Topic: . (Read 1343 times)

~~

In all honesty, what bitcoin needs is a benevolent elected dictator. This might seem like a cringe worthy statement, but that's how we got to this point. If you read back through Satoshi's posts, he listened to the community but decided for himself which changes to implement.

I think a Jon Matonis type might be what we need to get us over this hump, not sure. I would do it, but I'm very busy getting a local computer business started at the moment. Gavin is too heavily medicated to assume the role. Perhaps Peter Todd would be the ideal candidate?

Let's consider electing a Lead Software Engineer or Chief Scientist who would have dictatorial power and serve a term of like 4 years.

~~

translation
white noise drama. trying to spark debate to take peoples attention off of reading source code to make logical and positive decisions about which implementation suites them.

to microguy
there does not need to be just one implementation.. as long as 5, 20, 100 implementations have rules that align with the general consensus of rules. then anyone can be free to add their own GUI features and designs.

The real "classic" Coca Cola name came from two of its original (1886) ingredients, kola nuts and coca leaves (cocaine). It was a soft drink that gave you a drug induced euphoric feeling. Government pressure and temperance regulations forced the cooks to change the recipe. Now Coca Cola is just a sweet syrup mixture pretending to be something as outstanding it was.

In 2010, Bitcoin classic was simply known as Bitcoin. It was a mixture of hopes and dreams for a better future that gave you a euphoric feeling where you believed anything was possible. Today Bitcoin "classic" is just a mixture of corrupt money hungry developer scum that are cooking sugar coated lies for the consumption of its users in order to line their own pockets before they're too old to enjoy the money.

As you can see, Coca Cola and Bitcoin are both shells of their former glory thanks to government pressure and the gutless greedy cooks working on the recipe.

the R3, blockstream, blah blah blah.. are just companies..
all that matters is the sourcecode,

it dont matter who uses it. as long as the sourcecode cant be used negatively. so just find a implementation that does not have any drastic changes that affect usability, fungibility, etc.. then get everyone you know to do the same..

instead of arguing about companies. get to grips with the sourcecode and use a version that cant be abused. as in the end it only the sourcecode that counts and the number of users using it.. not the identity of the users

but here is my 'conspiracy theory'
while people jerk each other off saying how new implimentations are bad and people should not change. purely based on who is using it, is futile..
and telling people to stay away and not research the sourcecode and to just argue about company politics instead.. again futile

what you will find is these companies will force all of their employee's/business partners and associates to suddenly download a certain implementation with negative code. while most general public sit on their hands trolling

so while the general public of 5000 nodes does nothing. 10,000 political/business based employees will download the negative implementation and get 75% coverage.

so will people please stop arguing about the politics and companies. and just search the sourcecode for a positive implementation and get others to download a positive implementation to bring the general public nodes count to a larger amount to counter negative implementations.

just sitting there arguing.. especially if you dont even run a full node is just trolling..

so i dare anyone making posts on these node debate threads to download a full node if you have not already, or if you never want to download a full node and be part of the network consensus, then i dare you to realise that your not even helping yourself so you have nothing to argue about.

so be part of the network consensus by downloading a positive implementation.. or shut up..

sitting on your hands and crying about company politics is not helping no one and is just white noise drama

Great Point!  Circle operates on the current Bitcoin (Governance by Blockstream/Core).  I guess that according to the OP, this should be evidence that Blockstream/Core is engaged in a plot to centralize bitcoin into the banks.

OR, this could just be the latest FUD!  ..... latest confusion attempt!

lol

try to keep all negative theories to the actual code..
if you see bad code that:
hinders usage
increases costs
removes fungibility
does things that threaten private key security

then fine. shout to the heavens about the negatives.

but if its purely about who is using it.. then its a non story. because circle has been using bitcoin-core for ages now, you me everyone else has been using it too.. so that doesnt make btcoin-core bad..

it doesnt matter who uses whatever implementation there is.. what does matter is WHY and HOW.. and that can easily be found my looking at the sourcecode.
so as long as the sourcecode shows no signs of causing negative incidents that are everlasting, then it dont matter.

so base your choice of implementation on the sourcecode, as that is all that really counts.. not the social opinion of users.

in short.. if no one can manipulate the system it doesnt matter who uses it

Actually, Coke Classic was just a temporary marketing patch.  The history was that originally you had "Coca~Cola".  Then a bunch of hijaaking idiots came along that thought they knew better than everybody actually drinking Coca~Cola, and decided to change the formula to "New Coke".   Well, New Coke sucked.  But it had already damaged the brand so badly, and confused things so much, that to restore sanity - there had to be a marketing bridge back to the Original.  So they created "Coke Classic".  THEN they just phased out New Coke completely - until it was gone forever.  Then Coke Classic just slowly phased out as a "temporary name" and people just drank "Coca~Cola" again.

This is a PERFECT analogy of what is going on in Bitcoin.   First you had the Original Satoshi Vision Bitcoin.  Then Blockstream/Core came along and thought they knew better and hijaaked Bitcoin, and tried to make it "New Bitcoin" - totally ignoring the overwhelming Bitcoin Community.  But "New Bitcoin" where Bitcoin only lives in crippled little sidechains.... SUCKS.   But the brand damage has been done, so "Bitcoin Classic" is rolling out.  My guess is that once the fork occurs, and everybody back to using the Original Bitcoin, then eventually people will just call it Bitcoin again, and slowly over time "Bitcoin Classic" as a "temporary name" will fade away, having done its job.

So you are actually incredibly wrong.  Coke Classic did its job PERFECTLY.  It accomplished its mission so well.... that no one even remembers New Coke.... except for this vague blurry remembrance of a yucky taste in their mouth.  And that is how this will end also.  After the Bitcoin Classic Fork.... Bitcoin will simply return to being Bitcoin, and the New Bitcoin Vision of Blockstream/Core will fade away forgotten, except for just a brief memory of a yucky, dirty feeling, a brief time of hateful divisiveness, lies, FUD, DDOS attacks etc.

Have a Bitcoin and a Smile  

Wrong. SegWit increases blocksize for all transactions to 1.75MB minimum. There's extra space on top for a further 2.25 MB of multisigs, for a total of 4MB blocks possible. 2MB is plain linear across transaction types.



They do and they should. Because when multiple dev teams are fighting, outsiders see Bitcoin as divided. Not confidence inspiring, i.e the Hearn Quits effect. Why help fan that fire? Still supporting litecoin, maybe?

What percentage of blocks need to be mined by bitcoin classic miners before it takes the place of bitcoin core? Is there a site where I can watch how many of the last 1000 blocks were mined by bitcoin classic v bitcoin core? Am I right in thinking its the last 1000 blocks that decide which wallet wins?

Hard to argue when you dont want to see Bitcoin reason to ever exist are decentralized transactions, which are onchain. There are other centralized payment services not needing Bitcoin, so much harder for Bitcoin to compete in this area, especially when these niches are taken already and very hard to beat estabilished network effect.

Increasing block size is not useless, it allows more people to use onchain decentralized transactions. And as long as full node decentralization is mantained by requirement full nodes must be able to operate on home PCs, there is not rational reason to keep block limit artifically unnecessary small if your goal is better Bitcoin adoption.

It is not the case that "either" SegWit soft-fork 2MB happens, OR hardfork 2MB happens. Both can, and IMO both should happen. Increasingly, it appears both will.

The question is then, how to do it most safely? In an ideal world, Core would realize the vast support for larger blocks (made increasingly apparent by Classic's momentum), and would work to incorporate that 2MB support into Core. Core has stated that absolutely will not happen, however. Fine, that's professional disagreement. But it means a fork will occur without Core's stewardship.

SegWit is a great compliment to blocks of any size, and for that reason, perhaps paradoxically, SegWit will not satiate the demand for 2MB or greater blocks.

Ultimately, Classic is not about a magic 2MB block size. It is about showing the world that one group of devs doesn't have monopoly power on the protocol. It has become an experiment and lesson in decentralization. Even those who denounce Classic should be able to appreciate that sentiment.

In the graphic, I see only 5/14 pools supporting Bitcoin Classic.

lol u fail

But direct onchain transactions will still require 10 mins confirmations, no matter the block size, right? You can't expect people to wait for 10 mins after each transaction. so, no matter what, offchain services will be created if people want to use Bitcoin for day to day spending. Then, increasing the block size will be useless.

No, Bitcoin Classic is better because it brings back Satoshi vision of using Bitcoin for direct onchain transactions with competetive low fees. This is the most important Bitcoin feature and without it, there is little reason to use Bitcoin.

Bitcoin Classic is reasonable and will increase onchain capacity only to the size so regular home PC will be ok to run full nodes, thus no worries of loosing decentralization.

As you might be aware,  Bitcoin Core developers main goal is to make Bitcoin blockchain mainly as settlement mechanism for offchain centralized services, but there is no point of using Bitcoin this way, people already have many centralized payment solutions.

To make Bitcoin succesfull, you cannot unnecessary limit its growth because competitor take over the userbase, and the Bitcoin Classic aim is to use onchain blockspace as much available as technically possible to guarantee running full nodes on regular home PC while still ensuring necessary decentralization.

Bitcoin Core and small block supporters feels it is important to run full nodes on Rasberry PIs and cheap virtual hosting plans to keep decentralization, but I argue this limits the growth of user base and Bitcoin is destined loosing its position to alternative cryptocurrencies over time this way, while we can prevent this by full node minimum requirements to regular home PC and keep full node decentralization intact and the increased blockspace can be used for more onchain decentralized transactions - the main purpose of Bitcoin.

It's always interesting to see how they change their angle of attack... Mike joins forces with Gavin to try to seize control, underestimating the kind of support they had. Then

XT fails and Mike joins the banks and Gavin develop a new proposal that might be a bit more acceptable to the general community. Bitcoin Classic will get much more traction,

but the motives behind that stay the same. The devil is in the details.   ....Why trust any of them ever again? The only reason why Bitcoin Classic seems to be better, is

because the IP Blocking features of XT was removed and a more popular block size was proposed. 

.