An Open Letter to the Bitcoin Community from the Developers - page 3.

dothebeats

legendary

Activity: 3542

Merit: 1352

Cashback 15%

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 01:12:28 PM

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on September 02, 2015, 01:09:56 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 02, 2015, 01:05:59 PM

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on September 02, 2015, 01:04:59 PM

Quote from: RoadTrain on September 02, 2015, 12:52:07 PM

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on September 02, 2015, 12:45:56 PM

The problem lies with shitheads like Luke Dashjr who make changes unilaterally. He decides to make a Gentoo patch that blacklists sites. The bastard blacklisted SatoshiDice, BitcoinDice, Satoshibones, and Luckybit. He also blocked addresses operated by Mastercoin, and Counterparty without telling anyone. He used his pools power, disregarding the trust of his miners, to destroy an altcoin instead of mine Bitcoin which is what his miners signed up to do. As long as people like him are on the dev team I find it hard to trust anything they say or do because you won't find out until way after the fact that any change was made. When you involve corporate heads and government heads to operate your company and develop Bitcoin it's like having an entire team of Luke Dashjr's controlling Bitcoin. At that point I'm out. MasterCard, Visa and bank accounts have worked well for me so far, jumping the extra hoops to use Bitcoin won't be worth it, and the old financial system execs are in charge anyway so why change?

Luke is not a core developer and doesn't have commit access to Bitcoin's repo: https://bitcoin.org/en/development
Though it doesn't prevent him from doing stuff for Core, as many other contributors do.

My point remains. Who can I trust? I already don't trust Circle, Coinbase, a number of other Bitcoin businesses, a clear quarter of the dev team and half the mining pools. What am I left with? I could fire off a laundry list of things I disagree with that have been done by the dev team. Luke Dashjr is just the most extreme example of stupidity. They deliver a signed letter about this great new direction and open consensus that's going to happen. Pfft, they're about as open as the Bitcoin Foundation and agree with community consensus about as much as a military base does. Whatever.

Gavin?

LOL

You shouldn't have to trust anybody...

Because bitcoin was meant to be a trustless network since its beginning. And you shouldn't trust people in the internet, or in real life too much.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on September 02, 2015, 01:09:56 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 02, 2015, 01:05:59 PM

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on September 02, 2015, 01:04:59 PM

Quote from: RoadTrain on September 02, 2015, 12:52:07 PM

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on September 02, 2015, 12:45:56 PM

The problem lies with shitheads like Luke Dashjr who make changes unilaterally. He decides to make a Gentoo patch that blacklists sites. The bastard blacklisted SatoshiDice, BitcoinDice, Satoshibones, and Luckybit. He also blocked addresses operated by Mastercoin, and Counterparty without telling anyone. He used his pools power, disregarding the trust of his miners, to destroy an altcoin instead of mine Bitcoin which is what his miners signed up to do. As long as people like him are on the dev team I find it hard to trust anything they say or do because you won't find out until way after the fact that any change was made. When you involve corporate heads and government heads to operate your company and develop Bitcoin it's like having an entire team of Luke Dashjr's controlling Bitcoin. At that point I'm out. MasterCard, Visa and bank accounts have worked well for me so far, jumping the extra hoops to use Bitcoin won't be worth it, and the old financial system execs are in charge anyway so why change?

Luke is not a core developer and doesn't have commit access to Bitcoin's repo: https://bitcoin.org/en/development
Though it doesn't prevent him from doing stuff for Core, as many other contributors do.

My point remains. Who can I trust? I already don't trust Circle, Coinbase, a number of other Bitcoin businesses, a clear quarter of the dev team and half the mining pools. What am I left with? I could fire off a laundry list of things I disagree with that have been done by the dev team. Luke Dashjr is just the most extreme example of stupidity. They deliver a signed letter about this great new direction and open consensus that's going to happen. Pfft, they're about as open as the Bitcoin Foundation and agree with community consensus about as much as a military base does. Whatever.

Gavin?

LOL

You shouldn't have to trust anybody...

QuestionAuthority

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1393

You lead and I'll watch you walk away.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 02, 2015, 01:05:59 PM

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on September 02, 2015, 01:04:59 PM

Quote from: RoadTrain on September 02, 2015, 12:52:07 PM

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on September 02, 2015, 12:45:56 PM

The problem lies with shitheads like Luke Dashjr who make changes unilaterally. He decides to make a Gentoo patch that blacklists sites. The bastard blacklisted SatoshiDice, BitcoinDice, Satoshibones, and Luckybit. He also blocked addresses operated by Mastercoin, and Counterparty without telling anyone. He used his pools power, disregarding the trust of his miners, to destroy an altcoin instead of mine Bitcoin which is what his miners signed up to do. As long as people like him are on the dev team I find it hard to trust anything they say or do because you won't find out until way after the fact that any change was made. When you involve corporate heads and government heads to operate your company and develop Bitcoin it's like having an entire team of Luke Dashjr's controlling Bitcoin. At that point I'm out. MasterCard, Visa and bank accounts have worked well for me so far, jumping the extra hoops to use Bitcoin won't be worth it, and the old financial system execs are in charge anyway so why change?

Luke is not a core developer and doesn't have commit access to Bitcoin's repo: https://bitcoin.org/en/development
Though it doesn't prevent him from doing stuff for Core, as many other contributors do.

My point remains. Who can I trust? I already don't trust Circle, Coinbase, a number of other Bitcoin businesses, a clear quarter of the dev team and half the mining pools. What am I left with? I could fire off a laundry list of things I disagree with that have been done by the dev team. Luke Dashjr is just the most extreme example of stupidity. They deliver a signed letter about this great new direction and open consensus that's going to happen. Pfft, they're about as open as the Bitcoin Foundation and agree with community consensus about as much as a military base does. Whatever.

Gavin?

LOL

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1004

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on September 02, 2015, 01:04:59 PM

Quote from: RoadTrain on September 02, 2015, 12:52:07 PM

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on September 02, 2015, 12:45:56 PM

The problem lies with shitheads like Luke Dashjr who make changes unilaterally. He decides to make a Gentoo patch that blacklists sites. The bastard blacklisted SatoshiDice, BitcoinDice, Satoshibones, and Luckybit. He also blocked addresses operated by Mastercoin, and Counterparty without telling anyone. He used his pools power, disregarding the trust of his miners, to destroy an altcoin instead of mine Bitcoin which is what his miners signed up to do. As long as people like him are on the dev team I find it hard to trust anything they say or do because you won't find out until way after the fact that any change was made. When you involve corporate heads and government heads to operate your company and develop Bitcoin it's like having an entire team of Luke Dashjr's controlling Bitcoin. At that point I'm out. MasterCard, Visa and bank accounts have worked well for me so far, jumping the extra hoops to use Bitcoin won't be worth it, and the old financial system execs are in charge anyway so why change?

Luke is not a core developer and doesn't have commit access to Bitcoin's repo: https://bitcoin.org/en/development
Though it doesn't prevent him from doing stuff for Core, as many other contributors do.

My point remains. Who can I trust? I already don't trust Circle, Coinbase, a number of other Bitcoin businesses, a clear quarter of the dev team and half the mining pools. What am I left with? I could fire off a laundry list of things I disagree with that have been done by the dev team. Luke Dashjr is just the most extreme example of stupidity. They deliver a signed letter about this great new direction and open consensus that's going to happen. Pfft, they're about as open as the Bitcoin Foundation and agree with community consensus about as much as a military base does. Whatever.

Gavin?

QuestionAuthority

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1393

You lead and I'll watch you walk away.

Quote from: RoadTrain on September 02, 2015, 12:52:07 PM

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on September 02, 2015, 12:45:56 PM

The problem lies with shitheads like Luke Dashjr who make changes unilaterally. He decides to make a Gentoo patch that blacklists sites. The bastard blacklisted SatoshiDice, BitcoinDice, Satoshibones, and Luckybit. He also blocked addresses operated by Mastercoin, and Counterparty without telling anyone. He used his pools power, disregarding the trust of his miners, to destroy an altcoin instead of mine Bitcoin which is what his miners signed up to do. As long as people like him are on the dev team I find it hard to trust anything they say or do because you won't find out until way after the fact that any change was made. When you involve corporate heads and government heads to operate your company and develop Bitcoin it's like having an entire team of Luke Dashjr's controlling Bitcoin. At that point I'm out. MasterCard, Visa and bank accounts have worked well for me so far, jumping the extra hoops to use Bitcoin won't be worth it, and the old financial system execs are in charge anyway so why change?

Luke is not a core developer and doesn't have commit access to Bitcoin's repo: https://bitcoin.org/en/development
Though it doesn't prevent him from doing stuff for Core, as many other contributors do.

My point remains. Who can I trust? I already don't trust Circle, Coinbase, a number of other Bitcoin businesses, a clear quarter of the dev team and half the mining pools. What am I left with? I could fire off a laundry list of things I disagree with that have been done by the dev team. Luke Dashjr is just the most extreme example of stupidity. They deliver a signed letter about this great new direction and open consensus that's going to happen. Pfft, they're about as open as the Bitcoin Foundation and agree with community consensus about as much as a military base does. Whatever.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on September 02, 2015, 12:45:56 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 02, 2015, 12:19:45 PM

Quote from: IIOII on September 02, 2015, 12:11:26 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 11:49:38 AM

This scaling solution was part of the plan from the whole beginning. It’s just too bad a better solution didn't came up until to this point but now is the time to accept it and move forward. Time is money for these businesses and they can no longer afford to wait any more. They will make things happen as planned.

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 11:58:26 AM

The DDOS protection in XT is also an overblown concern about blacklisting. Nobody wants this and every major players understand that bitcoin need to remain agnostic and fungible as they are key attributes for being a robust system.

It seems to be your job to downplay valid concerns with bogus arguments. Either you are hopelessly naive or a Hearndresencoin shill.

Welcome to my ignore list.

If you don't understand the difference between DDOS blacklisting of IPs and blacklisting of coins which threatens fungibility, you are hopelessly naive or a blockstream shill.

The problem lies with shitheads like Luke Dashjr who make changes unilaterally. He decides to make a Gentoo patch that blacklists sites. The bastard blacklisted SatoshiDice, BitcoinDice, Satoshibones, and Luckybit. He also blocked addresses operated by Mastercoin, and Counterparty without telling anyone. He used his pools power, disregarding the trust of his miners, to destroy an altcoin instead of mine Bitcoin which is what his miners signed up to do. As long as people like him are on the dev team I find it hard to trust anything they say or do because you won't find out until way after the fact that any change was made. When you involve corporate heads and government heads to operate your company and develop Bitcoin it's like having an entire team of Luke Dashjr's controlling Bitcoin. At that point I'm out. MasterCard, Visa and bank accounts have worked well for me so far, jumping the extra hoops to use Bitcoin won't be worth it, and the old financial system execs are in charge anyway so why change?

I get you point but it is inevitable that bitcoin is/will go to another level where every major governments and corporations will want a piece of it. If bitcoin core's principle happens to work out just as it should, nothing should really change in a fundamental level. Bitcoin is international so governments and corporations around the world will still be decentralized having opposite views and will still need consensus for any change. We can expect to see awesome products coming out of these companies if everything happen as expected. If they make some changes that you strongly disagree with and affect your ways of moving money around, there will be roundabout systems and/or altcoins trying to monetize on your specific needs. The only thing we can be 100% sure is that the cat is out of the bag and things will evolve wildly in this space.

Hang tight and put your seatbelt, it won't be a smooth ride.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1004

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: IIOII on September 02, 2015, 12:49:33 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 02, 2015, 12:19:45 PM

If you don't understand the difference between DDOS blacklisting of IPs and blacklisting of coins which threatens fungibility, you are hopelessly naive or a blockstream shill.

1.) What makes you think that I don't understand the difference?

Actually I apologize, I misread the post.

IIOII

legendary

Activity: 1153

Merit: 1012

Quote from: RoadTrain on September 02, 2015, 12:52:07 PM

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on September 02, 2015, 12:45:56 PM

The problem lies with shitheads like Luke Dashjr who make changes unilaterally. He decides to make a Gentoo patch that blacklists sites. The bastard blacklisted SatoshiDice, BitcoinDice, Satoshibones, and Luckybit. He also blocked addresses operated by Mastercoin, and Counterparty without telling anyone. He used his pools power, disregarding the trust of his miners, to destroy an altcoin instead of mine Bitcoin which is what his miners signed up to do. As long as people like him are on the dev team I find it hard to trust anything they say or do because you won't find out until way after the fact that any change was made. When you involve corporate heads and government heads to operate your company and develop Bitcoin it's like having an entire team of Luke Dashjr's controlling Bitcoin. At that point I'm out. MasterCard, Visa and bank accounts have worked well for me so far, jumping the extra hoops to use Bitcoin won't be worth it, and the old financial system execs are in charge anyway so why change?

Luke is not a core developer and doesn't have commit access to Bitcoin's repo: https://bitcoin.org/en/development
Though it doesn't prevent him from doing stuff for Core, as many other contributors do.

Luke certainly has a rather controlling character. On the other hand he made some significant contributions to Core. I think within the current consensus process he won't be able to harm Bitcoin, because the other developers will prevent it. Imho overall it is still good to have him on board.

RoadTrain

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1009

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on September 02, 2015, 12:45:56 PM

The problem lies with shitheads like Luke Dashjr who make changes unilaterally. He decides to make a Gentoo patch that blacklists sites. The bastard blacklisted SatoshiDice, BitcoinDice, Satoshibones, and Luckybit. He also blocked addresses operated by Mastercoin, and Counterparty without telling anyone. He used his pools power, disregarding the trust of his miners, to destroy an altcoin instead of mine Bitcoin which is what his miners signed up to do. As long as people like him are on the dev team I find it hard to trust anything they say or do because you won't find out until way after the fact that any change was made. When you involve corporate heads and government heads to operate your company and develop Bitcoin it's like having an entire team of Luke Dashjr's controlling Bitcoin. At that point I'm out. MasterCard, Visa and bank accounts have worked well for me so far, jumping the extra hoops to use Bitcoin won't be worth it, and the old financial system execs are in charge anyway so why change?

Luke is not a core developer and doesn't have commit access to Bitcoin's repo: https://bitcoin.org/en/development
Though it doesn't prevent him from doing stuff for Core, as many other contributors do.

IIOII

legendary

Activity: 1153

Merit: 1012

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 02, 2015, 12:19:45 PM

If you don't understand the difference between DDOS blacklisting of IPs and blacklisting of coins which threatens fungibility, you are hopelessly naive or a blockstream shill.

1.) What makes you think that I don't understand the difference?
2.) What makes you think that IP blacklisting is harmless?

These are rhetorical questions. Don't put too much effort into your answer, because I will no longer read it.

QuestionAuthority

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1393

You lead and I'll watch you walk away.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 02, 2015, 12:19:45 PM

Quote from: IIOII on September 02, 2015, 12:11:26 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 11:49:38 AM

This scaling solution was part of the plan from the whole beginning. It’s just too bad a better solution didn't came up until to this point but now is the time to accept it and move forward. Time is money for these businesses and they can no longer afford to wait any more. They will make things happen as planned.

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 11:58:26 AM

The DDOS protection in XT is also an overblown concern about blacklisting. Nobody wants this and every major players understand that bitcoin need to remain agnostic and fungible as they are key attributes for being a robust system.

It seems to be your job to downplay valid concerns with bogus arguments. Either you are hopelessly naive or a Hearndresencoin shill.

Welcome to my ignore list.

If you don't understand the difference between DDOS blacklisting of IPs and blacklisting of coins which threatens fungibility, you are hopelessly naive or a blockstream shill.

The problem lies with shitheads like Luke Dashjr who make changes unilaterally. He decides to make a Gentoo patch that blacklists sites. The bastard blacklisted SatoshiDice, BitcoinDice, Satoshibones, and Luckybit. He also blocked addresses operated by Mastercoin, and Counterparty without telling anyone. He used his pools power, disregarding the trust of his miners, to destroy an altcoin instead of mine Bitcoin which is what his miners signed up to do. As long as people like him are on the dev team I find it hard to trust anything they say or do because you won't find out until way after the fact that any change was made. When you involve corporate heads and government heads to operate your company and develop Bitcoin it's like having an entire team of Luke Dashjr's controlling Bitcoin. At that point I'm out. MasterCard, Visa and bank accounts have worked well for me so far, jumping the extra hoops to use Bitcoin won't be worth it, and the old financial system execs are in charge anyway so why change?

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 02, 2015, 12:19:45 PM

Quote from: IIOII on September 02, 2015, 12:11:26 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 11:49:38 AM

This scaling solution was part of the plan from the whole beginning. It’s just too bad a better solution didn't came up until to this point but now is the time to accept it and move forward. Time is money for these businesses and they can no longer afford to wait any more. They will make things happen as planned.

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 11:58:26 AM

The DDOS protection in XT is also an overblown concern about blacklisting. Nobody wants this and every major players understand that bitcoin need to remain agnostic and fungible as they are key attributes for being a robust system.

It seems to be your job to downplay valid concerns with bogus arguments. Either you are hopelessly naive or a Hearndresencoin shill.

Welcome to my ignore list.

If you don't understand the difference between DDOS blacklisting of IPs and blacklisting of coins which threatens fungibility, you are hopelessly ~~naive~~ paranoid or a blockstream shill.

FTFY

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1004

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: IIOII on September 02, 2015, 12:11:26 PM

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 11:49:38 AM

This scaling solution was part of the plan from the whole beginning. It’s just too bad a better solution didn't came up until to this point but now is the time to accept it and move forward. Time is money for these businesses and they can no longer afford to wait any more. They will make things happen as planned.

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 11:58:26 AM

The DDOS protection in XT is also an overblown concern about blacklisting. Nobody wants this and every major players understand that bitcoin need to remain agnostic and fungible as they are key attributes for being a robust system.

It seems to be your job to downplay valid concerns with bogus arguments. Either you are hopelessly naive or a Hearndresencoin shill.

Welcome to my ignore list.

If you don't understand the difference between DDOS blacklisting of IPs and blacklisting of coins which threatens fungibility, you are hopelessly naive or a blockstream shill.

IIOII

legendary

Activity: 1153

Merit: 1012

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 11:49:38 AM

This scaling solution was part of the plan from the whole beginning. It’s just too bad a better solution didn't came up until to this point but now is the time to accept it and move forward. Time is money for these businesses and they can no longer afford to wait any more. They will make things happen as planned.

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 11:58:26 AM

The DDOS protection in XT is also an overblown concern about blacklisting. Nobody wants this and every major players understand that bitcoin need to remain agnostic and fungible as they are key attributes for being a robust system.

It seems to be your job to downplay valid concerns with bogus arguments. Either you are hopelessly naive or a Hearndresencoin shill.

Welcome to my ignore list.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on September 02, 2015, 11:27:01 AM

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 11:16:02 AM

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on September 02, 2015, 11:13:02 AM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on September 02, 2015, 11:04:02 AM

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 10:59:44 AM

Circle intentions are no suprise and no secrets from the whole beginning

Which is precisely why I'm supplying the information from Circle's own press releases

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 10:59:44 AM

and they do share the same goals than most of the biggest companies in the bitcoin space.

Except for all those that don't share their goals, of course

I guess people here don't understand that you are presenting proof that the financial status quo is hell bent on taking over Bitcoin. It makes sense for them to at least try to have some controlling interest in this new revolutionary technology. The problem is when they control the upper echelon of Bitcoin business and development it won't really be revolutionary techonology anymore but instead it will be the same old shit in a shiny new wrapper.

They won't be able to change a single thing of what bitcoin is expect for the scalability issue. What are you afraid they could do to the protocol exactly?

You don't really believe that do you? One small change could bring blacklisting and end Bitcoin's fungability. There are numerous ways to change Bitcoin for the worst. Sure, the few hundred thousand current users here would abandon it but hundreds of millions of other mainstream users would pick it up and trust it because big names in finance are supporting the system.

The DDOS protection in XT is also an overblown concern about blacklisting. Nobody wants this and every major players understand that bitcoin need to remain agnostic and fungible as they are key attributes for being a robust system.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: IIOII on September 02, 2015, 11:42:22 AM

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 11:33:39 AM

Quote from: IIOII on September 02, 2015, 11:32:01 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 02, 2015, 11:19:19 AM

If they want a piece of it then they want it to succeed. Bip 101 lets it scale.

Retard arguments for the simple minded...

Since decentralization does not matter, the followers of Hearndresencoin can just use Paypal. There's no difference besides the personality cult around Andresen and Hearn.

Scaling bitcoin won't make it less decentralized to the point of jeopardising its robustness. The fear of centralization is overblown.

Of course scaling is possible without harming decentralization. Just not the way those two self-proclaimed "benevolent dictators" want to do it. Their proposal which (among other privacy-attacking features) is now included into their Altcoin is not a well-thought-out solution. That's why the vast majority of Bitcoin Core developers rejected it.

Andresen and Hearn are very good at making PR and bully for their own interests. However that doesn't make them good engineers.

This scaling solution was part of the plan from the whole beginning. It’s just too bad a better solution didn't came up until to this point but now is the time to accept it and move forward. Time is money for these businesses and they can no longer afford to wait any more. They will make things happen as planned.

IIOII

legendary

Activity: 1153

Merit: 1012

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 11:33:39 AM

Quote from: IIOII on September 02, 2015, 11:32:01 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 02, 2015, 11:19:19 AM

If they want a piece of it then they want it to succeed. Bip 101 lets it scale.

Retard arguments for the simple minded...

Since decentralization does not matter, the followers of Hearndresencoin can just use Paypal. There's no difference besides the personality cult around Andresen and Hearn.

Scaling bitcoin won't make it less decentralized to the point of jeopardising its robustness. The fear of centralization is overblown.

Of course scaling is possible without harming decentralization. Just not the way those two self-proclaimed "benevolent dictators" want to do it. Their proposal which (among other privacy-attacking features) is now included into their Altcoin is not a well-thought-out solution. That's why the vast majority of Bitcoin Core developers rejected it.

Andresen and Hearn are very good at making PR and bully for their own interests. However that doesn't make them good engineers.

BitProdigy

full member

Activity: 322

Merit: 114

We Are The New Wealthy Elite, Gentlemen

A Proposal for the Consensus Building Process:

1) All BIP's have equal weight in the voting process.

2)Miners vote with each newly mined Block.

3) BIPs are revised and amended according to argument and reservations submitted so that they are molded into the best possible versions that everyone is happy with.

4) Once 75% of blocks mined within the last 1000 blocks is in support of one BIP, an alert is sent out to everyone indicating that they should switch over to supporting this BIP.

5) Once 90% of blocks mined within the last 1000 blocks indicates support of the BIP the debate is over and the new BIP is implemented, all blocks that do not include the new BIP protocol changes are after that point rejected.

Historically the threshold has been 95% such as with BIP69, but I suggest lowering that to 90%. Agree? Disagree?

A few of us are working on creating an Open Letter to the Devs from The Bitcoin Community which will include this proposal. If you would like to help us shape this document PM me and I will send you a link to the Google Doc so you can help us write the letter.

RoadTrain

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1009

Quote from: knight22 on September 02, 2015, 11:33:39 AM

Quote from: IIOII on September 02, 2015, 11:32:01 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 02, 2015, 11:19:19 AM

If they want a piece of it then they want it to succeed. Bip 101 lets it scale.

Retard arguments for the simple minded...

Since decentralization does not matter, the followers of Hearndresencoin can just use Paypal. There's no difference besides the personality cult around Andresen and Hearn.

Scaling bitcoin won't make it less decentralized to the point of jeopardising its robustness. The fear of centralization is overblown.

Scaling bitcoin by exponentially increasing blocksize limit will make it less decentralized to the point of jeopardising its robustness. The fear of centralization is justified.

You know, I can make statements as well.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: IIOII on September 02, 2015, 11:32:01 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on September 02, 2015, 11:19:19 AM

If they want a piece of it then they want it to succeed. Bip 101 lets it scale.

Retard arguments for the simple minded...

Since decentralization does not matter, the followers of Hearndresencoin can just use Paypal. There's no difference besides the personality cult around Andresen and Hearn.

Scaling bitcoin won't make it less decentralized to the point of jeopardising its robustness. The fear of centralization is overblown.

Topic: An Open Letter to the Bitcoin Community from the Developers - page 3. (Read 5891 times)