Topic: Are the forkers purposely trying to kill BTC? - page 2. (Read 2370 times)

I don't think that they are "purposely" trying to kill bitcoins. They are just businessmen who keeps on thinking how to make huge profits out of what is currently available in our community. You might also want to think that they are trying to compete with the mainstream - like visa when it comes to transactions. If they happen to kill bitcoin one day then you must not cry like a baby... if you want to get rich (granting that is your purpose with your bitcoins) then you must be prepared with the constant change.

There is no such thing as safe haven. Maybe for a while... CAVEAT!

Maybe I'm alone in this, but I'd argue it's working exactly as intended.  Some of the other people who also perceive that to be a problem have produced some code and released it into the open market to compete.  Whilst others are working on some different code and will release that in November.  

Everyone's doing what they think is best for the future, even if a decidedly vocal rabble constantly bitch about it or call it an attack.  

We've literally never had it so good.  At all times, users are free to decide which code they wish to use.  And even if you can't decide, or want to wait for a while before you decide, or don't want to make a decision at all, it doesn't even matter if you hold coins before any fork.  You can just watch events unfold and decide to switch clients later, or go with the flow.  I don't get why people are so upset about this, aside from being misled by the utterly mistaken belief that there should be a centralised authority in control, which runs wholly contrary to the entire concept behind Bitcoin.


The amount of control in Bitcoin is limited to the following.


As a user, you have control over:

• Your private keys (and corresponding wealth)
• Which software you choose to run
• The chain you wish to transact on
• Whether you run a full node and influence the rules enforced on your desired chain, or just rely on SPV

and how much you complain about how the other two groups don't agree with you (but you don't get to tell them what to do).



As a developer, you have control over:

• The code you produce and the rules you ideally want your own client to enforce
• Which direction in development you would like your own client to follow
• The chain you wish to develop upon
• Any repositories you might be in charge of

and how much you complain about how the other two groups don't agree with you (but you don't get to tell them what to do).



As a miner, you have control over:

• How much you wish to invest in hardware
• What you do with your block reward coins
• The mining pool you want to contribute to at any given time
• Which software you choose to run and, causally, which chain you choose to mine

and how much you complain about how the other two groups don't agree with you (but you don't get to tell them what to do).



And finally, you also have control over being involved in more than one of these categories, if you so choose, or even all three.

But that's about it.  

No developer overlords making all the decisions.  No miner overlords making all the decisions.  No user (activated softfork  ) overlords making all the decisions.  If anyone advocates any of those things, they need to seriously consider what it is they're actually asking for, because I think any of those outcomes results in a weaker Bitcoin, not a stronger one.  As paradoxical as it sounds, everyone has just enough control in order to make it so that no one has overall control.  That's how it should be.  

Everything else is a mix of freedom, incentivisation, competition, equilibrium and consensus.  

The forkers are NOT trying to kill BTC.

Maybe Bitcoin was never ideal for micropayments from a design perspective. They worked initially because there wasn't much demand for transaction confirmations (not many people used the network). Now that there is so much demand, we need off-chain solutions like the Lightning Network, which don't compromise the trustless model. LN's model may be different and off-chain, but it is trustless and fully compatible with Bitcoin. That's good enough for me.

The micropayment markets have been gone for awhile.  Now the markets in the moderate ranges are being effected....many (almost all) of the early adopters were the moderate ranged markets ---> e-stuff, coffee shops, vape clubs....this is going to have a longer lasting effect I believe....confidence in the platform is waning.  Who's going to invest in a merchant gateway that's unpredictably fickle and subject to becoming obsolete?  I don't know, I'm beginning to think the bitcoin cash syndicate was right all along.

It's frustrating, I know. I used bitcoin for my last month's VPN payment... same situation. The fact is that Bitcoin, as is, isn't ideal for micropayments. This recent network spam isn't helping, either. There's a lot of progress being made, though. Segwit is now active; as people migrate to Segwit outputs, new capacity will be created for everyone on the network.

The Lightning Network isn't far off, either. The Zap wallet was released in beta a week or two ago, and it's a Lightning Network wallet. Eclair is around the corner, too. The wheels are in motion!

The other day I wanted to purchase a 5 dollar e-book; the transaction fee was greater than the price of the merchandise I was trying to purchase!  The book cost 5 bucks, the minimum fee (Xapo-dynamic fee) was six bucks, so the total transaction was 11 bucks!  That's not going to work!  Right now the standard transaction fee is ~5.44 USD (https://estimatefee.com/).  <--- That's not going to work and I don't care what color the smoke is they're blowing up my ass!

5-10% sounds absurd, but as you mention, we don't need micro-transactions to be confirmed on-chain. If Bitcoin is really to be digital gold (thus achieving much higher values), we can expect that on-chain fees in fiat terms will appear absurd. What you're paying for are confirmations on the most secure payment network in the world. That can't be cheap judging by the expenditures miners make.

For redundant consumer payments, particularly with companies like Coinbase and Bitpay, the Lightning Network will hopefully make Bitcoin micro-transactions tenable.

You are right dude and this is why we need the Lightning Network. I can't even imagine Bitcoin going past $10,000 without some major development (like LN) otherwise who in their right mind would pay 5%-10% fees on every transaction when credit cards are far lower? (2.9% and under)

It just doesn't make sense and hopefully there is a solution very shortly or Bitcoin is screwed!

Well, it's looking like bitcoin isn't quite the platform we imagined we could build to engage in the markets equitably....It's too slow, too expensive, and involves too much maintenance.  It makes one wonder: what good is bitcoin?  Maybe bitcoin cash will solve some of these problems so that we can start engaging the markets again.  When a six dollar fee is required to make a five dollar transaction, then something's wrong!  I don't care what the bitcoin Luddites say --->  BITCOIN IS BROKEN!  We need something that works.

Nonsense. It is pre tested and pre vetted a priori. Because, first grade arithmetic.


Ok, here you have a valid point.

I think that's a misrepresentation of what happened. If you kept up with the mailing lists and discussion on Github, the vast majority of developers were opposed to Gavin's scaling recommendations. Yes, there was a lot of debating for years, but it was nearly two years ago that Core (a collection of many dozen or even hundreds of developers) agreed on Segwit -- particularly because they wanted to address scalability (including fixing transaction malleability for the Lightning Network) without the messy consensus issues associated with a hard fork.

The obstacle was the miners, who refused to activate Segwit for the better part of a year, until BIP148 forced the issue.

That sounds great and all, but it takes time, effort and lots of money to organize such an effort. Powerful, entrenched miners know this and can leverage it against users. The unfortunate reality is that most users don't want to bother with mining; they just want to invest. Maybe this will change with time, if miners try to flex their muscles too much.

At this point, though, a small fry like me has very little to contribute and no technical know-how to even get the process started. Again, miners know this. Like everything else in capitalism, those with large amounts of capital can easily outcompete the small fries, who have no idea where to begin organizing the required capital.

we cant just say that they are trying to kill the bitcoin but i guess there are no reason why they are going to do that in my opinion i guess they wanted to make the bitcoin market value to increase in the market thats why they are doing split or forks and they are being successful in this situation.

And it seems like there are being some concessions suggested by the Core/small blocker/Blockstream contingent. For example, Samson Mow recently said, "No one ever said '1mb4eva,' just plan a hard-fork safely with rationale, engineering, & most importantly: Consensus." That sounds like backtracking to me. Blockstream engineer Rusty Russell, who works on a Lightning Network implementation just posted an article about how to hard fork Bitcoin, called "The Consensus Path To A Bitcoin Hard Fork." https://twitter.com/rusty_twit/status/900220500017905664

I'm not sure how to feel. Long ago, I took the position that hard forks (at least ones where a supermajority of miners coerce users into switching networks) were unacceptable save for some existential protocol flaw (whereby every user is necessarily incentivized to fix it). I still feel that way today. But it seems even Blockstream folks are starting to suggest that a hard fork is acceptable under certain circumstances.

Another poster made & posted this graphic awhile ago. It highlights how unconfirmed transactions peak when block size pro fork agenda is being pushed.



One issue with larger blocks is, it assumes a significant increase in transaction per second performance can be gained by increasing block size despite these claims being untested and unvetted.

Larger block supporters also assume these positives will outweigh any negatives associated with nodes becoming more centralized due to higher hardware requirements & possibly better attack vectors with larger blocks.

they really taking advantage since they knew that they can accumulate more success after doing some change and with how people support cryptos most
of the holders and believers will also invest with new ideas and instead of making great development they will generate new project instead.

Yeah, the non-agreed hard forking control battles are a valid feature of Bitcoin, even Core could start making questionable decisions (although this actually depends on which trolls you ask )

Really, it's a good thing overall. It forces Bitcoin investors to either understand their investment (and hence the computer science behind it), or sell up and let those that believe they understand it make the investment decisions. Which doesn't stop people believing something that doesn't work out, but hey, nobody's perfect

Oh christ, don't say that without wearing a crash helmet, lol


The "control" of the source code is only temporary, but it is control nonetheless. Only one group can control, but the users can change who that one group is. [/controlarguments]



Ultimate credibility points, for explaining it simply, IMHO

You can't claim the moral high ground here. The developers behind the fork are by no means unethical or immoral. Yes.. I agree with the fact that they are starting from an already successful venture. But these people also played their part in making Bitcoins successful. You can't ignore the contribution made by them, and you can't overlook the way the Core developers treated them.

Well that is their main agenda. Because they want to start a business from a successful thing. It is like getting the best employees out of a great and successful company. Well I think that morality does not exists in forking. In forking they are trying to kill the company by getting their best employees. And using the minds of the newly collected personality they can continue the progress and create new ideas.