Bitcoin Core stopping Bitcoin adoption without working offchain solutions ready.
Rubbish - next point?
(or are all your points just personal opinions like this one)
Topic: . - page 25. (Read 24756 times)
I can speak for myselves only - (blah, blah, and blah)
If you can actually make a point then please make it in one small sentence less than 20 words (no-one is going to read your wall of text).
Bitcoin Core stopping Bitcoin adoption without working offchain solutions ready.
10 words above for everyone who cant grasp and process more than 20 words / post.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Pretty much, yes. If not "more", then a huge chunk of the influence.
-snip-
So what would your proposal be (if we disregard the "alternative implementations"), remove commit access, ban them from working on the code due to Blockstream? How do you reduce this "influence" that you claim is present? There has to be a way of reverting it else you're the one who's being closed minded about this and not me, right?-snip-
There is nothing wrong with influence per se. Greg
and the gang rightfully earned their respect in the
space, but that also doesn't mean they are immune
from becoming controlling, having their own agenda,
or making bad decisions.
If some people feel their influence has become too big
and they aren't making the best decisions, then there
is war of ideas, which the blogosphere is a part of...
and there is also the actions that people and companies take.
Some feel this way and others do not who continue to support Core.
Still others may be undecided or feel that both arguments have
merit or that no one can be trusted anymore.
Perhaps unity can be reached.
Perhaps the dissenters are a minority are will vanish.
Perhaps there is widespread unrest and influence
will be forked away from Core.
Perhaps there will be a network split.
I really don't know what will happen and I certainly
don't have all the answers.
Despite the chaos, what I love about all this is
that its a free market. No one can force anyone
to do anything. Everyone is free to make their
own decisions, participate (or not) in whatever
they want, say whatever they want, and run
whatever code they want.
I can speak for myselves only - (blah, blah, and blah)
If you can actually make a point then please make it in one small sentence less than 20 words (no-one is going to read your wall of text).
What on earth is the point of the people that are thinking that we need to suddenly rush into a hard fork in order to make block sizes bigger?
(as this whole topic actually was about this it appears that the Chinese miners don't actually have a clue)
(as this whole topic actually was about this it appears that the Chinese miners don't actually have a clue)
I can speak for myselves only - because Bitcoin Core proved they will stop further Bitcoin adoption effectively from next year without any offchain soutions proved to be working (considering these will popup because still in development). If they had unstopped Bitcoin adoption in mind, they would foresee number of transactions tendency, and hardfork would be planned since middle of previous year to BIP102 to be active in early/mid 2016. They proved to be either incopetent or having bad intentions when stopping future Bitcoin adoption from 2017 because they not gonna discuss hardfork to BIP102 this year and it takes 6+ months for safely deploying hardforks at least thats what they say. Yet 1.5 MB is foresee to be filled in early 2017 and no futher Bitcoin adoption then possible unless undeveloped, untested and unproved to be working offline solutions really works - pretty risky situation for 7 Billion USD Bitcoin market - but what, few commit coders have only millions of USD to risk at most (unless they bet on increased altcoin appreciation where they could have stake) yet they decide about future of 7 Billion USD Bitcoin market
Not important?
If by "important," you mean "dictator," then sure. What would you like to talk about?
If by "important," you mean "dictator," then sure. What would you like to talk about?
What on earth is the point of the people that are thinking that we need to suddenly rush into a hard fork in order to make block sizes bigger?
Because Bitcoin has outgrown its baby clothes, they no longer fit.
Because things change, life is flux, and while the temporary spam control measure was appropriate for the conditions for which it was created, it no longer is.
Because raising the blocksize is the begging solution for scaling Bitcoin.
Because ELY5 here.
Quote
(as this whole topic actually was about this it appears that the Chinese miners don't actually have a clue)
Educate the miners.
50/50 shot by this time next year they'll all be mining PBocCoin. Might as well just wait it out.
Not important?
If by "important," you mean "dictator," then sure. What would you like to talk about?
If by "important," you mean "dictator," then sure. What would you like to talk about?
What on earth is the point of the people that are thinking that we need to suddenly rush into a hard fork in order to make block sizes bigger?
Because Bitcoin has outgrown its baby clothes, they no longer fit.
Because things change, life is flux, and while the temporary spam control measure was appropriate for the conditions for which it was created, it no longer is.
Because raising the blocksize is the begging solution for scaling Bitcoin.
Because ELY5 here.
Quote
(as this whole topic actually was about this it appears that the Chinese miners don't actually have a clue)
Educate the miners.
Not important?
If by "important," you mean "dictator," then sure. What would you like to talk about?
If by "important," you mean "dictator," then sure. What would you like to talk about?
What on earth is the point of the people that are thinking that we need to suddenly rush into a hard fork in order to make block sizes bigger?
(as this whole topic actually was about this it appears that the Chinese miners don't actually have a clue)
Have I suggested that "Gavin [should be allowed to] control things? If so, could you point me to the post that led you to think so? I'd like to edit it. ty
Okay - so we have agreed that Gavin is not important then - now we can continue.
Not important?
If by "important," you mean "dictator," then sure... I guess. What would you like to talk about?
Have I suggested that "Gavin [should be allowed to] control things? If so, could you point me to the post that led you to think so? I'd like to edit it. ty
Okay - so we have agreed that Gavin is not important then - now we can continue.
To clarify, you're responding to a two-part question:
1. Do you concede that there is, indeed, possible conflict of interests (Y/N)
2. [Are we now] discussing the mechanics of mitigating it? (Y/N)
1. Do you concede that there is, indeed, possible conflict of interests (Y/N)
2. [Are we now] discussing the mechanics of mitigating it? (Y/N)
There are always possible conflicts of interest (I have never stated there couldn't be).
We can discuss that provided you stop wanting Gavin to control things (so if we are arguing a solution for "both sides" then Gavin is excluded from leadership for a start).
Have I suggested that "Gavin [should be allowed to] control things? If so, could you point me to the post that led you to think so? I'd like to edit it. ty
To clarify, you're responding to a two-part question:
1. Do you concede that there is, indeed, possible conflict of interests (Y/N)
2. [Are we now] discussing the mechanics of mitigating it? (Y/N)
1. Do you concede that there is, indeed, possible conflict of interests (Y/N)
2. [Are we now] discussing the mechanics of mitigating it? (Y/N)
There are always possible conflicts of interest (I have never stated there couldn't be).
We can discuss that provided you stop wanting Gavin to control things (so if we are arguing a solution for "both sides" then Gavin is excluded from leadership for a start).
Do you concede that there is, indeed, possible conflict of interests, and we're onto discussing the mechanics of mitigating it?
By letting Gavin take over?
If you have a serious suggestion (other than that) then let's hear it.
To clarify, you're responding to a two-part question:
1. Do you concede that there is, indeed, possible conflict of interests (Y/N)
2. [Are we now] discussing the mechanics of mitigating it? (Y/N)
If Gavin would agree to simply have "no power" then I would support him (you and I both know that he will never do that as he only cares about taking control and doesn't care if he destroys Bitcoin in the process of trying to do so).
He could be the only benevolent dictator after Satoshi. He did not waste time and rejected the idea of being one dictator and gave power to others as well even if he did not need to. He proved his intentions.
And if he misbeshave in basic consensus rules and the original Satoshi view for Bitcoin to be mostly payment network, I will be expressing my views and switching to other implementations. Code is what matters, and Bitcoin Core roadmap to main settlement system only is clear violating of Satoshi original view for Bitcoin as mostly p2p payment network I joined up for.
Let me spell this out for you guys. Do you honestly think there is zero conflict of interest here?
http://www.americanbanker.com/news/bank-technology/pwc-partners-with-bitcoin-startup-for-blockchain-push-1079122-1.html
Read the above article very very carefully and ask yourself who controls development of the "parent chain."
http://www.americanbanker.com/news/bank-technology/pwc-partners-with-bitcoin-startup-for-blockchain-push-1079122-1.html
Read the above article very very carefully and ask yourself who controls development of the "parent chain."
The evidence is clear, seems the problem is how easy is to control Bitcoin development and whole future of 6 Billion market - just few coders with commit access. Pretty centralized and very weak spot in supposely decentralized project - watch out for more such attacks in future as well if nothing changes - power corrupts people and ultimate power corrupts most.
Every time he opens his mouth, the price goes down, what the fuck? He is very negative to bitcoin's stability.
Gavin is very positively minded person, and his blogs are insightfull. The toxic and negative reactions dont come from him. I checked his 2 MB pull request and well done the work with fixing the possible problems with special over 1 MB transactions could have on exponentional CPU time to validate these. Nicely removing possible attack vector on the 2 MB blocks. The good thing is anybody can merge his work, even Bitcoin Core, we dont need to get stick with Bitcoin Classic if they start adding bad code, code is all what matters, no one is expected to stick with one Bitcoin implementation if you believe they misbehaved - thats the strong part of Bitcoin and many people have hard time changing their whole life experience with trusting/sticking away from one authority like Bitcoin Core in our example.
Do you concede that there is, indeed, possible conflict of interests, and we're onto discussing the mechanics of mitigating it?
By letting Gavin take over?
If you have a serious suggestion (other than that) then let's hear it.
Pretty much, yes. If not "more", then a huge chunk of the influence.
-snip-
So what would your proposal be (if we disregard the "alternative implementations"), remove commit access, ban them from working on the code due to Blockstream? How do you reduce this "influence" that you claim is present? There has to be a way of reverting it else you're the one who's being closed minded about this and not me, right?-snip-
...
Do you concede that there is, indeed, possible conflict of interests, and we're onto discussing the mechanics of mitigating it?
Pretty much, yes. If not "more", then a huge chunk of the influence.
-snip-
So what would your proposal be (if we disregard the "alternative implementations"), remove commit access, ban them from working on the code due to Blockstream? How do you reduce this "influence" that you claim is present? There has to be a way of reverting it else you're the one who's being closed minded about this and not me, right?-snip-
As a side note, I heard that Greg recently gave up his commit access. If that
is true and he did it to reduce conflict of interest, I applaud that but I think
it doesn't reduce his influence much.
I think that he did; not sure right now (I'll verify it as I'm curious). It makes sense when the community (parts of it) is essentially backstabbing you because of a single disagreement. is true and he did it to reduce conflict of interest, I applaud that but I think
it doesn't reduce his influence much.
GAVIN: MIT, COINBASE (Probably USG)
WLADIMIR: MIT (ibid.)
JEFF: BITPAY (I think)
PIETER: BLOCKSTREAM (Probably evil)
I think some live in a delusion where only people related to Blockstream could be evil and have an agenda (no, not talking about you). There is a possibility that every single one of them has a hidden agenda and whatnot (including everyone who works at Blockstream). We can't rule anyone out. WLADIMIR: MIT (ibid.)
JEFF: BITPAY (I think)
PIETER: BLOCKSTREAM (Probably evil)
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Every time he opens his mouth, the price goes down, what the fuck? He is very negative to bitcoin's stability.
Quite the coincidence right? I dont know he is like the prophet of doom of bitcoin, I saw a thread that was just dedicated to this, and showed historical price data when Gavin was in the news and price dropped always.
He did some good things for bitcoin in the past, but now he is more like a liability to the community.
so much FUD. Blockstream was in the news the same day (Jan 28th).
So what?
Jump to: