A hard fork would be bad for bitcoin, I would agree to that.
I don't think it will come to that.
Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 191. (Read 378996 times)
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Both you noobs need to read this and educate yourself
http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/
http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/
This article doesn't address scaling at all nor propose anything in that way so I couldn't care less.
so core devs control all the nodes and miners now 
Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run. This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization.
Right. So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias.
At least in my opinion.
This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it.
If Core doesn't scale expect a divorce at some point. Even if it means forking at 50%. I will personally be fine with it.
Enjoy your 0.50$ bitcoin then.
I wonder which coin will worth 0.50$. The one that scales and is useful or the one that doesn't and is useless?
Please advice.
If Bitcoin is forked by 50% the trust in cryptocurrency in general will be destroyed.
You really are clueless about what a hardfork entails heh?
Meh. The bitcoin that scales will make its way to the mainstream while nobody (expect bitcointalk.org) will ever know about this silly episode on bitcoin history.
Both you noobs need to read this and educate yourself
http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/
http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/
so core devs control all the nodes and miners now
Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run. This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization.
Right. So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias.
At least in my opinion.
This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it.
If Core doesn't scale expect a divorce at some point. Even if it means forking at 50%. I will personally be fine with it.
Enjoy your 0.50$ bitcoin then.
I wonder which coin will worth 0.50$. The one that scales and is useful or the one that doesn't and is useless?
Please advice.
If Bitcoin is forked by 50% the trust in cryptocurrency in general will be destroyed.
You really are clueless about what a hardfork entails heh?
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
so core devs control all the nodes and miners now
Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run. This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization.
Right. So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias.
At least in my opinion.
This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it.
If Core doesn't scale expect a divorce at some point. Even if it means forking at 50%. I will personally be fine with it.
Enjoy your 0.50$ bitcoin then.
I wonder which coin will worth 0.50$. The one that scales and is useful or the one that doesn't and is useless?
Please advice.
the one that is truly decentralized? Or the one that relies on lightning network 'trusted super nodes' ?
so core devs control all the nodes and miners now
Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run. This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization.
Right. So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias.
At least in my opinion.
This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it.
If Core doesn't scale expect a divorce at some point. Even if it means forking at 50%. I will personally be fine with it.
Enjoy your 0.50$ bitcoin then.
I wonder which coin will worth 0.50$. The one that scales and is useful or the one that doesn't and is useless?
Please advice.
so core devs control all the nodes and miners now
Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run. This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization.
Right. So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias.
At least in my opinion.
This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it.
If Core doesn't scale expect a divorce at some point. Even if it means forking at 50%. I will personally be fine with it.
Enjoy your 0.50$ bitcoin then.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
so core devs control all the nodes and miners now
Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run. This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization.
Right. So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias.
At least in my opinion.
This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it.
The current consensus of the protocol has a certain entrenchment by virtue of the core repository. That is why there is a status quo bias of the protocol rules.
so core devs control all the nodes and miners now
Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run. This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization.
Right. So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias.
At least in my opinion.
This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it.
If Core doesn't scale expect a divorce at some point. Even if it means forking at 50%. I will personally be fine with it.
so core devs control all the nodes and miners now
Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run. This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization.
Right. So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias.
At least in my opinion.
This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
so core devs control all the nodes and miners now
Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run. This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization.
Right. So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias.
At least in my opinion.
so core devs control all the nodes and miners now
Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run. This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization.
Bitcoin is a decentralized protocol. What you're saying is 100% irrelevant to that. I'm not opposed to any number of people or groups forking the code -- hell, that's what most altcoins are. But the idea of "centralization" is being used as a red herring here. Whether or not the development process is centralized has absolutely no bearing on whether the protocol is centralized -- that is what's important.
Bitcoin is a decentralized protocol, indeed. Presently ~85% of the network nodes run Core's implementation of that protocol.
The block size limit debate has revealed how this sort of centralization--once thought benign--can become an impediment to progress and can be subject to capture by special interest groups. Like you said, the code can be freely forked to create an outlet to any impediment; the XT fork is leading the way down that path. This knowledge of "how to fork" is one positive that has come from the block size battle.
I look forward to seeing multiple implementation of the Bitcoin protocol in a few years time.
so core devs control all the nodes and miners now
Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run. This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization.
Bitcoin is a decentralized protocol. What you're saying is 100% irrelevant to that. I'm not opposed to any number of people or groups forking the code -- hell, that's what most altcoins are. But the idea of "centralization" is being used as a red herring here. Whether or not the development process is centralized has absolutely no bearing on whether the protocol is centralized -- that is what's important.
+1
Anyone is free to submit a pull request to core, that's all that matters.
so core devs control all the nodes and miners now
Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run. This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization.
Bitcoin is a decentralized protocol. What you're saying is 100% irrelevant to that. I'm not opposed to any number of people or groups forking the code -- hell, that's what most altcoins are. But the idea of "centralization" is being used as a red herring here. Whether or not the development process is centralized has absolutely no bearing on whether the protocol is centralized -- that is what's important.
so core devs control all the nodes and miners now
Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run. This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization.
How many time do you need it pointed out that this little chart is bullshit.
No one's stopping anyone from creating other implementations. In fact, there are multiple existing implementations and client versions.
The problem is limited resources. I don't see any hordes of developers stepping forward to support these implementation?
Be careful what you wish for though... the guys at Ethereum can probably tell you all about the "joys" of different implementations of critical consensus code.
so core devs control all the nodes and miners now
Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run. This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
If nothing else, lowering the consensus threshold to 75% in his fork caused Gavin's credibility to plummet in my eyes. I don't like to use polemic words like "coup" but it isn't entirely inappropriate. The intent, of course, was to push a controversial hard fork with as little difficulty as possible in the face of considerable opposition.
It might be hard to get much more than 75% given the fact that the core devs all work for blockstream and couldn't come to a consensus for scaling bitcoin on chain, even after several years of discussion.
so core devs control all the nodes and miners now
They seem to control opinions of certain posters.
If nothing else, lowering the consensus threshold to 75% in his fork caused Gavin's credibility to plummet in my eyes. I don't like to use polemic words like "coup" but it isn't entirely inappropriate. The intent, of course, was to push a controversial hard fork with as little difficulty as possible in the face of considerable opposition.
It might be hard to get much more than 75% given the fact that the core devs all work for blockstream and couldn't come to a consensus for scaling bitcoin on chain, even after several years of discussion.
so core devs control all the nodes and miners now
Jump to: