Topic: Banks have bought the Core Team - page 5. (Read 5088 times)

BTW the non-rollback-ability / non backwards compatibility is what pisses me off about Segwit but it is the lesser evil between Segwit and BU

sure extension blocks might work but they have as much support as Ron Paul 

Core wants to increase from 1MB to 4MB and that is more than enough for the time being....

The idea of unlimited blocks is nonsense. Should 32MB blocks really be required, the blockchain will be so bloated that no one except professional datacenters can handle it.

Not very Satoshi-ish. 

nope.

the questionable pool would see their blocks are being rejected and in less time(than300k years) the pool will stop wasting its time making bad blocks costing the electric bill of 20mill exahash over 300k years.. and start thinking dang it.. lets start making blocks that follow the rules. or why are we bothering..

P.S
you can actually change the retarget rules without breaking the retarget rules to offset the 300k years doomsday.
EG
instead of:(in laymans)
if last 2016 blocks found in over 1210000 secs then lower difficulty..

do:(in laymans)
if last 2016 blocks found in over 1210000 secs then lower difficulty..
AND
if at 1210000 secs since last retarget, less than 2016 blocks found then lower difficulty..

which doesnt break any rules. but also helps ensure the difficulty adjusts every 2 weeks

Well, if until that point, they were following the rules, they have cranked up the difficulty on the "right" chain by a factor of 20 billion, right.  So now that they "stop making valid blocks" the rest of the world, with its 5 peta hash, will be able, at the given difficulty, to make a block
in about 300 000 years, and hope to get somewhat smaller difficulty in about 600 million years.   That's about the time it took for jellyfish to evolve into humans.

But it is true that your faithful nodes will reject happily all the blocks that come every 10 minutes from the nasty pool, and will wait for 300 000 years before they get a good block again.  As such, all people having "good coins" will at least hodle for 300 000 years

Or, they will finally accept those "illegal blocks" in order to finally get rid of their coins against a bargain, but at least, before their superdupergreatgrandchildren are old.

pool X can have 20million exahash. and other pools can have just 5 peta hash
meaning the blocks from pool X could show as most common block being solved and hitting the threshold.

but if at a certain event. they were to make something that doesnt meet the rules of the nodes. its rejected in 2 seconds

what results in lots of orphans/rejects until a block is found that meets the rules.

nodes only build on blocks which nodes accept and seeing as exchanges look at the blockchain through their node they only see block and tx data of blocks their node accepts.

so to spend a pools reward. a pool has to make a block that a exchanges node would accept. and thats all about ensuring that the majority of nodes accept that block so that when the nodes sync with each other they are building a chain of blocks they are happy with and can see the tx's inside to spend what they can see.

thus pools are reliant on node acceptance

its a symbiotic relationship .. not just pools and not just nodes.. but both meeting the same set of rules they can both agree on and build on to reduce and prevent orphan drama..
this is consensus.

pools could however get a few select nodes that agree on a certain rule to blindly follow without the symbiotic syncing consensus mechanisms causing orphan drama.. by literally banning opposition. this is then altcoin making by avoiding the consensus and forming their own network.

This is not really the case as long as they maintain the 95% threshold, no ?  

And no, node count explicitly doesn't matter, because bitcoin is a hashrate consensus system, explicitly rejecting node counting, which has no meaning, because it can easily be faked by Sybil attacks, and has no relationship to economic stake either.  People with essentially zero stake in bitcoin have just as much voting power than whales owning several percent of the stash if you count nodes.  Maybe even more, because bitcoinless geeks or people with special interests may have more nodes running than busy coin holders that are not technically versed into doing so, and have, for instance, most of their stuff on exchanges or online wallets, or are using a light wallet like electrum.

The danger is when they turn to less than 95% blocks soft fork, like LTC is doing.

Where is the point in saying that Bitcoin Core Dev Team is owned by banks?
That is kind of funny of me, I never believe in such a conspiracy theory, and this one is actually the same!

Indeed, I also doubt that SegWit will be implemented, because 95% is a really big percantage, when Im sure that not every miner cares about the whole conensus, if he prefers Bitcoin unlimited or Segwit.
For now, it looks like that hard-fork has way bigger chance to be done, than seeing SegWit on bitcoin core.

I really hope that LTC will do SegWit, and it will maybe show up the rest of miners, which solution is the best.

1. core bypassed consensus with the going soft backdoor. thus node consensus cant vote for or veto out. core thought that bribing pools with lots of paid weekend vacations was the fast route to get a "yay" activation quick

2. core have now found out that pools are saying nay/abstaining... cor have just last month found out the half baked sgwit is not as compatible as promised..
but rather than accepting its not an easy 'yay'. you have to ask... are core supporting pools, are they asking pools and the community what would be acceptable and thus making a plan B version of a 1merkle segwit with dynamics and a low txsigop limit and other community uniting features... nope

3. blockstream(core) have employed a guy to be the face(samson mow) for really FORCING the half baked segwit for upto another year and a half (UASF quote up to the end of 2018*)

4. blockstream(core) are not accepting 'consensus' saying 'nay' in any form... its just push or delay as their only options.. not make a recode that is community requested with features that would make it a 'yay'

please look beyond reddit and look at the reality, else this half baked segwit drama will continue until 2019*

*http://www.uasf.co/

I dont want to disagree with you since there is also a possibility that you might be true but since you lack clear evidence to support your claim then your post will be considered as a conspiracy theory or was just done to damage the credibility of segwit. But if you are true and want to convince the community about this very important matter then at least provide some proofs to shed some light to the readers.

So are we really discussing a flame post made by a newbie with a single post?
Really?

How many stories we have already about banks, governments, wall street, reptilians, soros  and god know who else bribing each of the rival team?

If you want an even simpler (non technical) explanation: 

Segwit transactions are in a new format from traditional bitcoin transactions. 

You can stop creating new segwit transactions, but existing segwit transactions
that are already in blocks will still need the segwit code to validated them,
in order to keep the blockchain ledger accurate.

Of course it is, this world would be a very different place if it wasn't like that, but that was pretty much expected. Money from the people, for the people is stil an ideal.

It was.  Funny how people say that now.

http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/2/

buying core team will not stop bitcoin either, core team is just there for support, isn't dictating the fate of bitcoin which is based on consensus for your information

and banks last tiem i checked were creating their own version of the blockchain, but centralized, i don't think they will give a damn about bitcoin anymore

i also don't like the centralization hub of LN, but currently there are no other better solution than segwit to scale, and i'm sure we can't wait forever to find a better one

Craig Wright was paid $200 million by "investors"(probably banks).

But nevermind that. Core is the real danger?  

I think people forget bitcoin was never designed to compete with credit cards by procesings thousands of transactions per second.

If people want a crypto currency that can compete with credit cards, maybe they should make an alt coin rather than blaming core developers for staying true to Satoshi's original vision.

Oh how I wish to be one of those "useful idiots" finding block after block on my CPU...

I don't think that banks really care about Bitcoin, very few will understand it at a level to understand the block size debate.

There is less chance that they understood the block size debate, understood it in advance and managed to pay off the core team, who they would assume are going to look after Bitcoin's best interests, to do something that may be against Bitcoin's best interests!

Some things just happen, not everything is a big conspiracy!

Do you really think, developers will spend time on a project that are funded by millions of dollars and not plan to make some profit from this? Nobody does anything for free anymore and if you think Gavin and Ver are into this because they love the principle of this technology, then you are more gullible than I thought.

Everyone has some hidden agenda, including your beloved BU team. ^hmmmmmm^

Wah it sounds good plus just love it.

To the OP: there's no need for tin foil hats.   The fundamental problem with bitcoin and its block chain technology (like most alts BTW), is that there's no simple, fluid way for it to become a mainstream payment system.  That was pointed out to Satoshi very early in the discussion, and he waved that away, but the fact is that a system that needs everybody to know, in a cryptographically secured way, all transactions by everybody else, world-wide, before being able to accept a payment, is bound to be "computationally heavy" to say the least.

Satoshi's initial view on that problem was re-centralization: a few big data centres/centralized miners, which are the few big nodes in the network, no more P2P network, and those few data centres with those few big nodes (the "bitcoin facebook servers") are then connected to directly by all users.

In other words, those few data centres are then the "unique world bank".

He considered the P2P phase of enthusiasts (useful idiots) just a phase to get bitcoin accepted, but that would be fading away when network and mining competition would naturally lead to an oligarchy of miners/full nodes,  with blocks of about 1 GB.

So in a way, Satoshi realized that bitcoin was, finally, not going to get rid of centralized banking, only, those banks would now be the few full nodes/miners.  In a way, he admitted, without saying so, that bitcoin's invention was doomed not to succeed in what its outlined purpose was: a P2P "people's own money" system.  Nevertheless, he might have considered that those few data centres/miners/full nodes/world banks would at least be bound to something (even though they would have all the power needed to, for instance, increase the total amount of bitcoin, give themselves all the rewards they'd like, change the PoW or whatever.... if bitcoin were the unique world currency, people wouldn't have any recourse either).

So, Satoshi's long term vision of bitcoin was in any case a centralized banking/mining/node system, and not a P2P network.  I don't think that it is because he was paid by the Rothschilds, but simply because at a certain point he realized that his invention wasn't going to live up to the goal he set about: namely a peer-to-peer money for the people.  That was only sustainable on smaller scales, but not on world scale.

Is this the reason why he introduced the 1 MB limit, to keep bitcoin from becoming that horrible world bank unique money, and keep it small scale enough ?

That said, whatever is bitcoin, its basic idea is too heavy to become a light-weight P2P worldwide universal payment system.

When there is a valuable payment system that has some friction in "paying for coffee", then it is a NORMAL EVOLUTION that a banking layer is put on top of that, that fluidizes the underlying asset, with all that comes with it (fees, fractional banking, ....).  This is how normal banking got running on top of gold, which also had a fluidizing problem (security, weight, ....).  It was more practical to leave one's gold in the bank, and have paper substitutes, because the gold itself couldn't always be used easily.

In the same way as bitcoin cannot be used easily enough to pay coffee to anyone everywhere, a banking layer will naturally get on top of that.  LN is such a banking layer.

-->  banking is unavoidable in monetary affairs, until we invent something that is less clunky than bitcoin.