Topic: Bitcoin 2.0 - being shut down by Bitcoin 1.0 core devs? (Read 1534 times)

Every Bitcoin transaction is parasitic. Mining fees don't come close to the actual costs, and the fees aren't properly distributed to those it's costing (full nodes), anyway.

Your analogy fails it. By your logic, it's okay for Bitcoin's blockchain to require you to download Quark's blockchain as well. After all, we don't get to decide what people use the blockchain for... the extra 40 bytes is but a small example of that.

Bitcoin's blockchain is for bitcoins, any extra information attached to the blockchain to host other coins increases the energy expended to maintain it. Isn't that by definition parasitic?

From your past posting, it seems like you're pimping out MSC and Counterparty bullshit for your own interests... tell us, how many MSC do you own?

What does this mean? Where is this talk?

Vitalik is to young and inexperienced.

Is he the project leader?

I think the word you're looking for is decentralization, sometimes confused with disorganization. You either want decentralization or you don't, I for one hope bitcoin will never become centralized.
The best article I've read describing this difference is "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" by Eric S. Raymond.

The desktop-pc is indeed the only area of computing that has not been completely conquered by Open Source, but the desktop is not that large compared to the rest of the digital realm.

Or communicate with the development team and actually contribute, instead of acting like a spoiled diva, because not everyone is obsessed with fulfilling your every whim. Are the bitcoin core-devs supposed to be mind-readers now? How can people seriously expect them to keep track of what everyone wants bitcoin to do, the whole BIP-system exists for exactly the purpose of informing and engaging the devs.

Seriously I really think the concepts of decentralization and open-source are the biggest hurdles in this space. People don't even realize they are demanding the exact things bitcoin is meant to fix. No bitcoin X.0 or alt is going to fix this, no matter what green pastures and rainbows they promise to deliver.

any devs can use their own blockchain, with all the 'data storage' they want to build into it

it is more like bitcoin 2.0 devs want to leach off the 1.0 value, as much as the way you view it

i dunno if the current 1.0 devs are making right decisions, but i don't think there is much to do to influence them, other that not use btc, switch to an alt chain , ie vote with your feet

'Open source' is sure a wild animal.  Solves all sorts of problems - creates so many more. 

So many of my 'open source' friends planned on Linux and Firefox ruling the world by this date.  Yet, I wonder how many machines are still running windows/apple.  Growth in Linux/Firefox/RedHat seems at least disorganized. 

Will bitcoin suffer from the same disorganization?

I'm also enthusiastic about concepts like Bitshares and NXT, but I don't think that really solves the "issue" here.

As I see it (salt required) the problem lies with people using Bitcoin for their project as if it's a finished product that they've bought or are entitled to. My guess is that there is a cultural or perceptual problem with how open-source works.

If they want to extend Bitcoin add features you name it, why not actively participate in the opensource development in the first place? Neither bitshares, nxt or you name it will solve this mentality problem. Bitcoin (and all others) requires an open-source mindset and work-ethics, which might come as a culture shock to people coming from closed source walled garden environments.

There is no spec and you are entitled to nothing, but you do have the ability to contribute and profit from everyones contribution. All the proposed improved Bitcoin replacement projects will run into the exact same problems and seeing the scope of some of them, this issue might even be terminal to their business plan.

I never said MSC was about replacing bitcoin. However, it does depend on bitcoin developers not to block any of its functions for some whim, and that poses a great risk to MSC/XCP investors, as bitcoin developers couldn't care less if MSC/XCP investors threatened to sell their MSC/XCP stock to affect developers dicisions.

From this perspective NXT especially, and Bitshares as well are safer, because they have their own blockchain and don't rely on third-party, and investors can influence this or that decision of the developers to a large extent.

MSC and others are not about replacing bitcoin.  It is about making bitcoin better and more functional.  There is nothing wrong with the bitcoin we already have.  Bitcoin is awesome.  Imperfect - but awesome.

XCP/MSC will always be sort of castrated and limited by the bitcoin blockchain, not to mention too slow, that's why NXT and Bitshares technologies have more bright prospects, as they can truely develop without looking back to what bitcoin developers have to say. All of them have the same goals, but why choose those that have limitations from the start.

When I downloaded the blockchain, I don't want anyone to use it for buying pornography.  But we don't get to decide what people use the blockchain for.  

Besides, 'mastercoin' isn't something 'new' at all.  It is merely 'bitcoin on steroids'.  It is still bitcoin.  It is just 'high performance bitcoin'.  Why do you insist 'it is something - not bitcoin'.  Mastercoin is bitcoin+.  It's bitcoin.

at least they left Bitecoin alone.

Sorry... but when I download the Bitcoin blockchain, I am hosting it for Bitcoin, not Mastercoin, not Colored Coins...

(Bitcoin) Blockchain serving anything anything other than Bitcoin is considered parasitic.

@OP What made you come to this conclusion or question?

This is what I gathered from the discussion about the nefarious bug-fixing by the bitcoin-devs.  Counterparty was using a hackish exploit/bug in the bitcoin-system, which was meant for something completely different for their own purposes and were not actually involved in the open development process to create a elegant non-hack solution for what they are trying to achieve.  Instead of proposing a BIP and coding such a clean solution they not only used the exploit which actually burdens all users with complete blockchains on their hard-drive, but they also failed to communicate with the bitcoin-devs that they were doing so.

Blockchain bloat is one of the biggest qualms people have with Bitcoin and they also complain about spam in the blockchain. So why is this suddenly seen as bitcoin core-devs being against progress? Just because someone happened to build his entire project around being part of that spam does not exactly make the core-devs hostile. I did not read every single posts on that thread, but I did see a few proposals and even temporary workarounds while working towards a more elegant solution from the core-devs that could help achieve Counterparty and Mastercoins goals.

EDIT (to prevent double-posting)


I think you are referring to the CoinDesk article, they seem to have taken this opportunity to plug Vitaliks project, without any relation to the subject at hand. Personally (and I'm a nobody) I found the arguments and suggestions by some of the core-devs to be valid and actually more elegant than how I understand Ethereum wants to work. (If I recall correctly I also commented on the nonsensical Ethereum mention in that article and some of my arguments why Ethereum is not a viable solution, but CoinDesk might have censored me again.)

talk of:
 scraping multisig,
 limiting OP_RETURN to 40 bytes,
 other means to exclude these transactions from miner processing,
 among others.

I respect the mission for stability and security.  But at what expense? 

Does Vitalik have it right?  Is it time to 'redo from start'?
 

How do they seem to be doing this?

You forgot to mention BitShares!!

Several interesting projects promise to bring remarkable new function to bitcoin - Bitcoin 2.0*.  Really cool stuff.  However, in the interests of 'stability', it seems that Bitcoin core devs are openly hostile towards these developments. While everyone appreciates the complexities of dealing with blockchain 'bloat', is it the correct strategy to simply hinder all sexy new ideas which are coming down the pipeline?  Is that really good for bitcoin?  If we ignore, or worse hinder all the new innovations which could come to the remarkable impenetrable ledger than bitcoin provides, then don't we relegate it to mediocrity or even failure? 

Ethereum saw this from a mile away.  They what to initiate their own blockchain to be free of the limits and encumbrances (including the cores devs) on the present blockchain.  Ethereum may become the cryptocurrency that bitcoin should have been.  Very serious efforts are being put forth to make exciting new function attach to the bitcoin blockchain. Now, the core dev team(s) seems to be thwarting those efforts.  Can this really be good for Bitcoin?

(*e.g. Colored Coins, Mastercoin, Counterparty, others)