Topic: Bitgo's opinion (Read 693 times)
Good article and pretty much to the point, 2mb to start with and see how it goes. work on segw and lightning for the future.
I also feel Bitcoin classic is a best way to go. Also, since miners support it, no need to go further, they move the entire network.
About Bitgo, I use it for some time, no issues, great service.
About Bitgo, I use it for some time, no issues, great service.
No, I don't think so. I don't have any idea if we should increase the blocksize, but I'm sure is that an hard fork will never be a solution, because it's breaking the fundamental rule of Bitcoin : the consensus.
why exactly can't a hard fork be a solution? i don't understand your reasoning.
I also feel Bitcoin classic is a best way to go. Also, since miners support it, no need to go further, they move the entire network.
About Bitgo, I use it for some time, no issues, great service.
About Bitgo, I use it for some time, no issues, great service.
No, I don't think so. I don't have any idea if we should increase the blocksize, but I'm sure is that an hard fork will never be a solution, because it's breaking the fundamental rule of Bitcoin : the consensus.
Consensus is never going to happen anymore. Bitcoin has gotten too big with too many players with different agendas to reach consensus on the level they want it.
Look in your local government for example, how many parties are there? The same is happening in bitcoin. Different parties with different opinions not wanting to work together or agree with eachother.
Exactly. This is why I say the most important vote bears the one who contributes to the network the most. Consensus s not going to happen, I agree, too many vested interests.
I also feel Bitcoin classic is a best way to go. Also, since miners support it, no need to go further, they move the entire network.
About Bitgo, I use it for some time, no issues, great service.
About Bitgo, I use it for some time, no issues, great service.
No, I don't think so. I don't have any idea if we should increase the blocksize, but I'm sure is that an hard fork will never be a solution, because it's breaking the fundamental rule of Bitcoin : the consensus.
Consensus is never going to happen anymore. Bitcoin has gotten too big with too many players with different agendas to reach consensus on the level they want it.
Look in your local government for example, how many parties are there? The same is happening in bitcoin. Different parties with different opinions not wanting to work together or agree with eachother.
I also feel Bitcoin classic is a best way to go. Also, since miners support it, no need to go further, they move the entire network.
About Bitgo, I use it for some time, no issues, great service.
About Bitgo, I use it for some time, no issues, great service.
No, I don't think so. I don't have any idea if we should increase the blocksize, but I'm sure is that an hard fork will never be a solution, because it's breaking the fundamental rule of Bitcoin : the consensus.
I think it really does not matter what we think. All it matters is what large farms think cause they re the ones moving the blockchain.
i dont think the solution is classic agenda or blockstreams.
id prefer 100 developers to release an implementation that is nothing more than a 2mb block increase..
where all implementations can talk to each other as they are all the same but allow programmers to then do their own independant glamour features to the GUI (such as segwit) but not messing with consensus hard rules ..
that way there is more than one source of the same hard code. allowing freedom of choice while still being part of the network and able to b innovative with the softer stuff
that way it defeats both debates of banker control(classic r3) and centralized and dictator roadmaps(blockstream)
then the millions of users can actually get 2mb block buffer to allow capacity growth naturally.. without getting involved in the band camp debate
id prefer 100 developers to release an implementation that is nothing more than a 2mb block increase..
where all implementations can talk to each other as they are all the same but allow programmers to then do their own independant glamour features to the GUI (such as segwit) but not messing with consensus hard rules ..
that way there is more than one source of the same hard code. allowing freedom of choice while still being part of the network and able to b innovative with the softer stuff
that way it defeats both debates of banker control(classic r3) and centralized and dictator roadmaps(blockstream)
then the millions of users can actually get 2mb block buffer to allow capacity growth naturally.. without getting involved in the band camp debate
No, I don't think so. I don't have any idea if we should increase the blocksize, but I'm sure is that an hard fork will never be a solution, because it's breaking the fundamental rule of Bitcoin : the consensus.
If every single person forked all at once that would be enough consensus for me. There've been hard forks in the past to solve problems that were universally agreed on. Don't think it's happening this time though.
I also feel Bitcoin classic is a best way to go. Also, since miners support it, no need to go further, they move the entire network.
About Bitgo, I use it for some time, no issues, great service.
About Bitgo, I use it for some time, no issues, great service.
No, I don't think so. I don't have any idea if we should increase the blocksize, but I'm sure is that an hard fork will never be a solution, because it's breaking the fundamental rule of Bitcoin : the consensus.
I may need to move my coins to a BitGo wallet because of their Instant feature which looks very promising.
I also feel Bitcoin classic is a best way to go. Also, since miners support it, no need to go further, they move the entire network.
About Bitgo, I use it for some time, no issues, great service.
About Bitgo, I use it for some time, no issues, great service.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Jump to: