blockstream - wants to tax you and become the new Bitcoin oligarchy - page 6.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on August 22, 2015, 11:10:21 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 22, 2015, 11:02:46 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 22, 2015, 10:55:07 AM

Quote from: pedrog on August 22, 2015, 10:46:24 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 22, 2015, 10:39:17 AM

I don't think there's much of a difference between "1mb forever" and "no increase for now".
Those that don't want to increase it now are siding with the core dev/blockstream guys
and support their plans and ideas.

Everyone else is calling for an increase in the short term.

Well, it's impossible for an "increase it now", this isn't like upgrading a server running Apache and mySQL, people have to update their nodes, people all around the world, it takes a few months for this to happen, so any changes that require upgrade have to be planned way before they are supposed to be in effect.

there was an emergency fork once (altho it was clearly necessary and there was no disagreement ) took only a few hours for most miners to update.

this isn't even the point. increase now = as soon as we can. we're not increasing it now because not everyone agrees.

And a solution is yet to be found.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0101.mediawiki

Dire

member

Activity: 112

Merit: 10

Crypto-Games.net: DICE and SLOT

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 21, 2015, 04:09:37 PM

Applying that level of security to all these other information systems would be stupendously brilliant, like living a sci-fi movie. Possibly it might be horrifying for the same reason, but fuck it, the 20th century is over.

LOL.

I love the way you just waxed over a possible never ending dystopian nightmare with a 'fuck it, the 20th century is over'. I laughed hard and spat out my tortilla chips.

I agree about the blockchain tech if it comes to fruition though. It'll be amazing.

Muhammed Zakir

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 509

I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 22, 2015, 11:02:46 AM

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 22, 2015, 10:55:07 AM

Quote from: pedrog on August 22, 2015, 10:46:24 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 22, 2015, 10:39:17 AM

I don't think there's much of a difference between "1mb forever" and "no increase for now".
Those that don't want to increase it now are siding with the core dev/blockstream guys
and support their plans and ideas.

Everyone else is calling for an increase in the short term.

Well, it's impossible for an "increase it now", this isn't like upgrading a server running Apache and mySQL, people have to update their nodes, people all around the world, it takes a few months for this to happen, so any changes that require upgrade have to be planned way before they are supposed to be in effect.

there was an emergency fork once (altho it was clearly necessary and there was no disagreement ) took only a few hours for most miners to update.

this isn't even the point. increase now = as soon as we can. we're not increasing it now because not everyone agrees.

And a solution is yet to be found.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 22, 2015, 10:55:07 AM

Quote from: pedrog on August 22, 2015, 10:46:24 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 22, 2015, 10:39:17 AM

I don't think there's much of a difference between "1mb forever" and "no increase for now".
Those that don't want to increase it now are siding with the core dev/blockstream guys
and support their plans and ideas.

Everyone else is calling for an increase in the short term.

Well, it's impossible for an "increase it now", this isn't like upgrading a server running Apache and mySQL, people have to update their nodes, people all around the world, it takes a few months for this to happen, so any changes that require upgrade have to be planned way before they are supposed to be in effect.

there was an emergency fork once (altho it was clearly necessary and there was no disagreement ) took only a few hours for most miners to update.

this isn't even the point. increase now = as soon as we can. we're not increasing it now because not everyone agrees.

adamstgBit

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1037

Trusted Bitcoiner

Quote from: pedrog on August 22, 2015, 10:46:24 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 22, 2015, 10:39:17 AM

I don't think there's much of a difference between "1mb forever" and "no increase for now".
Those that don't want to increase it now are siding with the core dev/blockstream guys
and support their plans and ideas.

Everyone else is calling for an increase in the short term.

Well, it's impossible for an "increase it now", this isn't like upgrading a server running Apache and mySQL, people have to update their nodes, people all around the world, it takes a few months for this to happen, so any changes that require upgrade have to be planned way before they are supposed to be in effect.

there was an emergency fork once (altho it was clearly necessary and there was no disagreement ) took only a few hours for most miners to update.

pedrog

legendary

Activity: 2786

Merit: 1031

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 22, 2015, 10:39:17 AM

I don't think there's much of a difference between "1mb forever" and "no increase for now".
Those that don't want to increase it now are siding with the core dev/blockstream guys
and support their plans and ideas.

Everyone else is calling for an increase in the short term.

Well, it's impossible for an "increase it now", this isn't like upgrading a server running Apache and mySQL, people have to update their nodes, people all around the world, it takes a few months for this to happen, so any changes that require upgrade have to be planned way before they are supposed to be in effect.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

I don't think there's much of a difference between "1mb forever" and "no increase for now".
Those that don't want to increase it now are siding with the core dev/blockstream guys
and support their plans and ideas.

Everyone else is calling for an increase in the short term.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: Peter R on August 22, 2015, 09:45:29 AM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 22, 2015, 08:01:55 AM

Quote from: Peter R on August 21, 2015, 08:48:21 PM

However, my impression is that most of the 1MB-supporters think the censoring serves as a counterbalance to the higher level of public support BitcoinXT appears to receive.

Who? Name one 1 MB supporter on this forum, Peter. Whichever singular name you come up with, they will almost certainly refute the label. Check your rhetoric.

Here are a few names of people opposed to the block size increase along with evidence that they feel the censorship is a positive thing in terms of balancing the debate.

1. Theymos (link)
2. Peter Todd (link)
3. Brg444 (link, link)
4. Marcus_of_Augustus (link)
5. LaudaM (link)

I'm quite certain I could compile a much more comprehensive list with higher-quality example quotes too if I spent several days going back through people's comments.

I think you have left a few people out, I can think of at least three more. But it all conforms to what I've already said about this: painting those 5 as subscribers to "1MB forever, period" is not credible when you look at what their actual position is. Ditto the 3 I'm thinking of.

Essentially, no one is so imperceptive that they believe that you can increase the rate at which information is processed, and yet simultaneously believe that you can use the same amount of resources to do it. No one would believe that someone was capable of being so imperceptive. Except apparently yourself.

Muhammed Zakir

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 509

I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!

Quote from: Peter R on August 22, 2015, 09:45:29 AM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 22, 2015, 08:01:55 AM

Quote from: Peter R on August 21, 2015, 08:48:21 PM

However, my impression is that most of the 1MB-supporters think the censoring serves as a counterbalance to the higher level of public support BitcoinXT appears to receive.

Who? Name one 1 MB supporter on this forum, Peter. Whichever singular name you come up with, they will almost certainly refute the label. Check your rhetoric.

Here are a few names of people opposed to the block size increase along with evidence that they feel the censorship is a positive thing in terms of balancing the debate.

1. Theymos (link)
2. Peter Todd (link)
3. Brg444 (link, link)
4. Marcus_of_Augustus (link)
5. LaudaM (link)

I'm quite certain I could compile a much more comprehensive list with higher-quality example quotes too if I spent several days going back through people's comments.

Anyways, you didn't answer my question. What is your personal feelings on the ongoing censorship at /r/bitcoin and to a lesser extent here?

Either you don't understand what censorship is or you can't get what XT is.

1, 2, 3 & 5: I don't think they are against raising block size but they are against XT which is a hardfork without consensus. You are mixing XT with block size increase. Although they have some sort of connection, saying "against block size increase" and "against XT" are completely different.

4: I don't understand what that link suppose to mean. Can you explain?

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: Peter R on August 22, 2015, 09:49:00 AM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 22, 2015, 08:01:55 AM

When did cypher's thread go down? I'm in favour of unlocking it...

Four days ago. Here is the first discussion of the event: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hg41x/the_thermos_strikes_again_moves_bitcointalk/

It sounds like the thread won't be unlocked because apparently threads with a broad scope ("mega threads") are no longer permitted. What do you think about the logic of banning threads that are broad in scope?

You may have missed my reply about censorship, it was in the same post you are quoting from here.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4690

Merit: 1276

Quote from: LiteCoinGuy on August 22, 2015, 08:55:26 AM

Quote from: BNO on August 21, 2015, 12:08:55 PM

Quote

They want to transform bitcoin into an exclusive settlement system for proprietary side alternatives instead of an inclusive P2P cash system. The core dev team is clearly compromised. Working for Core and also for a private company should be regarded as a big no no by the market.

Fully agree here. I think its funny how people claim that Andresen is trying to take over the network. He is trying to protect it from this coup from the new developers which work for Blockstream and have a very biased perspective on this due to the 21 Mio $ they got.... Gavin doesn't get anything out of XT. Now think.

exactly. people will realise that when it is too late and transactions costs with bitcoin core will increase to 0,50 - 1 USD - good luck with that.

XT would be great as a bitcoin-backed sidecoin. I would expect that this sidecoin and many others would give the user 'cash back.'

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 22, 2015, 08:01:55 AM

When did cypher's thread go down? I'm in favour of unlocking it...

Four days ago. Here is the first discussion of the event: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hg41x/the_thermos_strikes_again_moves_bitcointalk/

It sounds like the thread won't be unlocked because apparently threads with a broad scope ("mega threads") are no longer permitted. What do you think about the logic of banning threads that are broad in scope?

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 22, 2015, 08:01:55 AM

Quote from: Peter R on August 21, 2015, 08:48:21 PM

However, my impression is that most of the 1MB-supporters think the censoring serves as a counterbalance to the higher level of public support BitcoinXT appears to receive.

Who? Name one 1 MB supporter on this forum, Peter. Whichever singular name you come up with, they will almost certainly refute the label. Check your rhetoric.

Here are a few names of people opposed to the block size increase along with evidence that they feel the censorship is a positive thing in terms of balancing the debate.

1. Theymos (link)
2. Peter Todd (link)
3. Brg444 (link, link)
4. Marcus_of_Augustus (link)
5. LaudaM (link)

I'm quite certain I could compile a much more comprehensive list with higher-quality example quotes too if I spent several days going back through people's comments.

Anyways, you didn't answer my question. What is your personal feelings on the ongoing censorship at /r/bitcoin and to a lesser extent here?

LiteCoinGuy

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1014

In Satoshi I Trust

Quote from: BNO on August 21, 2015, 12:08:55 PM

Quote

They want to transform bitcoin into an exclusive settlement system for proprietary side alternatives instead of an inclusive P2P cash system. The core dev team is clearly compromised. Working for Core and also for a private company should be regarded as a big no no by the market.

Fully agree here. I think its funny how people claim that Andresen is trying to take over the network. He is trying to protect it from this coup from the new developers which work for Blockstream and have a very biased perspective on this due to the 21 Mio $ they got.... Gavin doesn't get anything out of XT. Now think.

exactly. people will realise that when it is too late and transactions costs with bitcoin core will increase to 0,50 - 1 USD - good luck with that.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: futureofbitcoin on August 22, 2015, 07:56:11 AM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 21, 2015, 02:32:47 PM

Quote from: futureofbitcoin on August 21, 2015, 02:11:05 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 21, 2015, 01:16:42 PM

My point is also a good one, unlike yours. Mike is a friend of the state-paradigm. He will happily cooperate with anything any state asks him to, he has said as much in the past. Have fun using his coin.

Uh, no it isn't. It's amazing how you can think that because someone has different political views than you do, that they can be completely discredited.

I don't know enough about XT or Mike Hearn to comment about either; but your argument is absolutely horrible.

You're wrong. If Mike didn't let his political views influence his software development, there wouldn't be a problem. I'm not against XT because I disapprove of Mike Hearns favourite colour, it's because I disapprove of him using bitcoin to promote his political views.

Furthermore, the origianl point of the bitcoin project was to create an open access monetary system that is apolitical. Please, I'm begging you all, think through your arguments before you start typing because I really don't see why I should have to do all your thinking for you

It's ironic, when it's clear that you are not doing any thinking yourself. The heart of your argument is exerting libertarian ideals into bitcoin.

It already embodies libertarian ideals. It did so from the beginning.

But Satoshi didn't express it that way round, he was taking a non-political, utilitarian stance. As do I. I have little to no interest in politics most of the time.

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 21, 2015, 01:16:42 PM

And you're just trying to cover that up with pathetic ad hominem attacks.

So it's the attack that's pathetic, and not me? Are you not contradicting your own argument?

Velkro

legendary

Activity: 2296

Merit: 1014

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 21, 2015, 11:58:15 AM

Blockstream wants to keep Bitcoin from scaling past 1mb so they can force you to use their proprietary side chain solutions while profiting. If this is not true, then how will they generate revenue?

discuss.

Thats simply true. Everybody opposing increase of 1 MB block don't want bitcoin to become global payment processor.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: Peter R on August 21, 2015, 08:48:21 PM

However, my impression is that most of the 1MB-supporters think the censoring serves as a counterbalance to the higher level of public support BitcoinXT appears to receive.

Who? Name one 1 MB supporter on this forum, Peter. Whichever singular name you come up with, they will almost certainly refute the label. Check your rhetoric.

In answer to the question about censorship, I don't approve. On the other hand, this forum or the reddit sub isn't mine to control, so my opinion is only as good as that: an opinion.

Quote from: Peter R on August 21, 2015, 08:48:21 PM

Furthermore, Anonymint here suggests that "mega-threads" like Cypherdocs are dangerous because they promote group-think and hurt diversity of the Forum.

It barely deserves recognition seeing as it involves that particular entity, but it's wrong (of course). Demonstrably so by it's own presence in the cypherdoc thread.

When did cypher's thread go down? I'm in favour of unlocking it, although I haven't been reading it for some time and do not intend to in future.

futureofbitcoin

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 21, 2015, 02:32:47 PM

Quote from: futureofbitcoin on August 21, 2015, 02:11:05 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 21, 2015, 01:16:42 PM

My point is also a good one, unlike yours. Mike is a friend of the state-paradigm. He will happily cooperate with anything any state asks him to, he has said as much in the past. Have fun using his coin.

Uh, no it isn't. It's amazing how you can think that because someone has different political views than you do, that they can be completely discredited.

I don't know enough about XT or Mike Hearn to comment about either; but your argument is absolutely horrible.

You're wrong. If Mike didn't let his political views influence his software development, there wouldn't be a problem. I'm not against XT because I disapprove of Mike Hearns favourite colour, it's because I disapprove of him using bitcoin to promote his political views.

Furthermore, the origianl point of the bitcoin project was to create an open access monetary system that is apolitical. Please, I'm begging you all, think through your arguments before you start typing because I really don't see why I should have to do all your thinking for you

It's ironic, when it's clear that you are not doing any thinking yourself. The heart of your argument is exerting libertarian ideals into bitcoin. And you're just trying to cover that up with pathetic ad hominem attacks.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: tvbcof on August 21, 2015, 07:21:29 PM

the Blockstream dudes collectively are hugely responsible for getting Bitcoin itself to where it is today

Yes, and while I am very appreciative of that, we mustn't let our bias allow us to get in the way of scrutinizing what they are currently doing. I think that once millions of dollars of venture capital enter the picture, those same core devs which have given us so much value in the past, may have been 'corrupted' in a sense. I get the fact that it is hard to incentivize open source projects, but they seem to be pushing Bitcoin in a very radical direction.

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 21, 2015, 07:21:02 PM

jonald, I might be wrong, but you seem to be over-familiar with the "static limit, scheduled increase" model. Do you appreciate why creating a market for block sizes would be a viable alternative? If not, take a look at upal's thread over in Technical Discussion, it features some well thought out stuff (from people who are actually discussing this in the context of software engineering, not a political stand-off).

Thanks Carlton, I will take a look. Generally my opinion is that the fees are still much smaller than the coinbase subsidies right now, and therefore it may be premature to worry about that, especially if it creates bandwidth issues.

@Peter R:

regarding censorship, I find it pretty surprising to be honest, given the lack of censorship in most other areas here. Still, right now there seems to be a healthy discussion going on.
Again, I think bias comes into play hugely, in favor of the core devs and against Hearn.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4690

Merit: 1276

Quote from: smoothie on August 21, 2015, 08:38:33 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on August 21, 2015, 07:21:29 PM

A hard fork is a difficult thing in the best of circumstances.

Scaling through simplistic and very modest capacity increases is a dead-end, so what's the point? Scaling through simplistic and sufficient capacity increases promises to mutate Bitcoin into a system which is worse than nothing. To me at any rate, and I strongly suspect to many of the folks who are now working under the Blockstream banner. I have no reason to believe anything other than that is nearly the sole reason the organization came together. If I wanted a job (I don't) I would likely try to hire on at Blockstream because I could be doing something which I believe can make a positive difference. I imagine that most of the people working under that Banner feel the same way and this is one of the reasons I have more confidence in them than most.

Another reason is that the Blockstream dudes collectively are hugely responsible for getting Bitcoin itself to where it is today and as much as I might bash Bitcoin I find it a remarkable achievement.

...

Working under a banner or idea (impression) is only as good as the leader's actual intentions allows.

Look at the U.S's armed forces fighting al qaeda ("THE WAR ON TERRORISM" banner).

People are dying and fighting a war stupidly and ignorantly at the cause of "FIGHTING FOR OUR COUNTRY" or "SERVING OUR COUNTRY" and at the root of the entire war is greed, not positive difference.

Just because there is a so called "banner" of why a people/company/business/institution/country are doing something does not make it a POSITIVE or good agenda for the common good of all who are involved.

As I recall, several of the Blockstream hires wrote into their contract that they could go home and sit on the couch if they felt that Blockstream was going the wrong direction and still get paid. Quite unusual in the industry. It's either a devious marketing gimmick or an indication that the principles and investors in Blockstream do not anticipate pissing these higher-end developers off. Going full Hearndresen would almost certainly do just that. I suspect the latter, but time will tell.

This would be like me being called to 'fight for freedom' in gulf-I (I was) and finding out that our mission was to re-install a monarch and deliver a replacement gold toilet seat that the Iraqis stole (which is literally what happened) and being able to not only abandon my post because I didn't like the mission but be paid anyway. That is NOT AT ALL what happened so your military analogy has limited usefulness in this particular case.

Topic: blockstream - wants to tax you and become the new Bitcoin oligarchy - page 6. (Read 8953 times)