Topic: "Bitcoin Classic" is a classic attempt at a hostile takeover - page 8. (Read 8104 times)

You actaully dont get it, you really dont.

The so-called few guys represent 99% of the developers that have EVER build code for Bitcoin. Gavin is the ONLY one that wants a fork and can call himself a developer of the code that Satoshi started. Not even Mike has ever build code for Bitcoin directly, but only for projects like bitcoinj.

A fork is a very bad idea, and it is clearly an attempt by someone, to make stupid people (yes, stupidity is rampant in here as well) to make easy choices seem as the most obvious choices.

You are clearly one of those "everyone else" that believe that increasing the blocksize does absolutely nothing bad (hard forks are VERY BAD). It is truly a shame that a wide range of developers, coders and crypto contributors have to waste so much time with people like you. By people like you I mean, not developers, not coders and not crypto contributors.

Do you realize that the more your group insists on making false assumptions and misleading statements like above the less credibility you have.

We are quite capable of making logical and reasonable choices based upon the facts :


I have long advocated multiple implementations , especially ones like bitcore, libbitcoin. I also like and respect Garzik, Jeff, and Toomin, so it isn't political for me.... but comments like yours make me think that Bitcoin classic supporters are a bunch of dishonest and manipulative advocates trying to create wedges where none necessarily exist.

I don't think that you "get it" - if we have multiple versions of Bitcoin then what are the exchanges supposed to do (they can only accept one if they don't want to lose money)?

So your idea is to decentralise something that basically cannot be (have you really thought this idea through?).

Forking is not the same as creating alts - so if Gavin and others want to create an alt then why don't they just do that?

This is really the crux of the matter.

"Core supporters" want development to be centralized in the hands of a few guys.

Everyone else wants decentralized development and multiple implementations.

If no place to spend their money, then in reality, there is no market.

I am not opposed to raising the block limit per se but what I am opposed to is the dumping of the Bitcoin Core development team in favour of another team when I don't see that the Bitcoin Core team deserve to be dumped (they have only done good things so far IMO).

The agenda of both XT and now Classic is to take control away from the current Bitcoin Core developers (I don't there is any doubt about that) and that is what I have a problem with.

If someone can convince me (without resorting to silly conspiracy theories or ridiculous needs for everyone to buy coffees with BTC) that the Bitcoin Core team is inferior to some new team then I would happily change my opinion (but so far I've seen nothing to persuade me that we are seeing anything more than politics hence why I created this topic).

Don't be overreacting. As annoying as it may be for some, 'gentle reminder' is not an offensive term on its own.

Since you don't oppose lifting 1mb (I made wrong assumption - my bad) then what's the problem with 'bitcoin classic'? Is it all about timing? You strongly oppose lifting it now, creating a topic about 'hostile attack' etc, but, if in couple of months blocks happen to be full - you will be all in favour of it? Am I getting this right?

I actually did LOL watching it - well done!

I'm the creator of the recent parody videos here:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/what-i-have-to-say-about-the-current-bitcoin-situation-watch-1329377

And I approve this message.

who can tell what you're babbling on about in this thread, but I can help you out one way: FTFY  

Please don't "talk down to people" with such stupid things as "gentle reminders" (it just makes you look bad really).

If you want to be taken seriously then such condescending comments don't help.

For the record: I actually have never stated that I think the block size should remain "1MB for life" so in fact you are just putting words into my mouth (mostly I have just questioned the "sense of urgency" for bigger blocks that is being used by Gavin and others vying for control of the project).

(Gentle reminder: Don't make up crap about what other people have said or supposedly support in order to suit your own arguments.)

Define 'his group'? Majority of bitcoiners who want to stick to the original plan of scaling up and keep BTC useful also as a currency (inb4 - no it doesn't have to Visa-level volume)?

He wants to be calling the shots? Probably. But so do the core devs, and so does everyone else really. Everyone wants to see things going their way and get annoyed if they don't. And that's exactly why you're using scare tactics of 'hostile attack' and accusing him of dictatorship aspirations (despite the evidence), simply because his views are not in line with yours.

Gentle reminder: you (and other "1mb for life" supporters) are the one who wants to turn Bitcoin into something it wasn't originally meant to be. There's nothing wrong with it, but lets not pretend it's otherwise.

Gentle reminder2:  When the XT kicked in, the core devs pretty much agreed that block size should be lifted at some point, they just wanted more time and less aggressive change. The proposed 2mb is very conservative, so lets see how it unfolds.


Working on what? Preparing ground for the upcoming Blockstream services? How would you effectively co-operate with bunch of people with different goals in mind?


Huh? What are you on about?

start a new project and give commit acess to the miners

they are after all the people running the network

bitcoin-core dev team have an agenda.. they even route out a map for it..

what gavin done was see that bitcoin-core was getting too powerful and thought people needed more freedom of choice.
he did not force changes into bitcoin-core.. he instead made a new implementation that gave people 2 choices.. xt or core..

yes 100mb blocks and 8mb blocks were abit silly idea.. but decentralising the implementations and allowing freedom of choice is a good thing..

Unfortunately your idea of "voting" becomes the Sybil problem (the very thing that Bitcoin was created to solve).

So how do you propose to make sure that the vote is fair?

(of course we already have that mechanism in place - don't we?)

Your very simplistic idea would really be the equivalent of me putting a "poll" on this topic to vote who should control the Bitcoin development.

come on ciyam.. you and me both know that we as individuals can read code.. and see if the code has anything dodgy in it (which some implementations have)

you and me both know that changing our current implementations to accept 2mb is only a few lines of code..
you and me both know that the hardware cost for 20 years of 2mb full blocks storage is only $100

so we both know that 2mb blocks are not the doomsday scenario. because we know blocks wont automatically be 100% full to 2mb from day one, but would take time over months for miners to adapt and test the waters..

so we know the only real debate is which dev team to trust to give us clean code.. or if their implementation of the bitcoin program also include other features that can cause abuse to fungibility or rarity, etc.

so how about open a github of an exact replica of bitcoin-core 0.11 with the only change being a GUI dialog box that allows users to set their own block limit..



imagine if everyone made a github replica that had just the feature of user controlled evolution.. and the community that can read code vetted it to say which versions were clean of any other dodgy features..

afterall if there are 10+ different implementations and 8 of them are clean.. then the 2 dirty devcrew would soon be weeded out and people would stop using them.. rather then debating which one of the 2 bandcamps to choose.. there would be 10+ different implementations with 8 being replica's of 0.11 with just the block increase tweak..

people wont need to debate which bandcamp of wacky /abusive features some deceptive corporate shill may also have hidden. as there are more then just 2 choices..
people wont need to debate control issues around there being only two working implementation and killing off innovation
people wont need to debate relying on that one working implementation being reliable to need to upgrade to later.. because they wont need upgrades, just setting tweaks..

so then people can change limits themselves when the needs must. without heartache, debate or constantly downloading new implementations in 2017 onwards.

in short.. having 10 differing implementations that all consensus to a 2mb limit is better then trying to get everyone into one of 2 bandcamps owned by corporations or have hidden agenda's

and later.. when the community as a whole have settled down and can all say they have the ability to increase to 2mb.. its a simple change of value in a dialog box.
and when the networking handshake shows that the majority of the community is 2mb ready because the majority of users have the setting set... then and only then will miners start churning out blocks bigger than 1mb but less than 2mb without problems.. because they wont want to do it before-hand as their blocks would get thrown out and their coinbase wins will be deemed unspendable.. so its not in their interest to churn out blocks that users wont keep

im not saying miners will fill blocks to 2mb instantly.. it will, in reality be something like 1.025mb at first which wont impact their hashing time.. and slowly increase as miners get comfortable adding more transactions to blocks (dipping their toe in the water).

edit:
there wont be multiple chains because miners wont screw themselves over mining blocks that the majority of users throw out. so miners will only do something different if there is consensus..
so there is no harm in having 20 different implementations as long as the main block checking rules all match and thus everyone is working off the same chain because their rules are compatible (consensus)

Basically then you are advocating that we should have many blockchains not one.

I fail to see this as anything different to supporting the various alts that we have already - so why don't the miners just do that?

Personally I think this would be fine and it would solve the tx/sec issue if we simply divided everything into a thousand different chains.

Maybe all we need is a universal wallet and we've nailed it. 

i'd much rather see more of those "groups" you keep mentioning. lets open up development. there is a mechanism in place to solve all the issues - miners will form a consensus. if anything the whole debate should illustrate that a core group in charge of development is slowing bitcoin down.

I don't think he is a power-hungry maniac - but I do think that he thinks he (or his group) should be "calling the shots". If not then why support XT and now Classic which both have stated that they don't agree with the way that the Bitcoin project is being managed?

Why not just go back to working with the Bitcoin Core devs (which he possibly could still do as he didn't "burn his bridges" like Hearn did)?