Topic: "Bitcoin is in the midst of a civil war" (Read 1276 times)
There is no civil war if only one side is fighting between themselves and the other one is just watching. We as a community don't have the final say on the matter sadly. The consensus must be reached by the people in charge of development.
This is old news. I think this kind of disagreement is unavoidable and do not consider this as civil war.
I would think it is a unavoidable growing up process through which Bitcoin can only get stronger.
I would think it is a unavoidable growing up process through which Bitcoin can only get stronger.
It is old, but I think the description is apt. Until one side wins comprehensively, everybody in the bitcoin space is just going to bleed. We need this to be resolved before we can proceed further.
Sure. You could also open a payment channel and fund it with just enough coin for 1 cup of coffee. It would be a stupid thing to do, you would loose money vs. transacting on the blockchain & bloat BTC blockchain in the process, but yeah, technically you could.
If BTC tx fees ever become substantial, setting up a payment channel for 10 cups of coffee would make that coffee prohibitively expensive. So 100 cups is a reasonable number, I'm good with it.
Doing so for 1 cup of coffee does not make sense indeed. LN is not efficient for such. However, you have no calculations to back up any exact numbers (e.g. at exactly what point is it inefficient/expensive). You're part of the 'complaining is better than contributing crowd'.If BTC tx fees ever become substantial, setting up a payment channel for 10 cups of coffee would make that coffee prohibitively expensive. So 100 cups is a reasonable number, I'm good with it.
Quote
The rest of your comments are simply "no ur rong," and, as such, deserve no response. Responding only because it pains me to see you reduce yourself to this, Lauda, sniping like a hurt little girl. Stop acting like a hurt little girl, Lauda, it's unbecoming.
Simiarily you think that "ur rite" without anything backing up your words. I've done nothing but reduce to your level. +1 for ad hominem attempt.>you have no calculations to back up any exact numbers
Of course I have no numbers, there's no Lightning. duh.
>Simiarily you think that "ur rite"
Again, of course, not in the habit of saying stuff I think is wrong.
I back my comments with logic and reasoning and stuff. You? Not so much. As I mentioned earlier, ad hominem != wrong or inappropriate.
Saying this as an educator and a friend, Lauda, stop it with the petulant little girl comebacks, people will like you more
Edit re. ad hominem: Avoid. Makes you sound like a kid who's desperately trying to sound smart.
Sure. You could also open a payment channel and fund it with just enough coin for 1 cup of coffee. It would be a stupid thing to do, you would loose money vs. transacting on the blockchain & bloat BTC blockchain in the process, but yeah, technically you could.
If BTC tx fees ever become substantial, setting up a payment channel for 10 cups of coffee would make that coffee prohibitively expensive. So 100 cups is a reasonable number, I'm good with it.
Doing so for 1 cup of coffee does not make sense indeed. LN is not efficient for such. However, you have no calculations to back up any exact numbers (e.g. at exactly what point is it inefficient/expensive). You're part of the 'complaining is better than contributing crowd'.If BTC tx fees ever become substantial, setting up a payment channel for 10 cups of coffee would make that coffee prohibitively expensive. So 100 cups is a reasonable number, I'm good with it.
Quote
The rest of your comments are simply "no ur rong," and, as such, deserve no response. Responding only because it pains me to see you reduce yourself to this, Lauda, sniping like a hurt little girl. Stop acting like a hurt little girl, Lauda, it's unbecoming.
Simiarily you think that "ur rite" without anything backing up your words. I've done nothing but reduce to your level. +1 for ad hominem attempt.Update: Seems like I've wasted my time. Stop trolling.
I'm telling you it's a fundamental flaw which you don't seem to find problematic.
I'm telling you that it isn't.Correct, though has little to do with what I said, that being "what amounts to buying gift cards."
It doesn't.Before you can buy your overpriced cup of coffee via Lightning, you have to lock away enough BTC for 100 cups, or Lightning is as pointless as buying yourself a "1 cup of coffee" gift card each time you buy a cup of coffee.
Which is pointless.
100 cups? See, you're being hyperbolic again. You can just as easily do it for 10.Which is pointless.
Though some might suggest you're not technically using BTC, either.
This
Whoever says that does not understand LN (albeit it is better than those that say that LN is an altcoin).
...
>100 cups? See, you're being hyperbolic again. You can just as easily do it for 10.
Sure. You could also open a payment channel and fund it with just enough coin for 1 cup of coffee. It would be a stupid thing to do, you would loose money vs. transacting on the blockchain & bloat BTC blockchain in the process, but yeah, technically you could.
If BTC tx fees ever become substantial, setting up a payment channel for 10 cups of coffee would make that coffee prohibitively expensive. So 100 cups is a reasonable number, I'm good with it.
The rest of your comments are simply "no ur rong," and, as such, deserve no response. Responding only because it pains me to see you reduce yourself to this, Lauda, sniping like a hurt little girl. Stop acting like a hurt little girl, Lauda, it's unbecoming.
This debate shouldn't exist at all, whatever happens even with the fork, bitcoin will still continue to exist without any problems, so no civil war in my opinion regarding bitcoins.
How can you claim that there is no "civil war" when there have been countless "discussions" that include various forms of hostility over the course of the last few months?Who cares about the block size issue!
Seems like a lot of people do?That has come and gone and now we have a plethora of browser still fighting for dominance. The same will happen with Bitcoin, because everyone wants to be on top and there are only place for one. ^smile^
So your solution to the 'debate' is to introduce additional crypto-currencies that will 'fight for dominance'?
This fight reminds me about the days when we still had Netscape and IE and people were going on about the smallest difference between the two. We called it the "Browser Wars" and it went on for months, until Microsoft took the lead and dominated the scene. Using their domination in the OS environment as a driving method to gain dominance in the browser fights.
That has come and gone and now we have a plethora of browser still fighting for dominance. The same will happen with Bitcoin, because everyone wants to be on top and there are only place for one. ^smile^
That has come and gone and now we have a plethora of browser still fighting for dominance. The same will happen with Bitcoin, because everyone wants to be on top and there are only place for one. ^smile^
This debate shouldn't exist at all, whatever happens even with the fork, bitcoin will still continue to exist without any problems, so no civil war in my opinion regarding bitcoins.
This debate shouldn't exist in the first place if the lead devs have looked further than their own egos and thought about what would have been better for the greater good of the whole Bitcoin community and not caring only about their selfish reasons to fuck around for so long. I think it's about time for them to listen to what everyone wants and this thing will be over.
I can't believe someone resurrected a thread that is as many months old as it had reply posts.
Who cares about the block size issue!
Who cares about the block size issue!
I'm telling you it's a fundamental flaw which you don't seem to find problematic.
I'm telling you that it isn't.Correct, though has little to do with what I said, that being "what amounts to buying gift cards."
It doesn't.Before you can buy your overpriced cup of coffee via Lightning, you have to lock away enough BTC for 100 cups, or Lightning is as pointless as buying yourself a "1 cup of coffee" gift card each time you buy a cup of coffee.
Which is pointless.
100 cups? See, you're being hyperbolic again. You can just as easily do it for 10.Which is pointless.
Though some might suggest you're not technically using BTC, either.
Whoever says that does not understand LN (albeit it is better than those that say that LN is an altcoin).Isn't segwit supposed to launch this month? Seems like a big move.
The code might get released this month. 
Isn't segwit supposed to launch this month? Seems like a big move. Classic seems to be kinda static and falling a little right now. I think it's gonna go quiet for a while again.
>Finding something problematic and saying that it is a fundamental flaw is fundamentally different.
I'm telling you it's a fundamental flaw which you don't seem to find problematic.
>The Lightning Network does not involve third parties nor buying any kind of gift cards.
Correct, though has little to do with what I said, that being "what amounts to buying gift cards."
Lightning network requires its users to create a payment channel, which must be fully funded for all future use.
Just like a gift card.
Meaning that if you are planning to use Lightning to buy coffee at Starbucks, you must lock away as much BTC as you're planning to use at Starbucks *for the lifetime of the channel*. Before you can buy your overpriced cup of coffee via Lightning, you have to lock away enough BTC for 100 cups, or Lightning is as pointless as buying yourself a "1 cup of coffee" gift card each time you buy a cup of coffee.
Which is pointless.
>does not involve third parties
Technically no.
Just like cashing out your BTC to some speedier coin, transacting in that [speedier coin], and, when you're done with your shopping, buying BTC with the remnants (change) doesn't technically involve third parties.
Though some might suggest you're not technically using BTC, either.
I'm telling you it's a fundamental flaw which you don't seem to find problematic.
>The Lightning Network does not involve third parties nor buying any kind of gift cards.
Correct, though has little to do with what I said, that being "what amounts to buying gift cards."
Lightning network requires its users to create a payment channel, which must be fully funded for all future use.
Just like a gift card.
Meaning that if you are planning to use Lightning to buy coffee at Starbucks, you must lock away as much BTC as you're planning to use at Starbucks *for the lifetime of the channel*. Before you can buy your overpriced cup of coffee via Lightning, you have to lock away enough BTC for 100 cups, or Lightning is as pointless as buying yourself a "1 cup of coffee" gift card each time you buy a cup of coffee.
Which is pointless.
>does not involve third parties
Technically no.
Just like cashing out your BTC to some speedier coin, transacting in that [speedier coin], and, when you're done with your shopping, buying BTC with the remnants (change) doesn't technically involve third parties.
Though some might suggest you're not technically using BTC, either.
You don't find it somewhat problematic that a system billed as A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System can't handle the transaction volume generated by a small suburban shopping mall?
Finding something problematic and saying that it is a fundamental flaw is fundamentally different.You don't consider it a problem that "the next world currency" can't come up with a coherent scaling roadmap which doesn't involve third parties & what amounts to buying gift cards from people you plan to do business with (lightning network)?
The Lightning Network does not involve third parties nor buying any kind of gift cards. Should I also blame the guy who finds a bug in beta software for "ruining it for everyone"? Because this is exactly what's going on -- Bitcoin, a great social experiment, is in beta (Core's current ver. is 0.12.0). We should *thank* people exposing obvious & fundamental flaws.
What flaw are we talking about? The network is operating nicely without any problems. Seems like being hyperbolic and imagining flaws seems to be your thing.Hyperbolic?
You don't find it somewhat problematic that a system billed as A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System can't handle the transaction volume generated by a small suburban shopping mall?
You don't consider it a problem that "the next world currency" can't come up with a coherent scaling roadmap which doesn't involve third parties & what amounts to buying gift cards from people you plan to do business with (lightning network)?
You don't find it worrying that our Mechanical Turk is not controlled by "maths and sciences," per billing, but by a couple of midgets, who aren't particularly good at chess & can't even play nice together?
Hyperbolic?
Turns out our self-driving currency has more in common with Thelma & Louise than Mario Andretti, and it don't bother you?
"The network is operating nicely without any problems."
Should I also blame the guy who finds a bug in beta software for "ruining it for everyone"? Because this is exactly what's going on -- Bitcoin, a great social experiment, is in beta (Core's current ver. is 0.12.0). We should *thank* people exposing obvious & fundamental flaws.
What flaw are we talking about? The network is operating nicely without any problems. Seems like being hyperbolic and imagining flaws seems to be your thing. If "there is never total consensus," then you will never "reach consensus." That's just the way life is. Especially when no one even agrees on what "consensus" means 
You can blame the disruptors for this. Bitcoin was fine before the block size debate and nothing has changed since.Should I also blame the guy who finds a bug in beta software for "ruining it for everyone"? Because this is exactly what's going on -- Bitcoin, a great social experiment, is in beta (Core's current ver. is 0.12.0). We should *thank* people exposing obvious & fundamental flaws.
If these "disruptors" succeed in disrupting the disruptive technology that is our beetcoin, kudos to them
Stop this Red vs. Blue silliness.
If "there is never total consensus," then you will never "reach consensus." That's just the way life is. Especially when no one even agrees on what "consensus" means
You can blame the disruptors for this. Bitcoin was fine before the block size debate and nothing has changed since.I think it is about time this debate ends.
I don't think that it will end anytime soon.I don't think it should be compared to a civil war though, it is not the major community who is rising against the leaders, it is more the leaders fighting eachother.
Maybe a restructuration of the ecosystem is due. These 'leaders' should not have this much influence.It does prevent the growth of bitcoin in my opinion, so a decision has to be made, preferably one that does not take into account the side businesses some of them are involved with.
A decision has been reached, Segwit. The 'forkers' are just causing unneeded trouble at this point (see /r/btc). To reach consensus it means a constant debate, because there is never total consensus. ...
If "there is never total consensus," then you will never "reach consensus." That's just the way life is. Especially when no one even agrees on what "consensus" means
To reach consensus it means a constant debate, because there is never total consensus. The system works and things are moving in the right direction. These articles are just FUD clickbait from jealous people that own no coins. Focus on getting more BTC and don't waste time reading crap.
Absolutely right.Where is no dictator there is no: "Enough talk!That's it how we do it!"
The thing is in companies heating debates almost happen behind closed doors.And when a decision is made it is told to all employees.
But open source projects don't work like that.That's all.
SegWit is coming soon. Also Lightning Network seems to make good progress as Joseph Poon recently said in an interview to bitcoinmagazine. Also the last few weeks there were no big discussions happening.Why? Because devs are busy and working hard 'cause they want to deliver what is promised in core roadmap.
Jump to: