbs
Globb0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2660
Merit: 2029


Free spirit


View Profile
May 25, 2020, 07:32:10 PM
Merited by Hueristic (1), nutildah (1)
 #74

What a bunch of numpties.


My sentiment is and has always remained, if your other thing is so much better why do you need to use the name and website of an existing project? riding on its coat tails and feigning ownership?

If your alternative project is so good? call it cheese coin or Mega coin or whatever tf you want.

But no you all want something from bitcoin, a free lunch.


I am full in Monero, it is not a clone of bitcoin it stands on its own technology and has its own name. That is an honourable project.


You people lying and deceiving new arrivers to the scene with your "this the true bitcoin", just see bitcoin.org it says so are likely to be the ones to unravel and destroy it all. The biggest lie of all? its what satoshi would have wanted. You cant know that unless you are satoshi and lets face it he was far more classy than that.



If it all goes to zero? then you all deserve it. REAP WHAT YOU SOW!


In that case Ill have a double cheeseburger thanks.

 


Cøbra
Bitcoin.org domain administrator
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 123
Merit: 469


View Profile WWW
May 25, 2020, 07:36:04 PM
 #75

It hit me like lightning... This exact same thing could be said for the eth (or bch) holders too. If you fight to protect your wealth, they'll fight back too. In the end, biggest troll army with the most funding will win.

Gold has no problems like that. Why teh fuck should I fight an army of trolls to protect my wealth everyday?

Nobody can call gold silver. With proper inspection methods, you can prove it that it is gold. Nobody can deny it. It is the ultimate truth.

Agreed, gold is ideal if you want to escape the problem of subjective human beings, and assuming you can store it yourself securely for many years.

People react one of two ways to this problem in Bitcoin, they either fall into an extreme "no hard fork" position where they believe no hard fork change in Bitcoin is ever justified, or they fall into what can be best described as advocating for some vague "social defense" of Bitcoin should anyone attempt to redefine it. The problem is these attacks don't come from an external source, they come from other Bitcoiners disagreeing with each other. Some of the people that enjoyed reading nullius' post and agreed with it might have a future disagreement with each other, at which point they won't see themselves as allies but as enemies and each person will believe he's defending Bitcoin. Furthermore a soft fork can change Bitcoin just as much as a hard fork can, and many Bitcoiners might reject a chain if it introduced certain soft fork changes (e.g. a tax on miners to fund development can be implemented as a soft fork).

The only way we can reasonably deal with this is by never changing. No soft forks. No hard forks. No consensus change ever again. And let the protocol sit and calcify so nobody could ever change it. That all but guarantees Bitcoin will become a failure though, and it's impossible. Technology needs to keep up with the times and continue to be maintained and improved on so bugs and security issues get resolved. But each time Bitcoin undergoes a change, we risk it turning into a political quagmire and exposing the cracks hidden in the system. We all remember the dirty drama with Segwit and UASF.
Globb0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2660
Merit: 2029


Free spirit


View Profile
May 25, 2020, 07:43:00 PM
Merited by JayJuanGee (1), BitcoinFX (1), infofront (1), nutildah (1)
 #76

and who made you the judge of it all? what's right or wrong?

Truth even? is a nominalisation.

Satoshi allowed for an evolution. Why would anyone want it to be set in concrete?

Almost all good software is built with iterations and continual improvement.


Are people arguing for mud huts? its what the original humans wanted. Screw your central heating and internet connection!




hv_
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2352
Merit: 1054

Clean Code and Scale


View Profile WWW
May 25, 2020, 08:20:21 PM
 #77

and who made you the judge of it all? what's right or wrong?

Truth even? is a nominalisation.

Satoshi allowed for an evolution. Why would anyone want it to be set in concrete?

Almost all good software is built with iterations and continual improvement.


Are people arguing for mud huts? its what the original humans wanted. Screw your central heating and internet connection!






Funny, core devs / Blockstream are the most central thing ( core! ) in Bitcoin, so easy to execute hidden agendas via and it happened

Satoshi is the only powers that be, and he predicted datacenters and specialization, but that is maximum open and stays decenalized just enough by open competition - for that you need most stable rules, like in game theory described, nobody should have powers to ever change the (economic) rules - btc did that...

Everything that comes not by Satoshi and changes core protocol ( tx consensus) / economics is evil per definition



Carpe diem  -  understand the White Paper and mine honest.
Fix real world issues: Check out b-vote.com
The simple way is the genius way - Satoshi's Rules: humana veris _
Globb0
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2660
Merit: 2029


Free spirit


View Profile
May 25, 2020, 08:33:40 PM
Merited by JayJuanGee (1)
 #78

Blah blah blah you are not Satoshi. Stop talking on his behalf.


JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 3080
Merit: 6907


ESG, KYC & AML are attack vectors on Bitcoin


View Profile
May 25, 2020, 08:53:07 PM
Merited by infofront (1), Last of the V8s (1)
 #79

The legacy of the block size debate is it exposed the politics behind how Bitcoin actually works. I remember when I got into Bitcoin, just like everybody else, the first thing I admired was how this system was designed without anybody in control. Nobody could freeze your transactions, nobody could charge you back, there was no central authority. Bitcoin doesn't care whether you're a murderer, saint, North Korean dictator, or a 12 year old. Bitcoin just is, it works for everybody without passing judgement. When you start out, it's really easy to see Bitcoin as being something that exists in objective reality, just like every other piece of software, and even physical gold. The problem though is that this isn't true; Bitcoin is subjective money. Satoshi didn't fully understand the implications of his invention, and that's not a dig at him either because most inventors don't.

Hey Cøbra, mucho gusto conocerte.  I know that we have had interactions previously, but I am getting to know that you have a lot of nonsense in your thinking.

I will admit that frequently when I kind of get to know a poster, I will not even read his/her response before I start creating my response.  That way I do not get mixed up with all of the muddle, and I can just start to respond to each point.  Here, I had to read just past your third paragraph before I recognized that something is wrong with your thinking in a variety of ways... not that you are totally bonkers, but surely something is wrong, and I do not expect to change your thinking, so in that regard, I am not really responding to you personally, but just the variety of your ideas, which I mentioned that I recognized are surely devolving into various levels of nonsense.

In other words, for the good of the members and maybe even the public who might read this thread, your nonsense ideas should not be allowed to stand, even though you have had a lot of authority and power in the bitcoin community.

I did bold your above statement: "Satoshi didn't fully understand the implications of his invention, and that's not a dig at him either because most inventors don't."  Maybe that statement was a reason that I had to read a few paragraphs to try to figure out if you were saying something that might be important in regards to some kind of Satoshi misunderstanding, and you did not.

Think about it.  Your statement is a bit crazy.  I accept the idea that no inventor is necessarily going to be able to see several steps ahead in order to know how his/her invention is going to play out or how it is going to be used, but surely Satoshi knew enough about what he was inventing to be able to understand what it was attempting to achieve, so your criticisms of Satoshi's purported lackings are presumptuous at best, and really show your own seemingly lack of understanding of the topic in which you are trying to spout out knowledge.

No way am i saying that you are any kind of dummy, Cøbra, but surely from your statements in regards to Satoshi's supposed lackings in understanding, you are really overstating the case in a way that just seems to be motivated to make your own nonsense points and to try to show that you know something material that Satoshi had not accounted for, and your post really fails in that direction.


Let's take physical gold as an example. Gold exists in objective reality, whether you ascribe value to gold or not is up to you, but were somebody to give you physical gold and you had the tools to verify the purity of it, you can't deny the reality that it is gold. Gold is the most objective form of money, but even fiat money is quite objective. With fiat money, the value and trust comes from government, this leaves less room for interpretation and subjectivity than you might think. Even though Donald Trump might be president, if you were to take the angriest liberal alive, somebody who doesn't even believe in the legitimacy of his presidency and government, even he won't refuse dollars because "those dollars were printed by Trump, his government is illegitimate, therefore those aren't real dollars, sorry". Even if this liberal has lost trust in the legitimacy of the head of the executive branch of his government (the branch that prints money), the power of fiat money is so strong that it blocks him from following his beliefs down to their logical conclusion, he still holds on to the collective delusion of the dollar, to do otherwise wouldn't even enter his mind.

Can't really disagree with what you are saying here, yet you seem to be describing a kind of objective value rather than subjective value.  Currencies achieve values that are systematic and does not really matter what the individual assigns to it or the various actors within those systems.

For whatever reason, Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general behave more subjectively.

Makes little sense.  Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are not really behaving differently, except that you are trying to make a distinction that does not have a difference.

Of course, we can attempt to get to considerations regarding which of the crypto currencies are the most sound of moneys, and that leaves us with bitcoin, and then the category of cryptocurrencies are either a bunch of lame imitations (snake oils) or they are trying to provide another kind of value that may or may not be as recognized as bitcoin with the passage of time.

So there remains a need to differentiate bitcoin from other cryptocurrencies in making this kind of assessment in order to recognize both how it compares to gold and fiat and how it differs from gold and fiat in that bitcoin is more sound than both gold and fiat.. Of course, there is a bit of a spectrum with gold being more sound than fiat and less sound than bitcoin, but some of these matters are sometimes questioned too and speculated on, and maybe that is where you are trying to play out the subjective matters to some extent, which surely cause individuals to act in different ways in trying to recognize the differing values of different asset classes - including assessing how present value might diverge from future value and how others might be getting their calculations right or wrong in regards to future value.


Perhaps it's because these systems are individualistic; you verify the blockchain yourself, you don't trust anybody else to do it for you, why would you?

Let's just stick with bitcoin.. fuck trying to equate other cryptos... so in regards to bitcoin, you are presuming everyone is running node?  Many people are not running a node, but they are trusting that there are enough nodes to verify... so I am not verifying, but sure, if I want to increase my no need to trust, then I can run a node to do that.

I doubt that whether any of us is running a node or not is very relevant in terms of our ability to attempt to assess the soundness of the money, bitcoin compared with fiat and gold and other assets such as equities.... bitcoin is more sound, and sure some of that soundness comes from the fact that a lot of individuals can run nodes and make sure... so bitcoin becomes assessed as being sound than gold or fiat.. so we would rather spend our fiat or gold first before spending our bitcoin.. (that is if we have a choice and options and apportionment of different assets in our various wallets).



Bitcoin exists as an idea in your head, each Bitcoin user is different with respect to changes they would accept or reject.
Almost all Bitcoiners would reject the 21 million limit being increased; but there exist gray areas like block size, where the tolerance and threshold for change is really subjective and varies wildly from user to user. I'd probably be OK with the block size being doubled. You might not be. You might want it reduced.

In the end, who gives any shits about your various subjective values.  You either choose to use bitcoin or you do not, and you can also choose your level of allocation, it is not an all or nothing decision.   I might have 25% of my value in bitcoin, and the other 75% in a variety of other assets.. maybe a couple percent in shitcoins and gold and maybe I have several assets that are tied to fiat values in various ways which might include having a few percentage points in actual cash for a kind of floating balance which is going to vary from person to person depending on a variety of individual reasons including how far they need to project out their expenses (whether a few months for someone who lives with mom and dad or maybe 18 to 24 months for someone who has a variety of complicated business arrangements or needs to support various families), and I might have some property (real estate), so if I have less confidence in bitcoin or where I perceive it to be going then I will reduce my allocations in it or decide NOT allocate into it or to use it versus some other assets or currencies.


Let's hypothesize there was a change that split the community cleanly in half: for whatever reason, one half of the community accepted the change, the other half rejected. This then led to a blockchain fork, with equal amounts of hash power, would anybody be able to objectively say which fork was the real Bitcoin?

Again.  A big so fucking what?  If half of the people use one bitcoin and the other half uses the other bitcoin, then who cares?  People can choose to use what they want, and if there is no real perceivable difference in their soundness of money including network effects, then maybe some kind of balance will be reached there in which people allocate 50/50 in each.  Most likely with the passage of time, however, one might show itself to have a more sound money aspect which would likely cause more people to allocate towards the asset with the more sound money aspect.. but in the end, who fucking cares if they gravitate or not or if they recognize one for being more sound or not, and even if they pick the one with the less sound money aspect for utility reasons or something, I don't see why it matters.  Individuals can decide to allocate however they like, even if they are wrong from an objective viewpoint.


Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV are years ahead of us with some of these issues,

First of all, those both should be referred to as bcash variants, and second of all they are NOT ahead of bitcoin in any regard because they are just inadequate imitations (snake oils) that are trying to pose as if they have the same or similar qualities as bitcoin when they do not.  They have very few network effects, which also seems to be reflected in why they have way lower prices than bitcoin to the extent that either one might also be artificially pumped up by bullshit smoke and mirror nonsense.



rather than ignore the politics present in these systems, as Bitcoin is doing, they seem to be fully embracing it. Economically this will damage them short term, but by figuring this stuff out, they are learning some important lessons. With the BSV fork, we saw that it's possible for a divergent chain to be valued more than it's competing origin chain, even if it's only temporary.

I doubt that whatever jockying of position in the various bcash camps teach much to bitcoin, except maybe what not to do, but sure, can give you some benefit of the doubt in that sometimes there might be some things that can be learned about preferred ways to attempt to approach some issues that might be divisive... and sometimes some variation of a scenario might come up in one of the bcashes but it could also come up in some other shitcoin, too.... sure the bcashes have some greater similarities to bitcoin, which could cause greater similarities in some regards, so i doubt that their various ongoing dramas need to be completely ignored.

At the same time, sometimes it might be a better practice to just ignore some of the drama of the bcashes, too... because sometimes like a misbehaving child, their behaviors might improved if they are ignored because they might be seeking attention without any real constructive or meaningful purpose... so whether to ignore completely or to attempt to learn from the child might not be a blanket rule.


Bitcoiners feel a natural disgust when they look at what's going on in these communities, especially when they hear about Bitcoin Cash developers taxing miners and stuff like that, but the disgust they feel is coming from a place of insecurity,

Might not be disgust.. just a need to point out the drama and to denigrate it for what it is... sure if something can be learned from some of it, then no problema...


because these divergent Bitcoin spin-offs are exposing what was always hidden under the surface of Bitcoin too. It's not something that can be articulated well, but after the block size debate it was something that could be felt; a feeling that Bitcoin was a lot more subjective and therefore more vulnerable than we'd hoped.

Sure, of course bitcoin is not immuned from potential drama, and even some of the similar drama that happens in the bcash camps could end up happening in bitcoin, perhaps in some situations.


Bitcoin is not apolitical money, it's hyperpoliticized money.

Too strong of a statement, Cøbra.  You want to point out and exaggerate political attributes in bitcoin, when there seems to be a striving to remove a lot of the political, and sure probably the political cannot be removed completely, but that does not make bitcoin hyperpoliticized merely because you are striving to ascribe such a label to it.


Throughout history, when people in communities disagreed with each other, they simply killed each other until a winner emerged. This proved to be a less than ideal way to resolve disputes, so over time more democratic ways of deciding things emerged. Whether through violence or through voting, politics is played in a very narrowly defined battlefield and everybody intuitively understands that it doesn't go beyond its scope. These cryptocurrency systems bring politics into money itself, in ways that aren't predictable and for which there aren't any parallels in thousands of years of human history. Imagine a world in which a democrat and republican can't exchange value with one another, without an intermediate neutral form of money, because they disagree on money itself, one is using democrat dollars and the other is using GOP bucks -- both with totally different ideals and visions.

You are not really describing bitcoin here.  Sure people are still going to be political, but bitcoin is not really seeming to address the political aspects, but instead just creating a common money that has incentives that people can act upon.  It is not really clear how a lot of the politics are going to play out and if bitcoin can cause incentives for differing people to take a lot of the politics out of money.  Just have to see how some of it plays out in terms of ongoing incentives and if bitcoin can maybe allow for some bridging that could take many decades to see play out.


If I were to put you in a time machine and drop you off into the year 2120, and assuming Bitcoin still existed (or something claiming to be it). You would have to spend days researching every split and fork, every upgrade, the history of tradeoffs behind every dispute, etc, to finally settle on which variant of Bitcoin running at that time was the real Bitcoin.

Why?  And who cares?  Some of this will work itself out, and probably many of the more than 2,000 shitcoins of today will not exist or there will be some other shitcoins.

Maybe bitcoin will be the most soundest of money in 2120 or maybe there might still be competing variants?  How does 2120 affect what any of us might do today?  Are we buying bitcoin or not, today?  If so, how are we allocating ourselves in bitcoin, today?  How about how we spend our time?  Same thing.  Are we spending or time on bitcoin or some shitcoin?  We can make these choices today, and of course, there is a theoretical trajectory regarding how bitcoin might progress towards 2120, but seems a bit dumbass to be making our decisions of today based on what might play out in 2120 or even what might play out in 2070.  Does not mean that we are blind or that we do not consider the future, but instead that we should attempt to be more grounded in our choices because if we cannot even make it to 2021 because we make stupid ass bad choices, then we might end up dead by 2022, so there remains some need for balancing in our aspirations and making sure that we are in a meaningful allocation in the present based on our own particulars which includes our cash flow, our other investments, our view of bitcoin as compared with other assets, our risk tolerance, our timeline, our time, skills and abilities to learn, trade and tweak our allocations from time to time.


People still hate Roger Ver, years after Bitcoin Cash forked off because he's exploiting Bitcoin's biggest flaw, the fact that it can be subjectively redefined; Roger Ver is just the first, if Bitcoin really catches on, over the next few decades Bitcoin will be redefined again and again by some of the most powerful people and entities in the world, and just like those obscure BCH/BSV guys, one day we too might find ourselves on some dark lonely corner of the internet screaming into nothingness about "the real Bitcoin", to a world that doesn't care.

I doubt people are giving as much weight to some supposed hate of Roger Ver as you would like to believe, and throughout this post, you, Cøbra, seem to be attempting to ascribe and fantasize way more about political nonsense than what really exists.  Might be a good thing that you are retiring your Cøbra persona, but I doubt that you are retiring your inclinations to overly politicize matters.  I hope you are able to make a good decision regarding bitcoin.org, whether you stay onto the project or figure out a way to fairly pass it on, and surely I don't seem to understand some of the personal politics of the matter including some of the politics of the contributors.  I do understand that legally it is probably cleaner to pass onto one or two individuals rather than a group, and sometimes there can be greater confidence in the character of a person because even if you were to pass the domain onto an entity (or institution), frequently entities can become dominated by changes in the personal... and gosh none of us are going to live forever, either, so understandably, even passing onto an individual has problems, too.

Of course, we have to deal with ESG, KYC & AML, but each of them are attack vectors on Bitcoin to be avoided or minimized.

Put BTC here: 35EVP8EePt8dyvKHaB7bXaRmKLm22YgRCA

How much alt coin diversification is necessary? if you are investing in Bitcoin, then perhaps 0%?
JayJuanGee
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 3080
Merit: 6907


ESG, KYC & AML are attack vectors on Bitcoin


View Profile
May 25, 2020, 09:33:47 PM
 #80

Part of the genius of Bitcoin is that it turns greed and selfishness toward the common good:  If you have Bitcoin, you want to protect your savings, so you must stand against people who try to devalue it.  Otherwise, you risk losing your savings.

Everybody who has Bitcoin, has an incentive to protect Bitcoin.  If you have Bitcoin, then you are making the world a better place when you defend the value of your own money.  You can’t avoid protecting Bitcoin, if you want to protect your own money.  And if you have Bitcoin, then an attack against Bitcoin is not only an attack against some idealistic theory:  It’s a financial attack on you, personally!  Of course, you should be angry about that.
Why would anyone attack ("try to devalue") other coins in the first place? Isn't it possible for all coins to co-exist peacefully?

I doubt that bitcoiners are engaging in as much of a battle as is being ascribed to it.

Sure bitcoiners might be resentful about some of the shitcoins, but ultimately, many are allowed to do whatever they want with a kind of theory that they are likely to die anyhow.. Ultimately, king daddy does not need to prove itself because value will gravitate and flow into it, even if it might take 50 years or longer to play out.

I am full in Monero, it is not a clone of bitcoin it stands on its own technology and has its own name. That is an honourable project.

You didn't go there.

Can't help ur lil selfie, can you Globb0.

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

The only way we can reasonably deal with this is by never changing. No soft forks. No hard forks. No consensus change ever again. And let the protocol sit and calcify so nobody could ever change it.

Good point, Cøbra.  The default that bitcoin is not broken, so if it does not change, then it is not a bad place to be.  If your proposal is not good enough to get overwhelming consensus, then I suppose bitcoin just will stay the same.. and that is not a bad place to be.


That all but guarantees Bitcoin will become a failure though, and it's impossible.

Wrong presumption.

Bitcoin is already a success, and likely if it does not change for 100 years, it will still be a success.  That's a big presumption because people and institutions are going to continue to build on bitcoin. Maybe they have to build second layer, but bitcoin is not broken, even if it stays the same forever and ever from here on out.

 
Technology needs to keep up with the times and continue to be maintained and improved on so bugs and security issues get resolved.

Sure... if there is a bug, then it needs to get fixed.  We should be able to reach overwhelming consensus for that.  do you have any examples in which some critical bug was not fixed, resolved or nipped in the bud as soon as it is found.  Let's say the bug is discovered several blocks later, then that will be a BIG deal.. so yeah, those kinds of bugs are likely to be resolved.  At least, that is my tentative ongoing presumption.
 
But each time Bitcoin undergoes a change, we risk it turning into a political quagmire and exposing the cracks hidden in the system. We all remember the dirty drama with Segwit and UASF.

That all seemed to work out pretty well, even though there was a lot of drama at the time.  I was there and I followed a lot of it.  So, maybe my experience was different than yours, but it seemed to have worked out pretty well in the end in terms of getting segwit and not getting that 2x bullshit.  And, also not having to resort to something less than overwhelming consensus to get segwit passed.

Surely, various people are going to get different lessons from that experience, and hopefully, it can help with future situations like that, if they were to happen and maybe how to deal with those kinds of situations similarly or differently depending on how any such future similar situation might present itself. 

The only way we can reasonably deal with this is by never changing. No soft forks. No hard forks. No consensus change ever again. And let the protocol sit and calcify so nobody could ever change it.

Good point about the never changing, Cøbra, even though you seemed to have meant it as a negative, when in fact the never changing would be a positive... a feature and not a bug, in bitcoin. 

Accordingly, the default in bitcoin is that it is not broken, and in that regard, satoshi made a powerful thing.   Don't be fucking with it.  Sure there have been some changes along the way, but those changes in bitcoin have come through overwhelming consensus... which mean that the changes are bitcoin.

In other words, if bitcoin does not change and it calcifies right here in its current state, then it is not a bad place to be. 

If your proposal (or the proposal of anyone else) is not good enough to get overwhelming consensus, then bitcoin is just not going to change.  It will stay the same.. and that is not a bad place to be.  Right?

That all but guarantees Bitcoin will become a failure though, and it's impossible.

Wrong presumption.  Bitcoin is not a failure. Why u so negative?

Bitcoin is already a success, and likely if it does not change for 100 years, it will still be a success.  That's a big presumption because people and institutions are going to continue to build on bitcoin as it is and as they expect it to be. Maybe they have to build various second layer solutions, but bitcoin is not broken, currently, and we cannot just presume away that bitcoin is going to become broken.. or that some change has to go through immediately or else bitcoin is going to become broken.. blah blah blah..  even if bitcoin stays the same forever and ever from here on out like you postulate, you and I reach a different conclusion about whether bitcoin is successful or a failure.

 
Technology needs to keep up with the times and continue to be maintained and improved on so bugs and security issues get resolved.

Sure... if there is a bug, then it needs to get fixed.  We should be able to reach overwhelming consensus for that.  No?  do you have any examples in which some critical bug or needed change was not fixed, resolved or nipped in the bud as soon as it was found.  Let's say the bug is discovered several blocks later, then that will be a BIG deal because more difficult to get a roll back and the blockchain does not tend to stop, right?.. so yeah, those kinds of BIG bugs are likely to be resolved... and if they are found in a kind of late state, then they are going to have more complications.. for sure.. but at least my tentative ongoing presumption would be that there would be efforts to try to resolve bugs or nip bugs in the bud to the extent that they are identified.. maybe another reason to be really conservative with the introduction of any new code, too.
 
But each time Bitcoin undergoes a change, we risk it turning into a political quagmire and exposing the cracks hidden in the system. We all remember the dirty drama with Segwit and UASF.

That all seemed to work out pretty well, even though there was a lot of drama at the time.  I was there and I followed a lot of it.  So, maybe my experience was different than yours, but it seemed to have worked out pretty well in the end in terms of getting segwit and not getting that 2x bullshit.  And, also not having to resort to something less than overwhelming consensus to get segwit passed.

Surely, various people are going to get different lessons from that experience, and hopefully, it can help with future situations like that, if they were to happen and maybe how to deal with those kinds of situations similarly or differently depending on how any such future similar situation might present itself. 

Of course, we have to deal with ESG, KYC & AML, but each of them are attack vectors on Bitcoin to be avoided or minimized.

Put BTC here: 35EVP8EePt8dyvKHaB7bXaRmKLm22YgRCA

How much alt coin diversification is necessary? if you are investing in Bitcoin, then perhaps 0%?
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!