"Bitcoin Classic" is a classic attempt at a hostile takeover - page 12.

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: franky1 on January 18, 2016, 02:17:15 PM

@franky1:

I proposed something similar to your idea to the Core-Dev mailing list last night:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-266#post-9936

The email was rejected by the moderators and never went through. Here's what it said:

PROBLEM:

Bitcoin Core has committed to NOT raise the block size limit in 2016; however, significant support exists for an increase to 2 MB via the new implementation called Bitcoin Classic.

If Core sticks to its scaling roadmap, all nodes running Core would be forked from the network should blocks greater than 1 MB be accepted into the longest chain.

If Core deviates from its scaling roadmap--for example by capitulating and mirroring Classic's 2 MB limit--it may be seen as weak-minded and less relevant.

SOLUTION:

Stick to Core's Scaling Roadmap HOWEVER add an advanced configuration window to allow node operators to increase their block size limits at their own risk. This would allow current Core customers to track the longest proof-of-work chain (regardless of the success of Bitcoin Classic), while simultaneously allowing Core developers to continue to work on the scaling roadmap that they’ve committed to.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

Quote from: CIYAM on January 18, 2016, 02:06:40 PM

Quote from: sadface on January 18, 2016, 02:04:25 PM

who owns bitcoin? who are "they" gonna take something over from? instead of throwing around buzzwords like "hostile takeover", why don't you try to explain what exactly is so bad about the proposed changes?

I guess we are yet to see what will occur - but currently my concern is that the "Classic" group are trying to replace the "Core" group.

If a "merger" were to happen then maybe that would be the best outcome.

core group replaced themselves when they joined the "blockstream" group. and then set their own agenda..

and to be honest it doesnt matter what the politics of the groups are, i dont care about the politics of gavincoin or blockstream coin.. when looking at sourcecode.. as long as the code of their implementations are clean, and the implementation "does exactly whats said on the tin".. then the social drama is meaningless..

i would prefer an implementation where there is a selection box for the user to decide what settings to allow, what rules to increase. that way they dont have to argue about which brand or social group to trust.. the user can just change it himself without going two flying F*cks about who made it
EG

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3948

Merit: 3191

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Quote from: CIYAM on January 18, 2016, 01:40:55 PM

Those that actually own Bitcoin don't really care about being able to buy coffee with it - they care about not losing the value of their investment (so they don't need to see the block size increase *next month*).

Yes, and being pressured off-chain to transact because there's limited space in the blocks would be a rather big loss of value to most people. There are some people who would gain an advantage from deliberately keeping a small blocksize for as long as possible. They often express their fondness for a privileged and elitist chain where it's mostly just whales and large companies moving massive sums from time to time. If that heinous vision ever comes to fruition then it will no longer be an open system. Choose your bedfellows wisely, as you risk setting a dangerous precedent if you stifle every potential fork by dismissing it as a takeover attempt. Denying the freedom to choose now could bite you in the arse later and limit your own freedoms. Now is not the right time to "set things in stone", as some have argued for.

Quote from: CIYAM on January 18, 2016, 02:06:40 PM

If a "merger" were to happen then maybe that would be the best outcome.

Core could end this right now if they had posted something akin to this as their scaling proposal. But they didn't, so no deal.

CuntChocula

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: CIYAM on January 18, 2016, 01:57:25 PM

Quote from: CuntChocula on January 18, 2016, 01:54:36 PM

Try to understand that by making Bitcoin useless as a currency (buying coffee), you also destroy its value.

It has never been useful for buying coffee - so how can I be destroying its value for something that it has never been able to do well?

(it has been very useful to move money from one country to another with almost zero fees - so that has been something that I have not been able to destroy)

Bitcoin's value is speculative: people speculate that, some day, it will be used as money. they invest (gamble) on that becoming a reality.
Like they invest in *any* startup. Like they invest in a car company which is yet to sell a single car.

Don't assume that people will line up to buy your car company shares, not once the possibility of making cars is off the table.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: sadface on January 18, 2016, 02:04:25 PM

who owns bitcoin? who are "they" gonna take something over from? instead of throwing around buzzwords like "hostile takeover", why don't you try to explain what exactly is so bad about the proposed changes?

I guess we are yet to see what will occur - but currently my concern is that the "Classic" group are trying to replace the "Core" group.

If a "merger" were to happen then maybe that would be the best outcome.

sadface

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

who owns bitcoin? who are "they" gonna take something over from? instead of throwing around buzzwords like "hostile takeover", why don't you try to explain what exactly is so bad about the proposed changes?

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: CuntChocula on January 18, 2016, 01:54:36 PM

Try to understand that by making Bitcoin useless as a currency (buying coffee), you also destroy its value.

It has never been useful for buying coffee - so how can I be destroying its value for something that it has never been able to do well?

(it has been very useful to move money from one country to another with almost zero fees - so that has been something that I have not been able to destroy)

CuntChocula

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: CIYAM on January 18, 2016, 01:40:55 PM

Those that are trying to make this out to be a "do or die now issue" are those that are trying to "take over the project".

Those that actually own Bitcoin don't really care about being able to buy coffee with it - they care about not losing the value of their investment.

Bitcoin never set out to be an investment vehicle. It was created to be Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.
Try to understand that by making Bitcoin useless as a currency (buying coffee), you also destroy its value.

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Quote from: CIYAM on January 18, 2016, 01:44:50 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on January 18, 2016, 01:43:29 PM

Don't trivialize this with coffee. This isn't your party anymore.

My party?
(it is my topic)

I don't get it. Perhaps you could just try and make a real point rather than some further jibe against me (not sure why you have something against me but I guess that's just how it goes).

I have nothing against you. I have natural trollish tendencies. I'm working on that. Undecided

I'm saying this isn't about Starbucks. It's about payments being instant, easy, and much cheaper than a credit card settlement. Our priorities are at odds.

Spamela Anderson

newbie

Activity: 51

Merit: 0

I think this whole debate is a big problem and there's fud coming from both sides and I guess with bitcoin meaning to be decentralized but at the same time having a handful of devs in charge is where there's a paradox and also where the problem is. How can anyone ever agree to something like this? People are always going to be biased and have their own financial interests and that's the big issue. This is why I don't like the Foundation as well as it has been taken over by those with financial interest in trying to steer bitcoin in a direction they want it to go to try maximize profit. I just wish they would increase the blocksize so we can all just move on. It needs to happen sooner or later but when or whether everyone agrees to it is another matter.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on January 18, 2016, 01:43:29 PM

Don't trivialize this with coffee. This isn't your party anymore.

My party?
(it is my topic)

I don't get it. Perhaps you could just try and make a real point rather than some further jibe against me (not sure why you have something against me but I guess that's just how it goes).

If you don't like "my party" then you are welcome to go to another (am sure there are many others on this forum).

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: DooMAD on January 18, 2016, 01:39:57 PM

Everyone running a full client, whether they're mining or not, has a role to play and a decision to make. Those choices determine the rules that govern the network.

No so much - if you don't mine then you don't really decide much at all (and you can always more directly connect to a mining pool if you need to).

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Quote from: CIYAM on January 18, 2016, 01:40:55 PM

Those that are trying to make this out to be a "do or die now issue" are those that are trying to "take over the project".

Those that actually own Bitcoin don't really care about being able to buy coffee with it - they care about not losing the value of their investment (so they don't need to see the block size increase *next month*).

Don't trivialize this with coffee. This isn't your party anymore.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Those that are trying to make this out to be a "do or die now issue" are those that are trying to "take over the project".

Those that actually own Bitcoin don't really care about being able to buy coffee with it - they care about not losing the value of their investment (so they don't need to see the block size increase *next month*).

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3948

Merit: 3191

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Quote from: CIYAM on January 18, 2016, 01:36:13 PM

Quote from: DooMAD on January 18, 2016, 01:32:54 PM

Bitcoin is and should be whatever its users define by the code they run. If you don't want people to have a choice, a closed-source coin would be far better suited to your goals.

If it was decided by the users then you would not have miners - so oops - you have made a mistake (so maybe you should be using an alt).

Nodes are actually kind of important as well, to put it mildly. Also, are miners somehow not users now? Everyone running a full client, whether they're mining or not, has a role to play and a decision to make. Those choices determine the rules that govern the network.

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

I think the real issue between the parties is that:

Has the experiment now ended, agreed to be a success, and now the current model is the perfected final form?
Is it impossible now that there will be a point in time, when the current model will be changed to create larger blocks?
Is it too late now, mostly because of security and the vast financial interest in BTC, to change the model?
Is it too late now and all that is left to do is optimizations, bug fixes, and bitcoin associated side projects?

I think the real issue is whether Bitcoin/bitcoin can still radically evolve or should only conservatively adapt.

Is there the possibility of a middle ground here? If so, what would it be and when would it be implemented?

I think this is one of the main issues, in regards to this blocksize civil war.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: DooMAD on January 18, 2016, 01:32:54 PM

Bitcoin is and should be whatever its users define by the code they run. If you don't want people to have a choice, a closed-source coin would be far better suited to your goals.

If it was decided by the users then you would not have miners - so oops - you have made a mistake (so maybe you should be using an alt?).

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Quote from: shorena on January 18, 2016, 12:44:15 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

-

-
On-topic: There's no neutral position here. Replace-by-fee Bitcoin isn't Bitcoin, either. The whole world is about to change!

In the light of a serious discussion, what exactly is not bitcoin about opt-in rbf?

What exactly isn't Bitcoin about 2MB blocks? RBF is an odd new feature nobody asked for. It changes Bitcoin a lot more than more transactions would.

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3948

Merit: 3191

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Quote from: CIYAM on January 18, 2016, 12:46:26 PM

If Bitcoin Classic wins then Gavin is going to be the "benevolent dictator" (which I think has always been his desire).

Do you want him as the overlord?

Quote from: CIYAM on January 18, 2016, 12:42:50 PM

It isn't the code that is the issue - it is the hostile takeover that is.

Gavin has cleverly now gone with something that only changes the one thing (but more importantly puts him back in charge - after they take over who knows what will happen).

I can tell you with absolute 100% certainty what will happen. People will use the code they agree with. If developers of any client add code that users disagree with, they won't update to the new code. Ergo, there's no such thing as a dictator in Bitcoin, benevolent or otherwise. There's also no such thing as a takeover, hostile or otherwise. There is only code and users freely choosing what code to run.

Bitcoin is and should be whatever its users define by the code they run. If you don't want people to have a choice, a closed-source coin would be far better suited to your goals.

thejaytiesto

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1014

It's getting hilarious at this point to be honest. They will run out of names, it's so obvious they think of "cool, marketable" names like XT or Classic. Anyone that wants to risk a hard fork for 1 MB increase when we have segregated witness now has a brick for a brain.

Topic: "Bitcoin Classic" is a classic attempt at a hostile takeover - page 12. (Read 8082 times)