Pages:
Author

Topic: bitcoin foundation is a very bad idea (Read 2858 times)

hero member
Activity: 910
Merit: 1000
February 24, 2015, 08:18:01 AM
#43
They should come up with a decentralized voting system and have people around the world freely vote on how they want bitcoin to be.

We have that already.  It's called mining.

How does mining address particular questions such as "do we want a fork or not?"

A couple of years ago, the network forked quite literally by accident when approximately half of the network was running one version of the core client while the other half was running another.  The fork was detected, and within a matter of only a couple hours, the community rallied together to fix the issue.  Miners using the "bad" version switched over to the "good" one.  Technically, pool operators were largely responsible for the fix as some pools had been running the "bad" version and quickly switched to the "good" one.  But individual miners could have opted to switch pools (or mine solo) if they didn't agree with the decision.

To directly answer your question, any coder can alter the software to come up with a new version of the core client.  After that, it simply depends on whether enough miners prefer the new version. If a majority of the network switches to the new version, the network will fork.

Interesting. Very well explained too.
legendary
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1000
February 22, 2015, 03:33:27 PM
#42
Bitcoin Foundation is riddled with shady players; I'm not ready to give up on them yet, but I honestly am not sure how they will be able to regain their reputation back. At that, I'm not sure what purpose they are trying to serve anymore. Seems more self gratuitous than anything at this point.

Cody Wilson wants to get into the Bitcoin Foundation to wreck it Tongue vote for him! Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
February 22, 2015, 03:28:01 PM
#41
This has been discussed multiple times already I believe. It would be more useful to use the search function and read up rather than starting a new thread.
Obviously TBF has its pros and cons.

It is bad as they charge you to be in something useless. They don't do anything useful to the bitcoin world.  Bitcoin doesn't need the BF
Are you going to fund the developers?
hero member
Activity: 490
Merit: 500
February 22, 2015, 03:09:22 PM
#40
Bitcoin Foundation is riddled with shady players; I'm not ready to give up on them yet, but I honestly am not sure how they will be able to regain their reputation back. At that, I'm not sure what purpose they are trying to serve anymore. Seems more self gratuitous than anything at this point.
sr. member
Activity: 462
Merit: 250
February 22, 2015, 12:07:47 PM
#39
if it was a bad idea, how it thrived till now
hero member
Activity: 700
Merit: 500
February 22, 2015, 09:17:36 AM
#38
They should come up with a decentralized voting system and have people around the world freely vote on how they want bitcoin to be.

We have that already.  It's called mining.

I sure like the idea. Miners decide. You answered quite correctly about the fork question, but there are other issues. Shall we increase block size? By how much?

Another issue is that miners are no longer individuals on their home computers. They're now Chinese businessmen owning large web farms. Are they friendlier or any better than BTC foundation members?


I think that is alot of everyone's problem right now. The giant farms have taken away ALOT of individual mining positions
that were once held by people who had faith in Bitcoin. These people could have made the network stronger. Now its a few
BUISNESS men making the decision for thousands of people that have their hands tied.
agree with this man , damn bussiness men ! Smiley
full member
Activity: 350
Merit: 158
#takeminingback
February 22, 2015, 09:04:36 AM
#37
They should come up with a decentralized voting system and have people around the world freely vote on how they want bitcoin to be.

We have that already.  It's called mining.

I sure like the idea. Miners decide. You answered quite correctly about the fork question, but there are other issues. Shall we increase block size? By how much?

Another issue is that miners are no longer individuals on their home computers. They're now Chinese businessmen owning large web farms. Are they friendlier or any better than BTC foundation members?


I think that is alot of everyone's problem right now. The giant farms have taken away ALOT of individual mining positions
that were once held by people who had faith in Bitcoin. These people could have made the network stronger. Now its a few
BUISNESS men making the decision for thousands of people that have their hands tied.
legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1047
Your country may be your worst enemy
February 22, 2015, 08:26:51 AM
#36
They should come up with a decentralized voting system and have people around the world freely vote on how they want bitcoin to be.

We have that already.  It's called mining.

I sure like the idea. Miners decide. You answered quite correctly about the fork question, but there are other issues. Shall we increase block size? By how much?

Another issue is that miners are no longer individuals on their home computers. They're now Chinese businessmen owning large web farms. Are they friendlier or any better than BTC foundation members?
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
February 21, 2015, 10:55:14 PM
#35
We (all bitcoin users) should register the brand "bitcoin" as a DAC. In votings we can then choose to prohibit the use of the name bitcoin for some companys or organisations. That the Bitcoin-foundation is named in that way is irritating me, because they don't represent Bitcoin. The community does!
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
February 21, 2015, 09:28:29 PM
#34
They should come up with a decentralized voting system and have people around the world freely vote on how they want bitcoin to be.

We have that already.  It's called mining.

How does mining address particular questions such as "do we want a fork or not?"

A couple of years ago, the network forked quite literally by accident when approximately half of the network was running one version of the core client while the other half was running another.  The fork was detected, and within a matter of only a couple hours, the community rallied together to fix the issue.  Miners using the "bad" version switched over to the "good" one.  Technically, pool operators were largely responsible for the fix as some pools had been running the "bad" version and quickly switched to the "good" one.  But individual miners could have opted to switch pools (or mine solo) if they didn't agree with the decision.

To directly answer your question, any coder can alter the software to come up with a new version of the core client.  After that, it simply depends on whether enough miners prefer the new version. If a majority of the network switches to the new version, the network will fork.
legendary
Activity: 1610
Merit: 1183
February 21, 2015, 08:30:26 PM
#33
They should come up with a decentralized voting system and have people around the world freely vote on how they want bitcoin to be.

We have that already.  It's called mining.

How does mining address particular questions such as "do we want a fork or not?"
legendary
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
February 21, 2015, 05:40:36 PM
#32
They should come up with a decentralized voting system and have people around the world freely vote on how they want bitcoin to be.

We have that already.  It's called mining.
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1000
Satoshi is rolling in his grave. #bitcoin
February 21, 2015, 04:23:47 PM
#31
Those who are against the foundation shall realize, the sooner the better, that bitcoin, as it is, is doomed because it cannot grow. It doesn't scale well. It's very easy to kill bitcoin: you would just need to increase ten-fold the number of transactions. One solution against this is to increase the block size, but that raises other issues, so there's a need for qualified people (not me) to make the right decisions, and modify the code. Who else could do it, if not the foundation?

this is why we need the +1 option on this forum , or like buttol instead, because u took words out of my mouth. I agree with the rest that it seams a bit off to have a main core devs in one place, but it is so with good reason. Bitcoin would fast fall apart if this wasnt the case, and and problem we may have with it would not get fixed as fast as it can be addressed now.

cheers
hero member
Activity: 910
Merit: 1000
February 21, 2015, 04:19:21 PM
#30
It partially helps funds developers of the software. That seems like a good idea.
legendary
Activity: 1022
Merit: 1007
Sooner or later, a man who wears two faces forgets
February 21, 2015, 04:16:23 PM
#29
The whole community is with bitcoins and no government is taking control so easily of our blockchain and BTc
full member
Activity: 168
Merit: 100
★777Coin.com★ Fun BTC Casino!
February 21, 2015, 03:39:54 PM
#28
No
I think there is a need of a organisation whi h should look after the economy of btcs..... as it is chnging day by day!

Regards
hero member
Activity: 700
Merit: 501
February 21, 2015, 03:35:56 PM
#27
Those who are against the foundation shall realize, the sooner the better, that bitcoin, as it is, is doomed because it cannot grow. It doesn't scale well. It's very easy to kill bitcoin: you would just need to increase ten-fold the number of transactions. One solution against this is to increase the block size, but that raises other issues, so there's a need for qualified people (not me) to make the right decisions, and modify the code. Who else could do it, if not the foundation?

Qualified people that aren't necessarly part of the foundation.
legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1047
Your country may be your worst enemy
February 21, 2015, 02:10:08 PM
#26
Those who are against the foundation shall realize, the sooner the better, that bitcoin, as it is, is doomed because it cannot grow. It doesn't scale well. It's very easy to kill bitcoin: you would just need to increase ten-fold the number of transactions. One solution against this is to increase the block size, but that raises other issues, so there's a need for qualified people (not me) to make the right decisions, and modify the code. Who else could do it, if not the foundation?
sr. member
Activity: 384
Merit: 250
February 21, 2015, 12:12:41 PM
#25
what is bad idea in bitcoin foundation ? and also it doesnt matter if its even a bad idea or not but bitcoins neet it anyways

It is bad as they charge you to be in something useless. They don't do anything useful to the bitcoin world.  Bitcoin doesn't need the BF
legendary
Activity: 1106
Merit: 1000
February 21, 2015, 12:08:16 PM
#24
what is bad idea in bitcoin foundation ? and also it doesnt matter if its even a bad idea or not but bitcoins neet it anyways
Pages:
Jump to: