Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 08:56:18 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 [1328] 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804779 times)
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
June 15, 2015, 07:19:26 PM
 #26541

Mike Hearn's infallible logic:

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34206292/

bottomline is you skeptics can disrespect him all day long but the smart among us will listen and think about the content of what he says.

Quite lengthy reply from Adam:

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34208939/

worth reding, though.

Remember this quote by Adam when the time comes that they make their proposal to change the Bitcoin protocol to enable LN and SCs.
Quote
As you can probably tell I think a unilateral fork without wide-scale consensus from the technical and business communities is a deeply inadvisable.

The bar to add LN and SC enabling protocol changes is wide-scale consensus. If a small number of participants disagree, it doesn't happen by their own logic. Additionally these protocol changes significantly change what Bitcoin fundamentally is much more than a simple 20MB blocksize change.

Something tells me though that their tune will be different then.

Edit: I think this comment by Mike sums up the need here.
Quote
If Bitcoin runs out of capacity *it will break and many of our users will leave*. That is not an acceptable outcome for myself or the many other wallet, service and merchant developers who have worked for years to build an ecosystem around this protocol.

Mike is pointing out that Bitcoin is the entire ecosystem, not just the development board. In fact if you totaled the amount of work and effort put in to build Bitcoin I think it would work out to be less than 1% bitcoin devs and >99% everyone else. There has been a tremendous amount of effort put in to build Bitcoin that goes far beyond and outside of the bitcoin core. But the devs are ignoring that and acting as if Bitcoin is their project and they own it and have put the most amount of work behind it. I think this is telling, and demonstrates the need for systems controlled by users.
1480971378
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480971378

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480971378
Reply with quote  #2

1480971378
Report to moderator
1480971378
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480971378

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480971378
Reply with quote  #2

1480971378
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480971378
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480971378

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480971378
Reply with quote  #2

1480971378
Report to moderator
1480971378
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480971378

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480971378
Reply with quote  #2

1480971378
Report to moderator
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 15, 2015, 07:25:14 PM
 #26542

Mike Hearn's infallible logic:

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34206292/

bottomline is you skeptics can disrespect him all day long but the smart among us will listen and think about the content of what he says.

Quite lengthy reply from Adam:

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34208939/

worth reding, though.

I agree with the following quote. Leadership is necessary at the start, but dangerous predicament to be in and a leader better have an escape plan...

Quote from: Adam Back
Governance

The rest of the developers are wise to realise that they do not want
exclusive control, to avoid governance centralising into the hands of
one person, and this is why they have shared it with a consensus
process over the last 4 years.  No offence but I dont think you
personally are thinking far enough ahead to think you want personal
control of this industry.  Maybe some factions dont trust your
motives, or they dont mind, but feel more assured if a dozen other
people are closely reviewing and have collective review authority.

Edit:
Quote from: Adam Back
I know you want scale bitcoin, as I said everyone here does. I think
what you're experiencing is that you've had more luck explaining your
pragmatic unilateral plan to non-technical people without peer review,
and so not experienced the kind of huge pushback you are getting from
the technical community.  The whole of bitcoin is immensely
complicated such that it takes an uber-geek CS genius years to
catchup, this is not a slight of any of the business people who are
working hard to deploy Bitcoin into the world, its just complicated
and therefore not easy to understand the game-theory, security,
governance and distributed system thinking.  I have a comp sci PhD in
distributed systems, implemented p2p network systems and have 2
decades of applied crypto experience with a major interest in
electronic cash crypto protocols, and it took me a several years to
catchup and even I have a few hazy spots on low-level details, and I
addictively into read everything I could find.  Realistically all of
us are still learning, as bitcoin combines so many fields that it
opens new possibilities.

Lol, now I don't feel so bad about my early Bitcoin 101 mistakes. I got through most of them in a matter of weeks.

Quote from: Adam Back
As I said you can not scale a O(n^2) broadcast network by changing
constants, you need algorithmic improvements.

Yup.

Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
June 15, 2015, 07:52:47 PM
 #26543

Quote from: @jgarzik
RFC: #Bitcoin core BIP 100 draft, v0.8.1:
http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf
Changes:  32MB explicit cap (versus implicit), tighten language

https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/610494283334860800


is voting confined to miners?

Miners vote by encoding ‘BV’+BlockSizeRequestValue into coinbase scriptSig, e.g.
“/BV8000000/” to vote for 8M. Votes are evaluated by dropping bottom 20% and top
20%, and then the most common floor (minimum) is chosen.


You could say that miners are the vendors of block space, and the users demand it and signals it by their actual fees. An interesting point in the document, in fact creating a market where not only the fees, but also the block size is dynamic. As we close in on the physical limits of the system, many years from now, the block size increments will have to stop, and fees will limit the demand. Sounds ok to me.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
June 15, 2015, 07:58:54 PM
 #26544

Mike Hearn's infallible logic:

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34206292/

bottomline is you skeptics can disrespect him all day long but the smart among us will listen and think about the content of what he says.

Quite lengthy reply from Adam:

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34208939/

worth reding, though.

Remember this quote by Adam when the time comes that they make their proposal to change the Bitcoin protocol to enable LN and SCs.
Quote
As you can probably tell I think a unilateral fork without wide-scale consensus from the technical and business communities is a deeply inadvisable.

The bar to add LN and SC enabling protocol changes is wide-scale consensus. If a small number of participants disagree, it doesn't happen by their own logic. Additionally these protocol changes significantly change what Bitcoin fundamentally is much more than a simple 20MB blocksize change.

Something tells me though that their tune will be different then.

Edit: I think this comment by Mike sums up the need here.
Quote
If Bitcoin runs out of capacity *it will break and many of our users will leave*. That is not an acceptable outcome for myself or the many other wallet, service and merchant developers who have worked for years to build an ecosystem around this protocol.

Mike is pointing out that Bitcoin is the entire ecosystem, not just the development board. In fact if you totaled the amount of work and effort put in to build Bitcoin I think it would work out to be less than 1% bitcoin devs and >99% everyone else. There has been a tremendous amount of effort put in to build Bitcoin that goes far beyond and outside of the bitcoin core. But the devs are ignoring that and acting as if Bitcoin is their project and they own it and have put the most amount of work behind it. I think this is telling, and demonstrates the need for systems controlled by users.

your last point is especially pertinent, its the investments made by all the network of users possibly the majority of them have bought and held Bitcoin running up to $1000 and down again, they are the heroes that make the network. The majority of them have been delta a sucker punch, while a small group of Developers feel they have earned the right to decide how to direct the potential $3B experiment we have all bought into.

its not a centralized experiment but a decentralized one, and that applies to the Bitcoin Core.  

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
June 15, 2015, 08:08:28 PM
 #26545

Quote from: @jgarzik
RFC: #Bitcoin core BIP 100 draft, v0.8.1:
http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf
Changes:  32MB explicit cap (versus implicit), tighten language

https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/610494283334860800


is voting confined to miners?

Miners vote by encoding ‘BV’+BlockSizeRequestValue into coinbase scriptSig, e.g.
“/BV8000000/” to vote for 8M. Votes are evaluated by dropping bottom 20% and top
20%, and then the most common floor (minimum) is chosen.


You could say that miners are the vendors of block space, and the users demand it and signals it by their actual fees. An interesting point in the document, in fact creating a market where not only the fees, but also the block size is dynamic. As we close in on the physical limits of the system, many years from now, the block size increments will have to stop, and fees will limit the demand. Sounds ok to me.


Sounds good to me too, I'm in.
it is through this lens (your post above) that i see Gavins "ridiculous" idea of decreasing the 10 Minute Block time. Say blocks are limited to internet packets and packets are limited to 32MB, and blocks are larger than 32MB, a situation could arise where blocks don't propagate as packets become lost in the Internet. 

if a technical limitation had to prevent blocks from hitting a particular size, one way to keep the system functional would be to reduce block time.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
June 15, 2015, 08:10:06 PM
 #26546

Great article explaining some profound details about ownership:

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-ownership-impact-fungibility/

When you aquire a stolen article from a thief, you might be responsible, and have to give the article back to the rightful owner.

Not so with money, when you sell a can of beer to a known thief, nobody can claim the money from you. The reasoning behind it is to secure the fungibility of the money. When you receive money in a transaction, you should not worry about the source of that money. Exactly what we need for bitcoin, for the same reason.

Come to think of it, this is not so with the banks, they worry a lot where the money comes from, and I  have to declare by which acceptable means I have come to own them. Are deposit money not fungible? Strange world, indeed.

thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
June 15, 2015, 08:42:04 PM
 #26547

...

tvbcof, in an alternate universe where we were ALREADY dropping 50MB blocks or so every 10 minutes your arguments would be very sound.  But you can run a full node on a freakin' Raspberry PI!  This very premature limiting of the blockchain size, coupled with Blockstream's possibly competitive technologies, is what makes us cry foul.

The last time I ran bitcoind in support mode (allowing incoming 8333) was on a soekris router which is comparable to an RPI.  That was many years ago, and while it worked, it was very close to not 'working fine'.  Granted, leveldb and some other optimizations have happened since then which helped but things were pushing the envelope, and that is ignoring considerations such at UTXO size and network capacity.  Since I won't allow UPnP on my network and won't run bitcoind on an important machine, I need a sacrifice machine to run it.  I'm currently stuck on satellite here at home which pretty much precludes supporting the network even at the 1MB setting due to total data constraints.  To run bitcoind I have to arrange a remote system that I can trust and that is something of a challenge for a suspicious and careful person.  I'm not about to sacrifice the time and money in support of Bitcoin when the likes of Andresen and Hearn are hanging around trying to kill it.

I'm running it on a used laptop that I bought on ebay 3 years ago for $45 (had to add a disk).  The same laptop doubles as my music player.  Satellite has always been pretty downstream skewed so I'm not surprised if you have issues with any symmetric P2P application.  But your situation is not typical, and you can always purchase a virtual machine for very little if you really wanted a node.

I wish Bitcoin used almost no bandwidth as well... but you can't have your cake and eat it too.


We don't need to shunt Bitcoin off into a settlement-only currency just yet.  We could grow 50 times greater before we have to think about doing that, and there is tremendous value in doing so.  For one, it would allow all the layered technologies time to develop.  And also, we'd probably have 50-100x more users, which IMHO pushes bitcoin over the mass adoption chasm.

To understand my thoughts you need to understand that I consider joe-sixpack users to be a liability on all fronts.  'Outrunning regulation' is laughable to me, and idiots do more harm than good when they try to run critical systems.  Multibitch users are not helpful to the network and, as I say, not helpful in the 'critical mass' equation since Bitcoin with it's batch-mode native function is simply not competitive as an exchange currency and never will be a big factor there.  IOW, the kinds of percentages we need for anything remotely resembling 'critical mass' are completely pie-in-the-sky.  Even if Bitcoin worked worth a shit here, a lot of people love big brother and would hate Bitcoin for that reason anyway.  All Bitcoin traction does is to attract attack from TPTB by virtue of it's positive attributes such as lack of counter-party risk.

Time and time again we see idiots losing their money to criminals and hucksters.  Being a Bitcoin enthusiast has been like watching a fight between a skilled boxer and a punching bag and I don't see that changing as long as idiots are using Bitcoin in it's native form.

Sidechains breaks the single-point-of-failure problem which vexes a 'one-size-fits-all' solution and pushes the critical infrastructure support role to people who can handle it.  It also pushes the benefits of a counter-party-risk free solution down to the masses.  Nobody can stop the masses from giving their money to shysters but it's very possible to arrange for the sidechain operates themselves to have a tough time robbing their users (unlike general alts.)

Am I an 'elitist'?  Fuck ya.  At the end of the day, though, my goal is to have everyone who wants to be able to enjoy the benefits of distributed crypto-currencies.  I just don't want to see Bitcoin ruined in the process of trying to achieve this...but am prepared to deal with this eventuality if that's the way the cookie is to crumble.

Alright, but I think that if you look at Bitcoin's peer-to-peer architecture, consumer wallets like Bitcoin-qt and SPV phone offerings, writings by Satoshi, scalability discussions on the orginal wiki, and countless presentations by others you will see a strong theme where Bitcoin is presented as a universal currency for everyday use by people.  "Be your own bank"

So feel free to make an altcoin with a limited block size.  But for Bitcoin, please stop trying to morph a temporary "growing pains" patch into "the-way-it-was-meant-to-be" to scratch your own personal itch.  It won't work.  We'll see massive abandonment as loss-of-confidence results in holders selling their coins.  And competitive highly scalable crypto-coins will emerge even if I have to build one myself.

Mixles
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 63


View Profile
June 15, 2015, 08:46:10 PM
 #26548

Great article explaining some profound details about ownership:

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-ownership-impact-fungibility/

When you aquire a stolen article from a thief, you might be responsible, and have to give the article back to the rightful owner.

Not so with money, when you sell a can of beer to a known thief, nobody can claim the money from you. The reasoning behind it is to secure the fungibility of the money. When you receive money in a transaction, you should not worry about the source of that money. Exactly what we need for bitcoin, for the same reason.

Come to think of it, this is not so with the banks, they worry a lot where the money comes from, and I  have to declare by which acceptable means I have come to own them. Are deposit money not fungible? Strange world, indeed.

Nobody can claim the specific piece of paper money from you, solely on the basis that it was the very same piece of paper money that was stolen.

They (and others) can still make all sorts of other claims, for money or otherwise, like if you had reasonable cause to believe the paper money was proceeds from criminal activity, and accepted it anyway (see Shrem). The act of spending such knowingly dirty money to make it fungible, is called money laundering, I thought...

Donations to 1SumKArxoEJ1HoGibmj8ygw1DZWYBvjmM
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
June 15, 2015, 09:10:01 PM
 #26549

Great article explaining some profound details about ownership:

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-ownership-impact-fungibility/

When you aquire a stolen article from a thief, you might be responsible, and have to give the article back to the rightful owner.

Not so with money, when you sell a can of beer to a known thief, nobody can claim the money from you. The reasoning behind it is to secure the fungibility of the money. When you receive money in a transaction, you should not worry about the source of that money. Exactly what we need for bitcoin, for the same reason.

Come to think of it, this is not so with the banks, they worry a lot where the money comes from, and I  have to declare by which acceptable means I have come to own them. Are deposit money not fungible? Strange world, indeed.

Nobody can claim the specific piece of paper money from you, solely on the basis that it was the very same piece of paper money that was stolen.

They (and others) can still make all sorts of other claims, for money or otherwise, like if you had reasonable cause to believe the paper money was proceeds from criminal activity, and accepted it anyway (see Shrem). The act of spending such knowingly dirty money to make it fungible, is called money laundering, I thought...

That sounds as a reasonable clarification. I said he was a known thief, and if he wanted to sell me a gold watch that would be suspicious, but there is no reason to believe that the money was stolen, so I think my example is ok. But not totally related to fungibility, so ok, you are right.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 15, 2015, 09:54:52 PM
 #26550

the drama continues on:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/894

there's that name Saivann again.  he was involved in the original PressCenter.org debate.
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
June 15, 2015, 10:08:08 PM
 #26551

Mike Hearn's infallible logic:

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34206292/

bottomline is you skeptics can disrespect him all day long but the smart among us will listen and think about the content of what he says.

Quite lengthy reply from Adam:

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34208939/

worth reding, though.

Remember this quote by Adam when the time comes that they make their proposal to change the Bitcoin protocol to enable LN and SCs.
Quote
As you can probably tell I think a unilateral fork without wide-scale consensus from the technical and business communities is a deeply inadvisable.

The bar to add LN and SC enabling protocol changes is wide-scale consensus. If a small number of participants disagree, it doesn't happen by their own logic. Additionally these protocol changes significantly change what Bitcoin fundamentally is much more than a simple 20MB blocksize c

This is the exact reason why I linked Adam's reply: quote for posterity the evaluation criteria used by opponents to gavin's block size increase proposal.

That said, if memory serves the new opcode needed by sc could be introduced by a soft-fork. Though I have to agree that merged mined side chains would introduce a significant modification of miners economic incentives.

One last thing, I think that at least Adam is not opposed to the increase per se, in fact he did say that LN and SC need a modification in the way max block size limit is handled (he talks about burst period), he even praise jgarzik bip 100 on the basis of the "slow" variation entangled in the proposal.

edit: fix typo

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
June 15, 2015, 10:24:22 PM
 #26552


... But your situation is not typical, and you can always purchase a virtual machine for very little if you really wanted a node.

I've always lived by the motto "if it's not worth doing right, it's not worth doing."  The only machine I could have some degree of confidence in is bare metal in certain datacenters.  The cost of housing alone is significant and network connectivity is a lot beyond that.  Not to mention the cost and hassle of flying to a jurisdiction where I might have some confidence in the durability of the solution in a failure mode scenario that I (and the system I'm supporting) would be guarding against.  These were the standards I used when I was being paid for my services.


freakying99
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 430


Pythagoras and Plato are my brothers.


View Profile
June 15, 2015, 10:37:30 PM
 #26553

Someone needs to change the title of this thread to.

Gold up BTC collapsing
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
June 15, 2015, 11:03:04 PM
 #26554

the drama continues on:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/894

there's that name Saivann again.  he was involved in the original PressCenter.org debate.

This is getting bizarre…that post has a strange feel, with hints of desperation, like someone is grasping at authority that's slipping through their fingers.  This type of behaviour will only serve to disenfranchise them further, as power migrates to MIT, CoinCenter, and hopefully several new initiatives at university research labs. 

I think I've heard all the arguments, but I still cannot understand the opposition to increasing the blocksize.

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 15, 2015, 11:12:56 PM
 #26555

the drama continues on:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/894

there's that name Saivann again.  he was involved in the original PressCenter.org debate.

This is getting bizarre…that post has a strange feel, with hints of desperation, like someone is grasping at authority that's slipping through their fingers.  This type of behaviour will only serve to disenfranchise them further, as power migrates to MIT, CoinCenter, and hopefully several new initiatives at university research labs.  

I think I've heard all the arguments, but I still cannot understand the opposition to increasing the blocksize.

theymos is a strange character that has control of all our media outlets; BCT, Reddit, & apparently Bitcoin.org.

i admired him greatly back in the day b/c he helped me understand Bitcoin thru several pm's and a couple of Skype audio conversations.  at first, he was very hesitant to actually talk to me despite my pleadings that i learn more efficiently with the ability to quickly back and forth from conversation vs typing.  he told me he was very uncomfortable talking even tho i agreed to just the audio on Skype; no video (a concession i made to assuage his awkward social concerns).  he said he types faster than he talks.  he wasn't kidding.  the only way i got him to audio was to pay him 4BTC.  expensive in retrospect but worth it for the knowledge.  he WAS socially awkward and i barely got my money's worth given the difficulty of the communication.  

i've been very disappointed ever since in his allowing forum moderators to essentially run wild around here deleting posts they don't like.  and then with the forum donations for a new site.  i'm certainly not alone.

and now this.  i really think it's a power play by the devs to keep control.  marcus said it flat out.  they want control.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 15, 2015, 11:29:29 PM
 #26556

I wish Bitcoin used almost no bandwidth as well... but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Yes you can.

Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
June 15, 2015, 11:43:21 PM
 #26557

...
and now this.  i really think it's a power play by the devs to keep control.  marcus said it flat out.  they want control.

This reminds me of something my IRAP ITA said: "Do you want to be rich, or do you want to be king?  Because you can't be both."

On that note, here's an interesting graph that shows that founders usually do finacially better when they relinquish some control in order to allow the company to grow.  I imagine the same dynamic will play out in bitcoin, and that the early devs are suffering from a version of the "rich-vs-king" dilemma.  




Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
June 16, 2015, 02:03:15 AM
 #26558


theymos is a strange character that has control of all our media outlets; BCT, Reddit, & apparently Bitcoin.org.

theymos was one of the very few who saw what a train-wreck TBF was likely to be when Gavin floated the idea and spoke up about it.  I'll let you guess who another one of these lonely voices might have been.

i admired him greatly back in the day b/c he helped me understand Bitcoin thru several pm's and a couple of Skype audio conversations. ...

Questionable.


i've been very disappointed ever since in his allowing forum moderators to essentially run wild around here deleting posts they don't like.  and then with the forum donations for a new site.  i'm certainly not alone.

I've been pleasantly surprised at the intolerance for over-moderation that theymos has displayed.  I can think of almost nothing I've seen deleted and moderators who've tried to do so for overtly political reasons seem to have taken a hike.  Whether on theymos's orders or not I don't know.

I've ribbed they guy over the years for allowing fairly obvious scammers to have a voice but at the end of the day it is in keeping with running a very free platform and I appreciate that.  It sucks to see people taken by scammers, but this platform allows them to come back and inform others which is a very valuable educational experience for everyone and a lesson that everyone who putters around with Bitcoin needs to learn by one method or another.


justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 16, 2015, 02:11:20 AM
 #26559

theymos was one of the very few who saw what a train-wreck TBF was likely to be when Gavin floated the idea and spoke up about it.  I'll let you guess who another one of these lonely voices might have been.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400.msg1227012#msg1227012

That post also serves as proof that I wasn't singling out Blockstream when I asked them the same question about potential conflicts of interest.
chriswilmer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008


View Profile WWW
June 16, 2015, 02:16:30 AM
 #26560

I think I've heard all the arguments, but I still cannot understand the opposition to increasing the blocksize.

Glad I am not the only one!

You'd think this level of hand-wringing about a hard fork would be reserved for changing the 21 million bitcoin limit or something. In 10 years I think this discussion about whether to have 1 MB blocks or 20 MB blocks will sound really strange in our TB-flash-drive streaming-hd-virtual-reality world.
Pages: « 1 ... 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 [1328] 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 ... 1560 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!