Bitcoin Core Developer says Bitcoin Too Fragile and in its Infancy - page 2.

dankkk

sr. member

Activity: 308

Merit: 250

Quote from: jbreher on September 06, 2014, 12:51:04 PM

Quote from: BittBurger on September 06, 2014, 12:39:20 PM

It is now that we need the features for the products 5 years from now. Only a developer would use the logic that we can put these enhancements off 5 years. That is suicide. Any idiot with an ounce of knowledge of product development, marketing, and business trends knows: You create it now. Always.

Generally, I agree. The sooner you can add features, the better.

But what features do you think are required? The only thing that I can think of that would be an unqualified improvement is a solution to the 51% quandary. But that would not be a feature - it would be a complete re-architecting of the system. Further, it is dependent upon a breakthrough invention.

I don't think it is really possible to solve the problem of being vulnerable to a 51% attack. An attacker could simply mine from various geographic locations to various BTC addresses to hide the fact that each of his mining farms is part of a potential large percentage of the network.

Mightycoin

member

Activity: 82

Merit: 10

Bitcoin has crossed into a certain period of evolution how could a developer say it's infancy still?

Bigbear8

member

Activity: 77

Merit: 10

After its launch few years before, bitcoin raised its value from beings few dollars to more than 1000 dollars by 2012. According to an investor this price variation is too fragile. I do agree that bitcoin might still be in its infancy due to much variation going on..

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1688

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: BittBurger on September 06, 2014, 12:39:20 PM

It is now that we need the features for the products 5 years from now. Only a developer would use the logic that we can put these enhancements off 5 years. That is suicide. Any idiot with an ounce of knowledge of product development, marketing, and business trends knows: You create it now. Always.

Generally, I agree. The sooner you can add features, the better.

But what features do you think are required? The only thing that I can think of that would be an unqualified improvement is a solution to the 51% quandary. But that would not be a feature - it would be a complete re-architecting of the system. Further, it is dependent upon a breakthrough invention.

BittBurger

hero member

Activity: 924

Merit: 1001

Quote from: exocytosis on September 02, 2014, 04:07:03 PM

Core developers like Hearn, Andresen, Garzik and Maxwell are sane voices whose words of realism drown in the noise spewed by the bulltards. Core developers actually seem to understand the inherent limitations of Bitcoin, and the fact that we're a very long way off (5+ years) from mainstream adoption, if it ever starts.

Nonsense.

Its hilarious to me that they think mainstream adoption is going to come first, and *THEN* they will add the necessary features to support it. Smh ....

It is now that we need the features for the products 5 years from now. Only a developer would use the logic that we can put these enhancements off 5 years. That is suicide. Any idiot with an ounce of knowledge of product development, marketing, and business trends knows: You create it now. Always.

You wait 5 years for mainstream adoption and there wont BE any mainstream adoption. Incorporate the changes now. Give the financial industry and innovators in the Bitcoin space what they need to start creating products for 5 years from now. Do nothing, and nothing will happen. Bitcoin will only go as far as it can go, and then it will stop. We have already established that consumers have zero incentive to use Bitcoin in its current form. So how exactly does Gavin think mainstream adoption will be coming?

Developers should not be making product development decisions. Period.

Andreas has always said Bitcoin is fine the way it is, but it is also the first "programmable money". Capable of evolving and addressing market needs. After 2 years in this space I have zeen zilch as far as that goes.

-B-

jbreher

legendary

Activity: 3080

Merit: 1688

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

Quote from: digitalindustry on September 06, 2014, 02:37:59 AM

ahh and it kind of has in case you haven't noticed ...

Nonsense. Looking at GitHub/bitcoin, I see that pull request 4839 was merged a mere 2 hours ago.

Quote

which means its perfect as it is , but now the monopoly is breaking down, so if Bitcoin loses the initiative and drops the ball with the monopoly kiss the price valuation goodbye.

What monopoly are you speaking of? Bitcoin in relation to other cryptos? That natural (not enforced) monopoly is trending greater all the time. Do you know how natural monopolies come about? By the monopolizer being vastly superior as compared to all the wannabe contenders.

Quote

so thus a central "price maker" authority is needed and this will require an essential "verification system"

Ha. Haha. Hahahahahaha. Perhaps you have not noticed, but the community is unified in the principle that your 'centralized authority' model is A Bad Idea. You have scarcely more chance of convincing otherwise than you do of cracking satoshi's private key on a 1998 era palm pilot.

As others have pointed out: rather than tilting at this windmill, your time would be more productively spent in creating a spinoff alt with the centralization you desire.

CoolBliss

member

Activity: 97

Merit: 10

Mike Hearn is an incredibly talented and creative dev. He truly gets the wider reaching applications of the blockchain and has added tremendous value to Bitcoin. I find his level headedness refreshing and necessary. You don't have to agree with everything he says. Give the guy a break and more importantly some fucking respect. /rant

unexecuted

member

Activity: 175

Merit: 10

Quote from: lovegood on September 06, 2014, 06:01:17 AM

Quote from: CokeCoin on September 05, 2014, 08:24:12 AM

Every time I hear this story I wonder.. Why aren't big vested partners -- like Coinbase, BitPay, etc. -- in the bitcoin space are not doing more to address development.

I totally agree. All those huge, richly-backed companies should be providing multiple core developers to work on Bitcoin. It's not fair that they're riding on the shoulders of a small number of core developers who are basically doing all the grunt work for free.

I have a feeling most of the core developers are early adopters and have a substantial amount of Bitcoin already, so they are incentivized to contribute and thus increase the value of their holdings. You don't just quit a cushy job at Google out of compassion. Also, throwing money at a problem does not equate to solving it.

Robin_Good

member

Activity: 140

Merit: 10

Quote from: lovegood on September 06, 2014, 06:01:17 AM

Quote from: CokeCoin on September 05, 2014, 08:24:12 AM

Every time I hear this story I wonder.. Why aren't big vested partners -- like Coinbase, BitPay, etc. -- in the bitcoin space are not doing more to address development.

I totally agree. All those huge, richly-backed companies should be providing multiple core developers to work on Bitcoin. It's not fair that they're riding on the shoulders of a small number of core developers who are basically doing all the grunt work for free.

Weee! Let's talk more about what other people should do, while we spend time browsing forum

lovegood

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: CokeCoin on September 05, 2014, 08:24:12 AM

Every time I hear this story I wonder.. Why aren't big vested partners -- like Coinbase, BitPay, etc. -- in the bitcoin space are not doing more to address development.

I totally agree. All those huge, richly-backed companies should be providing multiple core developers to work on Bitcoin. It's not fair that they're riding on the shoulders of a small number of core developers who are basically doing all the grunt work for free.

digitalindustry

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

‘Try to be nice’

Quote from: jbreher on September 04, 2014, 10:41:55 PM

Jeebus. Not this again.

Quote from: digitalindustry on September 04, 2014, 07:31:08 AM

the fact is that Bitcoin has no flaws, the only implementations it needs are the Global ID and the Central Authority

'Bitcoin is perfect! All it needs is to abandon its most essential characteristic - its decentralized nature!'

Roll Eyes

Moving on...

Devs develop. It's kinda 'what they do'. If the code was in an ideal state, development would cease. It would no longer have developers. Yeah, that's a tautology. But is seems that some must be told this essential fact.

Of course the primary developers see room for improvement. Otherwise it wouldn't need devs.

ahh and it kind of has in case you haven't noticed ...

which means its perfect as it is , but now the monopoly is breaking down, so if Bitcoin loses the initiative and drops the ball with the monopoly kiss the price valuation goodbye.

so thus a central "price maker" authority is needed and this will require an essential "verification system"

marcus_of_augustus

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 2349

Eadem mutata resurgo

Hearn the "visionary" is much over-rated methinks, we shall see.

Got to admire him for having a go with his Lighthouse venture, how is that going btw?

Hint: guys who know about networks and build protocols don't do java ... except maybe for a hobby.

snappa4ever

sr. member

Activity: 374

Merit: 250

Quote from: hhanh00 on September 06, 2014, 01:38:21 AM

Quote from: master-P on September 05, 2014, 11:05:23 PM

It is not actually possible to "turn off" or "disable" the bitcoin software. That is not a feature of bitcoin. The closest thing to this that could happen is to recommend that users not spend any of their bitcoin. This did happen somewhat when Gox announced that they were suspending withdrawals due to malleability as other exchanges followed, however mining still very much continued and people that had bitcoin in wallets they controlled personally still were able to and did spent their bitcoin.

Theorically, not possible. In practice if the software crashes or worse produces unexpected results it will be down.

Everyone who is running QT has the software running independently of eachother. if the software crashes on one person's computer, it will not necessarily crash on someone else's computer. Also the remedy to software crashing like this would be to simply restart either the software or the computing running the software.

hhanh00

sr. member

Activity: 467

Merit: 267

Quote from: QuestionAuthority on September 05, 2014, 11:04:49 PM

If done correctly and soon I think even major changes don't have to be catastrophic for the economy. The way changes are implemented determines the effect. It's better to know about a vulnerability and fix it now than to recover from the exploit later. Some things will always need to be fixed. Isn't it better to tackle the large problems now rather than wait until the economy is even larger?

All Hearn is really saying is that Bitcoin needs more developers. I'm saying it needs more professional paid full time developers and fewer free time hobby developers. Of course he's not going to say that because it's insulting to his colleagues.

I was replying to someone who had a fairly casual approach to bug fixing. If it breaks, no worry we'll fix it.

Whether bitcoin needs full time developpers or hobbyists is open to discussion but we need to a way to rollback. I'm sure that everyone in the software business will agree that using production to test out high scale deployments is bad idea. Doing so without rollback is crazy. Now the economy is already pretty large but still minuscule compared to the real world yet we are not generally concerned about the product stability.

The topic is "Bitcoin Core Developer says Bitcoin Too Fragile and in its Infancy". Immediately some people jumped and called him ignorant, biased, etc. Ready to put his head on a pike for blasphemy.
In my opinion, if we want to have it reach out to everyone and be a serious competitor to Fiat or even VISA it is too fragile and in its infancy. This is not a bad thing. Everything has to start small. It's a serious problem if we think it's ready when it's not.

hhanh00

sr. member

Activity: 467

Merit: 267

Quote from: master-P on September 05, 2014, 11:05:23 PM

It is not actually possible to "turn off" or "disable" the bitcoin software. That is not a feature of bitcoin. The closest thing to this that could happen is to recommend that users not spend any of their bitcoin. This did happen somewhat when Gox announced that they were suspending withdrawals due to malleability as other exchanges followed, however mining still very much continued and people that had bitcoin in wallets they controlled personally still were able to and did spent their bitcoin.

Theorically, not possible. In practice if the software crashes or worse produces unexpected results it will be down.

master-P

hero member

Activity: 868

Merit: 1001

https://keybase.io/masterp FREE Escrow Service

QuestionAuthority

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1393

You lead and I'll watch you walk away.

hhanh00

sr. member

Activity: 467

Merit: 267

arxwn

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

I guess infancy compared to the transactions being made.
The numbers are still too small. The security is solid but the transactions do not compare to the smallest of countries.

Ardenyham

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1000

Don't Hesitate to Tip me for My Helps and Guides.

Quote from: Nagle on September 05, 2014, 12:19:17 AM

Technically, the big problems with Bitcoin in its existing form are:

- Mining is too centralized.

All are technically fixable, and fixes have been proposed. All of those, though, are incompatible with the present blockchain.

Most small minners connecting to big pools, instead of p2pool or solomining. But in the GPU age most miners were in the big pools as well... Does something really changed in the last two years? I think not much...

Topic: Bitcoin Core Developer says Bitcoin Too Fragile and in its Infancy - page 2. (Read 5081 times)