Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 30. (Read 378980 times)

Good point, I stand corrected.

On second glance, maybe it's the perfect analogy, 'cept the "former" qualifier.

I thought about restraining myself in "good faith", then I remembered which thread I'm in.

These are all banker's industry, not enterprise, FED of course represent the banker's interest

I agree with the principle, but the analogy definitely falls apart. lol

It has been proposed before that each miner contribute part of the mining income to pay the core devs, but the proposal was not further discussed

FOMC members get the highest motivation since they got keep all the money printed, this makes sure that they won't make stupid decisions just for their personal interest

Not sure this is the best analogy.  

William C. Dudley, New York, Vice Chairman    Former Goldman Sachs
Stanley Fischer, Board of Governors                Former Citigroup
Lael Brainard, Board of Governors                   Former McKinsey & Co
Daniel K. Tarullo, Board of Governors              Senior Fellow CFR
Jerome H. Powell, Board of Governors             Former Partner Carlyle Group

This is because bitcoin is money or capital while rest of the open source software is just a tool which can be replaced at will if not good enough. When you have invested money in the bitcoin ecosystem and become the stake holder, there will be many different actors showing different interest, a chaos. This is especially true when developers are representing the interest of enterprises  

I think core devs should be forbidden from joining any enterprise. Have you ever seen any of the FOMC member working for Microsoft or PayPal??? They are even independent from the government just to make sure to be free from political influence

Garzik is being entirely too reasonable about this.

Perhaps we should take 12 to 18 months to snark each other in an effort to build consensus.

You're responding to a spam bot

I have read it actually, and having multiple implementations for people to choose from is the equivalent of giving the market freedom of choice.

I suggest you read Hayek's Road to Serfdom. Totalitarianism under the urge to follow a "strong" leader by steering the sheeps against a "common enemy" is not giving choice to the market.

I'd read his shit for that reason alone.  Happily he and I are generally on a similar frequency with respect to the direction of Bitcoin and the rational for it so it seems.  For this reason I'm extra glad that it was he more than anyone around who kissed the Blarney Stone.

Well said, you have a good attitude. I also hope these alternatives speed up their development in order to become more viable sooner. It seems like Jeff Garzik is completely reaffirming the concerns I also have and have been stating here for months. This is a refreshing turn of events. I suggest that everyone should read this:

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011973.html

Agreed, but I am going to leave this discussion as there appears too much politics and too high of a signal to noise ratio. There are plenty of tasks that need to be done to improve our ecosystem rather than rehashing the same discussion and attacking each other. The developers of Core or any other implementations- libbitcoin/BU/XT really need our contributions, testing and support.  

It's time. Given same amount of time, you can only become an expert in a specific area, this unavoidably limited your view. Or you can select to be a generalist thus giving up details (The smallest project I managed had 100+ developers, I seldom go below system integration level to check the codes)

I say this again: Bitcoin is a monetary system. To design and maintain a monetary system, you need at least the view of the central bank, not the view of programmers, because the programmers are in the lower part of financial industry, and they lack of overview of whole financial world

If in your eyes bitcoin is just a payment system, then naturally you are aiming to defeat paypal and visa, which is the industry leading solution. But this is almost the lowest level of concern for central banks

I agree that not changing block-size represents a change in functioning of system. But Gavins aggressive increases (aiming to get rid of limit altogether) also represent a change.

I completely agree with the above and Garzik that introducing a fee economy is a dramatic change in bitcoins economic policy. I am withholding judgment without more data if this is positive or negative.  



It certainly is possible they don't wish to increase the blocksize and their concerns of governance and hardfork completion times is merely a stall tactic. Unlike you, I am not assuming bad faith without further evidence.


I am not suggesting you trust anyone. Just because I do not assume bad faith in the core devs doesn't mean I implicitly trust or have faith in them.


I have been suggesting the opposite. I agree with you that you should fork... the sooner the better as bitcoin is still young and BU/XT group stalling is just as damning as the core taking their time. It will be fascinating to watch and some really good data can be analyzed even if there is a temporary negative economic outcome with Bitcoin splitting.

I consider not increasing the blocksize as a change to the economic policy of Bitcoin, not the other way around.

It seems like Jeff Garzik has joined our side, Surely you can now see why I might not believe Core when even Jeff Garzik is now voicing these same concerns. Of course if there is a huge spike in adoption an increase to 2MB would still not be enough since it would still in effect allow their "fee market" to form, in direct contrast to the contrary vision of Bitcoin many other people hold.

Jeff Garzik also said this:

My preferred implementation is presently BU not XT. I am not sure how long you think I should wait, many people said that after the scaling conference they would come up with a proposal. They still have not, some Core developers definitely do want a fee market now which is completely incompatible with my vision for Bitcoin going into the future.

Even if they do want to increase the blocksize soon they have failed to communicate this, after all a hard fork like this should at least require six months warning. Understand that in order for this "fee market" to come about all that these Core developers need to do is stall. I refuse to "trust" them, I believe this would be antithetical to the ethos of Bitcoin and there is to much at stake for such a leap of faith. If they came out with an announcement tomorrow stating that on this specific day the network will be forked with this specific code then it would be a different story. Even if this is only a failure of communication it is still damming enouth to justify a split, we should not ever be expected to "trust" any group with the future of Bitcoin.

It could even be that even with the best of intentions they will not be able to implement this because of "developer consensus" one person could literally block the entire thing. I do not consider this to be an adequate model for the governance of Bitcoin, this is why multiple implementations are needed.

Peter Todd appears to be one of the developers which is fine with staying with 1 MB blocks.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3x34wt/in_a_66b_economy_it_is_criminal_to_let_the/cy15xbn

While some core developers-(sipa) appear to want to simply maintain or follow the will of the community without forcing anything through, and miners want leadership and a clear path they can rally behind.

In one sense I can empathize with Pieter as he doesn't want to give developers too much power or set any precedents that reflect they should be responsible for economic changes, in another sense I can understand with Gavin/Hearns/and their supporters frustration when no "benevolent dictator" is leading the course and driving a decision through. The miners are naturally humble enough from indication at the scalability conference to want some leadership and direction from the developers as well so are waiting on guidance.

There needs to be some manner to efficiently determine " extreme widespread acceptance" as the miner vote only encompasses one segment of our ecosystem. Or perhaps if one of the proposed BIPs that is introduced has a better set of tradeoffs than everyone will just rally behind it without too much disagreement like segwit.