An Open Letter to the Bitcoin Community from the Developers

tsoPANos

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 500

In math we trust.

The letter looks suspicious. "Trust us" is simply not enough, I suspect they prepare something big,
and they want to have the community with them even before they talk publicly about it, so that they can
limit the controversy which will be caused by their hidden proposal.
Maybe it's blockstream. Off chain solutions are worthless, only trust the mainchain!!!

EDIT

RGBKey

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 658

rgbkey.github.io/pgp.txt

Quote from: smoothie on September 01, 2015, 03:51:24 PM

Seriously this is super disappointing that the developers can't come to some sort of agreement on a simple code change/removal of a number in the code.

Imagine adding any more changes to the code that could or would help bitcoin become a better digital cash that Satoshi meant Bitcoin to be.

Mind boggling.

It's a bit more complicated than just changing a number, and when I say that I don't mean it literally, but in the sense that changing that number has very large implications for the whole community. I'm glad they're taking their time on this.

galbros

legendary

Activity: 1022

Merit: 1000

Quote from: knight22 on September 01, 2015, 03:08:23 PM

"Trust us"

I LOL'ed at this as it was my first response as well.

I was hoping there would be some clear statement of why they thought what they did regarding the current core versus XT fight or maybe even some compromise suggestion, e.g. 2 MB blocks now, oh well.

I hope the conferences are productive. Thanks for posting the letter.

nutildah

legendary

Activity: 2940

Merit: 7892

Quote from: freedombit on September 03, 2015, 02:21:54 AM

This might be a good time to look at the alt coins. Are there any alt coins that eventually went offline, or do all alt coins continue to exist, even if they only have two users and near zero value?

A coin is officially dead only if it can't be mined anymore. I've seen a couple of coins die due to coding hiccups. Something "breaks," the dev has already split and nobody in the community is interested in fixing the problem.

If it can't be mined and blocks can't be added to the blockchain, it becomes impossible to transfer and thus its value goes to zero.

See HawaiiCoin and ColbertCoin for examples.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: freedombit on September 03, 2015, 02:39:26 AM

Quote from: brg444 on September 03, 2015, 02:20:17 AM

Quote from: freedombit on September 03, 2015, 02:13:20 AM

Quote from: brg444 on September 03, 2015, 12:53:19 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 03, 2015, 12:43:59 AM

Quote from: freedombit on September 03, 2015, 12:40:07 AM

There is nothing wrong with a fork. Let's just make sure the exchanges allow the exchange of both. If there are exchanges that intentionally block one over the other, the exchange is not a supporter of free markets.

The only problem is that CURRENTLY, real world merchants like Dish, Expedia, etc will only accept "Bitcoin". They will not bother accepting two coins, so most likely the fork with less mining power will die quickly and there will be miniscule demand for it.

In the future if crypto becomes more mainstream, a fork that leaves two currencies will be more viable.

Dude, no one is using Bitcoin to pay for his Dish bill. That type of use case is never going to make a difference... get some sense, won't you?

Dish is definitely receiving Bitcoin payments.

Yeah maybe some hardcore Bitcoin dude does it but if we are being honest this use case is negligible.

Usage is negligible now; but these are the use cases that count the most for those in the Bitcoin is a currency camp. If you are in the Bitcoin is an asset camp, then you are right, who cares about the smaller transactions. I believe in the US consumer spending outweighs government and business spending combined. Tried to find some quick stats, but couldn't. Anyhow, the largest corps by market cap are all consumer oriented.

Asset markets largely surpass retail/consumer use cases. Bitcoin is infinitely more valuable as a replacement to gold, offshore saving accounts & safe havens. It also happens to be this is what it is best at.

If we're being honest Bitcoin as a payment system and transactional currency currently sucks balls. Undecided

It is still years away from being mainstream consumer ready. Bitcoin as a currency will get all its glory and flourish once the majority of people on earth hold it and it becomes a unit of account. Until then we should expect retail use to remain marginal especially seeing as people will be increasingly encouraged to spend their inflationary fiat and save into Bitcoin or whatever other asset.

freedombit

sr. member

Activity: 274

Merit: 250

Quote from: brg444 on September 03, 2015, 02:20:17 AM

Quote from: freedombit on September 03, 2015, 02:13:20 AM

Quote from: brg444 on September 03, 2015, 12:53:19 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 03, 2015, 12:43:59 AM

Quote from: freedombit on September 03, 2015, 12:40:07 AM

There is nothing wrong with a fork. Let's just make sure the exchanges allow the exchange of both. If there are exchanges that intentionally block one over the other, the exchange is not a supporter of free markets.

The only problem is that CURRENTLY, real world merchants like Dish, Expedia, etc will only accept "Bitcoin". They will not bother accepting two coins, so most likely the fork with less mining power will die quickly and there will be miniscule demand for it.

In the future if crypto becomes more mainstream, a fork that leaves two currencies will be more viable.

Dude, no one is using Bitcoin to pay for his Dish bill. That type of use case is never going to make a difference... get some sense, won't you?

Dish is definitely receiving Bitcoin payments.

Yeah maybe some hardcore Bitcoin dude does it but if we are being honest this use case is negligible.

Usage is negligible now; but these are the use cases that count the most for those in the Bitcoin is a currency camp. If you are in the Bitcoin is an asset camp, then you are right, who cares about the smaller transactions. I believe in the US consumer spending outweighs government and business spending combined. Tried to find some quick stats, but couldn't. Anyhow, the largest corps by market cap are all consumer oriented.

freedombit

sr. member

Activity: 274

Merit: 250

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 03, 2015, 12:43:59 AM

Quote from: freedombit on September 03, 2015, 12:40:07 AM

There is nothing wrong with a fork. Let's just make sure the exchanges allow the exchange of both. If there are exchanges that intentionally block one over the other, the exchange is not a supporter of free markets.

The only problem is that CURRENTLY, real world merchants like Dish, Expedia, etc will only accept "Bitcoin". They will not bother accepting two coins, so most likely the fork with less mining power will die quickly and there will be miniscule demand for it.

In the future if crypto becomes more mainstream, a fork that leaves two currencies will be more viable.

This might be a good time to look at the alt coins. Are there any alt coins that eventually went offline, or do all alt coins continue to exist, even if they only have two users and near zero value?

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: freedombit on September 03, 2015, 02:13:20 AM

Quote from: brg444 on September 03, 2015, 12:53:19 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 03, 2015, 12:43:59 AM

Quote from: freedombit on September 03, 2015, 12:40:07 AM

There is nothing wrong with a fork. Let's just make sure the exchanges allow the exchange of both. If there are exchanges that intentionally block one over the other, the exchange is not a supporter of free markets.

The only problem is that CURRENTLY, real world merchants like Dish, Expedia, etc will only accept "Bitcoin". They will not bother accepting two coins, so most likely the fork with less mining power will die quickly and there will be miniscule demand for it.

In the future if crypto becomes more mainstream, a fork that leaves two currencies will be more viable.

Dude, no one is using Bitcoin to pay for his Dish bill. That type of use case is never going to make a difference... get some sense, won't you?

Dish is definitely receiving Bitcoin payments.

Yeah maybe some hardcore Bitcoin dude does it but if we are being honest this use case is negligible.

freedombit

sr. member

Activity: 274

Merit: 250

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 03, 2015, 12:43:59 AM

Quote from: freedombit on September 03, 2015, 12:40:07 AM

There is nothing wrong with a fork. Let's just make sure the exchanges allow the exchange of both. If there are exchanges that intentionally block one over the other, the exchange is not a supporter of free markets.

The only problem is that CURRENTLY, real world merchants like Dish, Expedia, etc will only accept "Bitcoin". They will not bother accepting two coins, so most likely the fork with less mining power will die quickly and there will be miniscule demand for it.

In the future if crypto becomes more mainstream, a fork that leaves two currencies will be more viable.

I would not be so quick to assume that real world merchants will accept "only Bitcoin." First of all, some of these merchants were doing perfectly fine before accepting Bitcoin. They got into Bitcoin for a reason.

Secondly, it is entirely possible to build a "merchant service" whereby a Seller can accept any currency that the Buyer chooses, and have it instantly converted to their own currency. All this requires is more people to adopt Bitcoin and/or any other currency out there and to grow the exchange markets. Exchanges are very critical in this entire ecosystem.

freedombit

sr. member

Activity: 274

Merit: 250

Quote from: brg444 on September 03, 2015, 12:53:19 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 03, 2015, 12:43:59 AM

Quote from: freedombit on September 03, 2015, 12:40:07 AM

There is nothing wrong with a fork. Let's just make sure the exchanges allow the exchange of both. If there are exchanges that intentionally block one over the other, the exchange is not a supporter of free markets.

The only problem is that CURRENTLY, real world merchants like Dish, Expedia, etc will only accept "Bitcoin". They will not bother accepting two coins, so most likely the fork with less mining power will die quickly and there will be miniscule demand for it.

In the future if crypto becomes more mainstream, a fork that leaves two currencies will be more viable.

Dude, no one is using Bitcoin to pay for his Dish bill. That type of use case is never going to make a difference... get some sense, won't you?

Dish is definitely receiving Bitcoin payments.

danielW

sr. member

Activity: 277

Merit: 250

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 03, 2015, 01:00:38 AM

sounds reasonable, but I don't see why we should wait a year.
why not roll out 2mb in the next 4-6 weeks?

In general, my concerns would be having plenty of extra room in case there is a spike
in adoption, and not being forced off the main chain.

I am not sure if its good practice to roll out hard-forks in such a small time period, unless absolutely necessary.

Many people would not upgrade their client in time, inertia is big.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 03, 2015, 01:00:38 AM

In general, my concerns would be having plenty of extra room in case there is a spike
in adoption, and not being forced off the main chain.

That's the problem, you can't do that.

There is simply no reasonable way to plan for security if you make decisions based on speculative adoption assumptions

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: danielW on September 03, 2015, 12:54:43 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 03, 2015, 12:43:59 AM

Quote from: freedombit on September 03, 2015, 12:40:07 AM

There is nothing wrong with a fork. Let's just make sure the exchanges allow the exchange of both. If there are exchanges that intentionally block one over the other, the exchange is not a supporter of free markets.

The only problem is that CURRENTLY, real world merchants like Dish, Expedia, etc will only accept "Bitcoin". They will not bother accepting two coins, so most likely the fork with less mining power will die quickly and there will be miniscule demand for it.

In the future if crypto becomes more mainstream, a fork that leaves two currencies will be more viable.

I have a question to you and other big-blockers. What would be a minimal compromise proposal you could live with?

For example I think what Adam Back mentioned on twitter was very fair:

I.e. 2 mb now ( in reality it would have to be about 6 months to a year from now)

4 mb after 2 years,

8 mb after 2 years.

If that was agreed upon and pushed into core do you think that would be an acceptable compromise? Would people drop XT then?

At this point I would say "maybe". I will have a better opinion after seeing the effects of the stress test.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1004

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

sounds reasonable, but I don't see why we should wait a year.
why not roll out 2mb in the next 4-6 weeks?

In general, my concerns would be having plenty of extra room in case there is a spike
in adoption, and not being forced off the main chain.

danielW

sr. member

Activity: 277

Merit: 250

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 03, 2015, 12:43:59 AM

Quote from: freedombit on September 03, 2015, 12:40:07 AM

There is nothing wrong with a fork. Let's just make sure the exchanges allow the exchange of both. If there are exchanges that intentionally block one over the other, the exchange is not a supporter of free markets.

The only problem is that CURRENTLY, real world merchants like Dish, Expedia, etc will only accept "Bitcoin". They will not bother accepting two coins, so most likely the fork with less mining power will die quickly and there will be miniscule demand for it.

In the future if crypto becomes more mainstream, a fork that leaves two currencies will be more viable.

I have a question to you and other big-blockers. What would be a minimal compromise proposal you could live with?

For example I think what Adam Back mentioned on twitter was very fair:

I.e. 2 mb now ( in reality it would have to be about 6 months to a year from now)

4 mb after 2 years,

8 mb after 2 years.

If that was agreed upon and pushed into core do you think that would be an acceptable compromise? Would people drop XT then?

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 03, 2015, 12:43:59 AM

Quote from: freedombit on September 03, 2015, 12:40:07 AM

There is nothing wrong with a fork. Let's just make sure the exchanges allow the exchange of both. If there are exchanges that intentionally block one over the other, the exchange is not a supporter of free markets.

The only problem is that CURRENTLY, real world merchants like Dish, Expedia, etc will only accept "Bitcoin". They will not bother accepting two coins, so most likely the fork with less mining power will die quickly and there will be miniscule demand for it.

In the future if crypto becomes more mainstream, a fork that leaves two currencies will be more viable.

Dude, no one is using Bitcoin to pay for his Dish bill. That type of use case is never going to make a difference... get some sense, won't you?

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1004

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: freedombit on September 03, 2015, 12:40:07 AM

There is nothing wrong with a fork. Let's just make sure the exchanges allow the exchange of both. If there are exchanges that intentionally block one over the other, the exchange is not a supporter of free markets.

The only problem is that CURRENTLY, real world merchants like Dish, Expedia, etc will only accept "Bitcoin". They will not bother accepting two coins, so most likely the fork with less mining power will die quickly and there will be miniscule demand for it.

In the future if crypto becomes more mainstream, a fork that leaves two currencies will be more viable.

freedombit

sr. member

Activity: 274

Merit: 250

There is nothing wrong with a fork. Let's just make sure the exchanges allow the exchange of both. If there are exchanges that intentionally block one over the other, the exchange is not a supporter of free markets.

Edit: Bitcoin, no matter what form or forms it takes, will survive.

dopecoindude

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1000

The Dude Of DopeCoin

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 03, 2015, 12:29:08 AM

@danielW , completely agree that splintering factions of Bitcoin can't survive on their own. We are all in this together.

I'm amazed by how passionate people are about Bitcoin, on both sides. I'm hoping we'll all come out on the other side of this stronger than ever.

I couldn't agree more with this sentiment. I hope we all can just get a long.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1004

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

@danielW , completely agree that splintering factions of Bitcoin can't survive on their own. We are all in this together.

I'm amazed by how passionate people are about Bitcoin, on both sides. I'm hoping we'll all come out on the other side of this stronger than ever.

Topic: An Open Letter to the Bitcoin Community from the Developers (Read 5891 times)