Blockstream is nothing more than a $70M blockchain takeover attempt - page 3.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: hv_ on March 12, 2017, 11:27:52 AM

Just take Ton Vays and do a little scam show about this...

I believe Tone Vays is for Core and the Segwit and LN solution, I do not know if he likes Blockstream though.

He may have missed some of his "Bitcoin oracle predictions" but he is with the scene long enough to know what is going on somehow.

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Just take Ton Vays and do a little scam show about this...

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: FiendCoin on March 11, 2017, 11:25:33 PM

I wish I knew what the answer was, I just know the answer is not centralized mining with BU.

How does BU make mining more centralized in your view?

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: RawDog on March 11, 2017, 05:02:33 AM

How can a privately funded entity organize themselves by hiring Core devs with the intention of driving the future rules of the network? Doesn't this bother most of you free loving bitcoiners?

Time to organize a new group of honest core devs having no paycheck affiliation with anyone.

Whatever. You know know the Core developers do not have total power on Bitcoin. The people supporting bigger blocks and the Gavinistas can always campaign to fork the network away from Core. If you think there was someone at fault it is the mining pools for not supporting what you want.

FiendCoin

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 263

The devil is in the detail.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 11, 2017, 10:31:26 PM

Quote from: FiendCoin on March 11, 2017, 10:14:34 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 11, 2017, 09:41:07 PM

Quote from: FiendCoin on March 11, 2017, 09:35:29 PM

a few "elite" miners can still block any improvement they don't like. This is something that really needs to change.

According to the original bitcoin whitepaper:

Quote

They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.

Are you saying this needs to change? If so, how?

Are you serious? Oh wait, of course you, you support BU Roll Eyes

The current consensus mechanism is failing due to centralized mining. When only a handful of people can give the yay or naw on improvements despite what the majority may want, it is a problem. I know you don't see it that way and you are ok with centralized mining and control in the hands of a few. We have argued this over multiple threads already.

We need a new consensus mechanism for Bitcoin improvements.

politics aside, i'm asking you: If not this mechanism described in the white paper, what's the alternative? Do you have a better idea? Or you just wish you had one?

I wish I knew what the answer was, I just know the answer is not centralized mining with BU. I am open to suggestions, hopefully some people smarter and more technically inclined than I am can find one before it is too late.

Quote from: franky1 on March 11, 2017, 10:19:16 PM

Quote from: FiendCoin on March 11, 2017, 10:14:34 PM

We need a new consensus mechanism for Bitcoin improvements.

consensus works

the problem is. CORE BYPASSED consensus and INTENTIONALLY only gave pools the vote. rather than nodes then pools.

Maybe we need to go back to this then.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: FiendCoin on March 11, 2017, 10:14:34 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 11, 2017, 09:41:07 PM

Quote from: FiendCoin on March 11, 2017, 09:35:29 PM

a few "elite" miners can still block any improvement they don't like. This is something that really needs to change.

According to the original bitcoin whitepaper:

Quote

They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.

Are you saying this needs to change? If so, how?

Are you serious? Oh wait, of course you, you support BU Roll Eyes

The current consensus mechanism is failing due to centralized mining. When only a handful of people can give the yay or naw on improvements despite what the majority may want, it is a problem. I know you don't see it that way and you are ok with centralized mining and control in the hands of a few. We have argued this over multiple threads already.

We need a new consensus mechanism for Bitcoin improvements.

politics aside, i'm asking you: If not this mechanism described in the white paper, what's the alternative? Do you have a better idea? Or you just wish you had one?

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: FiendCoin on March 11, 2017, 10:14:34 PM

We need a new consensus mechanism for Bitcoin improvements.

consensus works

the problem is. CORE BYPASSED consensus and INTENTIONALLY only gave pools the vote. rather than nodes then pools.

FiendCoin

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 263

The devil is in the detail.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 11, 2017, 09:41:07 PM

Quote from: FiendCoin on March 11, 2017, 09:35:29 PM

a few "elite" miners can still block any improvement they don't like. This is something that really needs to change.

According to the original bitcoin whitepaper:

Quote

They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.

Are you saying this needs to change? If so, how?

Are you serious? Oh wait, of course you, you support BU Roll Eyes

The current consensus mechanism is failing due to centralized mining. When only a handful of people can give the yay or naw on improvements despite what the majority may want, it is a problem. I know you don't see it that way and you are ok with centralized mining and control in the hands of a few. We have argued this over multiple threads already.

We need a new consensus mechanism for Bitcoin improvements.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: FiendCoin on March 11, 2017, 09:35:29 PM

a few "elite" miners can still block any improvement they don't like. This is something that really needs to change.

According to the original bitcoin whitepaper:

Quote

They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.

Are you saying this needs to change? If so, how?

FiendCoin

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 263

The devil is in the detail.

Quote from: RawDog on March 11, 2017, 05:02:33 AM

How can a privately funded entity organize themselves by hiring Core devs with the intention of driving the future rules of the network? Doesn't this bother most of you free loving bitcoiners?

Time to organize a new group of honest core devs having no paycheck affiliation with anyone.

I can get behind a new group of developers with no outside agendas, only what's best for Bitcoin. However, even with a neutrally funded group of developers, a few "elite" miners can still block any improvement they don't like. This is something that really needs to change.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

I remember everyone complaining before about the bitcoin foundation which funded developers.

But that was better than this.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: AliceWonderMiscreations on March 11, 2017, 06:40:10 AM

If the fork does not happen, I predict there will be an organized alt-coin with a new genesis block created and a lot of financial backing to market it.

blockstreamers love their monero and zcash as the alternative.

oh a blockstream investor thats cartel'd companies like bitpay, bitpesa, coinbase, xapo, purse, shapeshift. also loves zcash

AliceWonderMiscreations

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 107

If the fork does not happen, I predict there will be an organized alt-coin with a new genesis block created and a lot of financial backing to market it.

I suspect however the fork will happen.

http://nodecounter.com/#bitcoin_classic_blocks

BU is gaining momentum.

davis196

hero member

Activity: 3164

Merit: 937

Quote from: ABCbits on March 11, 2017, 05:30:48 AM

I'm more interested about how to organize a new group of honest core devs and make sure they still honest even if big company offer them lots of money Roll Eyes

All this "bitcoin is free and open source" idealism will be stopped sooner or later. Sad

I quess that those honest core devs are big bitcoin holders and big miners, so they can`t be bribed by some big company.

ABCbits

legendary

Activity: 2870

Merit: 7490

Crypto Swap Exchange

I'm more interested about how to organize a new group of honest core devs and make sure they still honest even if big company offer them lots of money Roll Eyes

RawDog

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1026

How can a privately funded entity organize themselves by hiring Core devs with the intention of driving the future rules of the network? Doesn't this bother most of you free loving bitcoiners?

Time to organize a new group of honest core devs having no paycheck affiliation with anyone.

Topic: Blockstream is nothing more than a $70M blockchain takeover attempt - page 3. (Read 2913 times)