Topic: Bitcoin is Forking - page 2. (Read 5334 times)
So where can we check the stats to see who is running what and in what percentage? This has become very interesting, but this also need to end as soon as possible so we can move forward with the development.
It is obvious that Bitcoin Core is not achieving its objectives in forwarding technology
Did you even check the main github before posting?
The core devs have done and are still doing a great job of keeping Bitcoin technology moving forward. EG, BIP66 is done.
And then there's these:
Code:
https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning
https://github.com/ElementsProject/elements
https://github.com/ElementsProject/elements
It is obvious that Bitcoin Core is not achieving its objectives in forwarding technology, and therefore it is obsolete and should be superceded by a newer system that can promote more rapid innovations and changes.
It seems to me that Bitcoin Core has become stale and stagnant, and resistant to change. It is crucial that for an emergent technology to grow, the community needs to foster ways to provide some space for new ideas to take shape and grow. I don’t see why the Bitcoin developer group is having such a hard time in achieving this.
The real change in BitcoinXT is not the technology, but the opportunity to break the stalemate from making changes to the technology. In a sense, this is more about creating a more open system for adopting changes.
It seems to me that Bitcoin Core has become stale and stagnant, and resistant to change. It is crucial that for an emergent technology to grow, the community needs to foster ways to provide some space for new ideas to take shape and grow. I don’t see why the Bitcoin developer group is having such a hard time in achieving this.
The real change in BitcoinXT is not the technology, but the opportunity to break the stalemate from making changes to the technology. In a sense, this is more about creating a more open system for adopting changes.
lol rekt
Here's what Heam doesn't want you to know about XT:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h5heu/so_what_exactly_are_the_changes_in_bitcoinxt/
Quote
In Core, several committers and usually a few other people eyeball the changes; does XT have that attention yet? I don't know enough on the patched functionality to give a useful opinion, but I strongly believe people should look closely at what's getting in under the radar here.
a bug fix
If "relay the first observed double spend" were generally accepted as a bug with a clean fix available, it'd be fixed in Core; superficial searching says it got reverted as problematic and contentious but I don't know the whole story, nor do I have an opinion on the change.
two minor things
One is for Hearn's Lighthouse project, and also got merged, found buggy, and reverted. Without those eyeballs, would the lack of testing have been addressed and the bug in getutxos have been spotted before it was widely rolled out?
The other is adding back the bitnodes seed node that was removed for behaving in fishy ways, and adding a seed run by Mike that (unlike any others) gets to know the connecting node's IP address (which would never be accepted into Core).
Is XT basically going to be every patch Mike Hearn ever had refused by NACKs in Core? Where does that road take you as a user of XT?
Edit: Conspicuous by its absence from the README is that (AFAICT from the commit comment) incoming clearnet connections will kick a Tor peer off. /u/luke-jr pointed this out below. So don't just trust the description of diffs.
a bug fix
If "relay the first observed double spend" were generally accepted as a bug with a clean fix available, it'd be fixed in Core; superficial searching says it got reverted as problematic and contentious but I don't know the whole story, nor do I have an opinion on the change.
two minor things
One is for Hearn's Lighthouse project, and also got merged, found buggy, and reverted. Without those eyeballs, would the lack of testing have been addressed and the bug in getutxos have been spotted before it was widely rolled out?
The other is adding back the bitnodes seed node that was removed for behaving in fishy ways, and adding a seed run by Mike that (unlike any others) gets to know the connecting node's IP address (which would never be accepted into Core).
Is XT basically going to be every patch Mike Hearn ever had refused by NACKs in Core? Where does that road take you as a user of XT?
Edit: Conspicuous by its absence from the README is that (AFAICT from the commit comment) incoming clearnet connections will kick a Tor peer off. /u/luke-jr pointed this out below. So don't just trust the description of diffs.
Bitcoin has already been forked. That's where Litecoin, etc. came from. When you fork Bitcoin's existing economic majority, that by definition creates an alternative economic consensus (regardless of UXTO inheritance and blockchain).
I'm not sure why discussion of this particular new alt isn't in its proper forum here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-xt-status-update-1115016
I'm not sure why discussion of this particular new alt isn't in its proper forum here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-xt-status-update-1115016
Yep, just an alt, like the 500+ other alts. If anything, inheriting the BTC blockchain and its unspent balances dooms an alt. After all, there are loads of people with coins who have the ability to dump (due to their BTC balances porting over) and incentive to dump (because it's a competing chain, but mostly just for immediate profit).
Quote
Remember that many home miners have free electricity, and garage miners could use the heat to heat their home/water, which will also make the cost of mining close to zero. Industrial miners must make a profit, that's their weakness, they won't hold long if difficulty keeps going up
Except that many more don't, and it's barely feasible to heat anything with your typical rig
Imagine a new type of heater, with built in ASIC chips 2000W, only generate heat when connected with wifi network, downloadable app get your a wallet address for payout, plug in and auto connect to a p2pool to start mining. I guess you will have no problem selling more than 1 million units, because it is a heater that does not cost you electricity to run
Actually 21 inc is doing something similar right now, but their plan is a little bit less clear
Except it would be useless to the majority of people, and besides there are already way better options in solar and in some cases geothermal. It would be more viable to heat your home with a camp fire than with a mining rig.
The amount of fear and uncertainty on this site is mind-boggling. Imagining all the FUD posters from this forum, in the same room, is hilarious: the second someone sneezes, five people are falsely accused and murdered. Ten people commit suicide, thinking it a better option than contracting a cold. One group begins selling magical anti-sneeze armor to another group, then buys their clothes back for twice the price because they're now cold and afraid of getting sick. The group who profited argues amongst themselves over the TRUE value of a dollar, while the rest of the world moves on as normal because no one gives a rat's ass what some schizophrenic-sounding troll posts on a message board.
Mike Hearn:
https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1
Reddit: Bitcoin is Forked
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h42cz/bitcoin_is_forked/
Maybe it should have read Bitcoin is FUCKED ? no joking.
edit: Satoshi weighs in on the mailing list?
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html
https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1
Reddit: Bitcoin is Forked
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h42cz/bitcoin_is_forked/
Maybe it should have read Bitcoin is FUCKED ? no joking.
edit: Satoshi weighs in on the mailing list?
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html
Bitcoin has already been forked. That's where Litecoin, etc. came from. When you fork Bitcoin's existing economic majority, that by definition creates an alternative economic consensus (regardless of UXTO inheritance and blockchain).
I'm not sure why discussion of this particular new alt isn't in its proper forum here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-xt-status-update-1115016
If BitcoinXT is allowed in the main forum, it's time to start talking about the Bitcoin Scrypt project too!
Since anything with "Bitcoin" in the name goes, let's talk make BitcoinDark threads in the Bitcoin forums as well.
Anything less is censorship, book burning, and the epitome of authoritarianism.
Hang on, do we actually have two competing chains right now? Or is this just a heads up that there is going to be a fork in the future?
No competing chains, if Bitcoin XT gets adopted by the majority there will be a fork and the network will start to accept bigger blocks, until then nothing changes.
And how do we or you measure the majority? By transaction volume? By size? By users?
Quote
Remember that many home miners have free electricity, and garage miners could use the heat to heat their home/water, which will also make the cost of mining close to zero. Industrial miners must make a profit, that's their weakness, they won't hold long if difficulty keeps going up
Except that many more don't, and it's barely feasible to heat anything with your typical rig
Imagine a new type of heater, with built in ASIC chips 2000W, only generate heat when connected with wifi network, downloadable app get your a wallet address for payout, plug in and auto connect to a p2pool to start mining. I guess you will have no problem selling more than 1 million units, because it is a heater that does not cost you electricity to run
Actually 21 inc is doing something similar right now, but their plan is a little bit less clear
NO their plan is nothing but novelty products.
The reason why your ideas are far from reality is the ASIC technology improves way faster than your return on investment. Thus the network difficulty would make such products obsolete.
Not to mention the inefficiency the system, as heat from burning gas (furnace ) is still the most energy efficient. Unless you have a proven prototype, you're only spitting horseshit.
Ever heard of "nirvana fallacy"
Quote
The nirvana fallacy is a name given to the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives.[1] It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the perfect solution fallacy.
By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous — while at the same time being completely implausible — a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. Under this fallacy, the choice is not between real world solutions; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic achievable possibility and another unrealistic solution that could in some way be “better”.
By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous — while at the same time being completely implausible — a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. Under this fallacy, the choice is not between real world solutions; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic achievable possibility and another unrealistic solution that could in some way be “better”.
The issue with blockchain tps limit is NOW, and unless you have a system ready built to solve, all the arguments from you are pure fantasy.
No fear people. It is not the first time that this process happen. One months ago was another forked part of blockchain and after a few time it is regulated by the system again. So no panic. Nothing will happen. Everything will go ok after e few days.
Quote
Remember that many home miners have free electricity, and garage miners could use the heat to heat their home/water, which will also make the cost of mining close to zero. Industrial miners must make a profit, that's their weakness, they won't hold long if difficulty keeps going up
Except that many more don't, and it's barely feasible to heat anything with your typical rig
Imagine a new type of heater, with built in ASIC chips 2000W, only generate heat when connected with wifi network, downloadable app get your a wallet address for payout, plug in and auto connect to a p2pool to start mining. I guess you will have no problem selling more than 1 million units, because it is a heater that does not cost you electricity to run
Actually 21 inc is doing something similar right now, but their plan is a little bit less clear
Problems are not new to Bitcoin. Even if the fork is real, it must be over come from it and BTC have good future.
Why the blocksize limit keeps Bitcoin free and decentralized
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I
While remaining useless and unscalable.
the idea is to keep a safe core and to built around this core an ecosystem with sidechains, colored coins, off chains transcactions etc. I am not completely against the idea the bitcoin core to have a head to a new direction. I am afraid the idea that one or two developers have the power to fork the core.
Stop repeating "one or two have power to fork the core"
Here is a newsflash for you: ANYONE can fork the core. But they only succeed if majority agree with them. Thats not weakness, thats strength of the network.
If you oppose that idea, then you see bitcoin is nothing but a cult.
Why the blocksize limit keeps Bitcoin free and decentralized
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I
Do you even understand the merits of this idea?
Let me explain, the video basically propose to have centralized networks(sidechain, offchain...) connecting thro a decentralized network (bitcoin blockchain) while the blockchain is basically at its infant state and thus would discourage any growth and become unsustainable.
Meanwhile, we need the blockchain to have enough economy backing to grow. Sidechain or offchain will discourage miner's economy incentives (unless you can convince Lighting Network to share their fees with miners
). Essentially ppl dont even care or know bitcoin, they're using offchain services like paypal. The ppl who rushed into this sidechain/offchain development are the same ppl who refused to let Bitcoin to scale. Frankly some of these projects got VC money, yet they say Gavin and Mike are "lobbying" Bitcoin service providers....yeah for what? so they can be proud lead developers again lol? because they dont have financial incentive to do so.
Why the blocksize limit keeps Bitcoin free and decentralized
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I
While remaining useless and unscalable.
the idea is to keep a safe core and to built around this core an ecosystem with sidechains, colored coins, off chains transcactions etc. I am not completely against the idea the bitcoin core to have a head to a new direction. I am afraid the idea that one or two developers have the power to fork the core.
Why the blocksize limit keeps Bitcoin free and decentralized
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I
While remaining useless and unscalable.
Mike and Gavin exaggerate things to an unnecessary level. No one said that we should never raise the block size, and the difference between 8MB and 20MB is not that big. However, insisting on a private fork without reaching full consensus does make them more isolated to the rest of the community. I think their pride is hurt when they see the project won't go the way they want, as they are one of the oldest core developers. But a perfect life is just wishful thinking for most of us, sometimes we must make compromise
Surprisingly, the answer by "Satoshi" is very convincing, we should focus on how to make the mining as distributed as possible, the block size is a much less problem. Home miner and garage miner should command over 60% of hash power, that will require lots of change. And when that is done, the bitcoin network will become invincible
The previous dust spam test already proved that even every block is more than full, bitcoin network would still work if you put a higher transaction fee, so even the blocks were full, we still have some time to react
Surprisingly, the answer by "Satoshi" is very convincing, we should focus on how to make the mining as distributed as possible, the block size is a much less problem. Home miner and garage miner should command over 60% of hash power, that will require lots of change. And when that is done, the bitcoin network will become invincible
The previous dust spam test already proved that even every block is more than full, bitcoin network would still work if you put a higher transaction fee, so even the blocks were full, we still have some time to react
Bullshit, in your pipe dream. Satoshi himself even acknowledge that naturally as bitcoin grow mining will belong to industrial business, not a hobby.
This blocksize increase wont affect mining as much as you made it out to be. If anything it would help to decentralize the mining industry as it brings bandwidth variable to the calculation. As of right now mining is way too energy focused.
Remember that many home miners have free electricity, and garage miners could use the heat to heat their home/water, which will also make the cost of mining close to zero. Industrial miners must make a profit, that's their weakness, they won't hold long if difficulty keeps going up
Except that many more don't, and it's barely feasible to heat anything with your typical rig
Why the blocksize limit keeps Bitcoin free and decentralized
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I
Quote
There is no such thing as free energy, Someone has to pay for it. Bitcoin network can not reply on a handful of tenants abusing their lease contract.
because thats how most bitcoin miners start, sucking money from their landlord. It was only a hobby until 2011 bubble. Then greed took over and ppl rent space with "utilities included", rack of GPUs came in. 2013 made them rich and they went big..... rent datacenter, warehouse, hook up high power line..... only to fail miserably. They realized they couldnt compete with the big players who actually sold them chips/miners. As big money can build farms with the most economical sense.
Now they cried , mining is centralized.
Had they have any clue of economy, they would have seen this is inevitable if Bitcoin grow to $XXX/btc. There is no such thing as easy money.
Jump to: