Can we reopen this pull request? (remove Classicbase from bitcoin.org)

AliceWonderMiscreations

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 107

Quote from: Lauda on March 13, 2016, 01:07:05 PM

Quote from: 25hashcoin on March 13, 2016, 11:45:57 AM

Bumping after this: https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/708828921291145216

Classicbase can't be trusted.

How can anyone still support Brian Armstrong when he tweets lies like this - "BitcoinClassic is now the most popular node software! Not only is he openly lying in order to manipulate, he's supporting the Sybil attack.

Yeah I stopped using coinbase after his last several blogs. I can't tolerate him anymore.

Now I have to buy my bitcoins from sources that technically are not legal. But at least they are moral.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: 25hashcoin on March 13, 2016, 11:45:57 AM

Bumping after this: https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/708828921291145216

Classicbase can't be trusted.

How can anyone still support Brian Armstrong when he tweets lies like this - "BitcoinClassic is now the most popular node software! Not only is he openly lying in order to manipulate, he's supporting the Sybil attack.

25hashcoin

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Bumping after this: https://twitter.com/brian_armstrong/status/708828921291145216

Classicbase can't be trusted.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: chopstick on March 06, 2016, 06:47:13 PM

Funny how they try to say coinbase is centralization, but you don't *HAVE* to use their service.

It kind of is.

Quote from: chopstick on March 06, 2016, 06:47:13 PM

Blockstream however has obtained centralization of Bitcoin Development and is now forcing their vision of what Bitcoin should be onto everyone.

They haven't.

Quote from: Cuidler on March 05, 2016, 12:04:04 PM

Second incentive for user is to use and keep locked Bitcoins on one LN hub where most other users are because it allows cheap and instaneous offchain transactions between users of the same hub. Thus only having one LN hub operator serving all Bitcoin users is prefferable for users.

Locking coins has nothing to do with a LN hub. However, we should not continue this discussion in this thread as it is off-topic.

Quote from: 25hashcoin on March 06, 2016, 12:23:50 PM

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/495xyq/reminder_coinbase_is_centralization/d0pencq
What more do you need? Not a wallet. From Classicbase CEO himself.

Exactly. There is a suggestion to create a separate listing for "banks" (or whatever term is decided) where Coinbase and similar services would be put.

chopstick

legendary

Activity: 992

Merit: 1000

Funny how they try to say coinbase is centralization, but you don't *HAVE* to use their service. Blockstream however has obtained centralization of Bitcoin Development and is now forcing their vision of what Bitcoin should be onto everyone. No choice involved. Anyone who disagrees with them by running a Classic node or if a pool operator enables Classic mining they also get DDoS'd. How democratic of them!

25hashcoin

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/495xyq/reminder_coinbase_is_centralization/d0pencq

What more do you need? Not a wallet. From Classicbase CEO himself.

Cuidler

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Quote from: Lauda on March 05, 2016, 11:45:38 AM

There is an incentive to run a hub, not a incentive to use one (from what I know). What are you talking about? This might be off-topic but I'd like to hear the answer.

First incentive for user is dont close the LN hub chanel to release his locked Bitcoins because by the look of things onchains transactions can be costly in future and might taking long to confirm.

Second incentive for user is to use and keep locked Bitcoins on one LN hub where most other users are because it allows cheap and instaneous offchain transactions between users of the same hub. Thus only having one LN hub operator serving all Bitcoin users is prefferable for users.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: Cuidler on March 05, 2016, 10:29:54 AM

It is know fact these Lighting Network "hubs" work as centralized servers where once users are under certain hub operator they have incentive to stay there and doing microtransactions only there rather than make another Bitcoin onchain transaction to settle funds and open new Lighting Network hub with another Bitcoin onchain transaction (probably expensive one if Core is right).

There is an incentive to run a hub, not a incentive to use one (from what I know). What are you talking about? This might be off-topic but I'd like to hear the answer.

Quote from: AliceWonderMiscreations on March 05, 2016, 11:14:39 AM

Well right now it is the only easy way to legally buy bitcoins in the United States.

Where else are they suppose to buy them?

Buying Bitcoins on a website is one thing, using it as a wallet is another. I think that they should remove Coinbase or list it somehow differently (there were discussions on Github apparently).

AliceWonderMiscreations

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 107

Quote from: Lauda on March 05, 2016, 09:56:02 AM

Quote from: AliceWonderMiscreations on March 05, 2016, 09:33:38 AM

I don't care what the CEO says, it's a web wallet.

Quote

Over the next year or so, you’ll see the Coinbase brand shift from being a hybrid wallet/exchange to focusing on purely being a retail and institutional exchange.

I don't think you'd want new users landing and staying there.

Well right now it is the only easy way to legally buy bitcoins in the United States.

Where else are they suppose to buy them?

Cuidler

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Quote from: Lauda on March 05, 2016, 09:56:02 AM

I don't think you'd want new users landing and staying there.

If Coinbase disallow its use as a wallet then yes, delisting makes sence. But until it happens, just a warning this might happen in future (based on official Coinbase statements) should be enought (and politically correct).

Quote from: Lauda on March 05, 2016, 09:56:02 AM

Quote from: chopstick on March 05, 2016, 09:51:09 AM

and which will probably require a radical degree of centralization in order to run properly

It certainly does not.

It is know fact these Lighting Network "hubs" work as centralized servers where once users are under certain hub operator they have incentive to stay there and doing microtransactions only there rather than make another Bitcoin onchain transaction to settle funds and open new Lighting Network hub with another Bitcoin onchain transaction (probably expensive one if Core is right). The centralization comes from the incentive of users staying and keeping locked Bitcoins on one such most used Lighting Network hub for offchain transactions between its users - its like facebook analogy, everyone is there because its most used

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: AliceWonderMiscreations on March 05, 2016, 09:33:38 AM

I don't care what the CEO says, it's a web wallet.

Quote from: chopstick on March 05, 2016, 09:51:09 AM

technology that may or may not exist some 2 years from now

Quite a random number.

Quote from: chopstick on March 05, 2016, 09:51:09 AM

and which will probably require a radical degree of centralization in order to run properly

It certainly does not.

chopstick

legendary

Activity: 992

Merit: 1000

Quote

During the Hong Kong meeting, the answer provided by Core reps is that the future Lightning Network would increase capacity a thousandfold - that up to tens of thousands of transactions can be completed on the lightning network and settled with one on chain transaction. Assuming that current transaction fees are 0.3 RMB, and assuming that 1000 lightning transactions can be settled by one blockchain transaction, then we can raise fees for on chain transactions to 30 RMB (100x increase), while each transaction on the lightning network would only cost a tenth of current fees and increase miner revenue a hundredfold.

So basically they sold us all out for chump change, and are supporting the official limitation of on-chain transaction volume (blocksize) to support a technology that may or may not exist some 2 years from now and which will probably require a radical degree of centralization in order to run properly, not to mention fees, after-all Blockstream will need to pay back their investors somehow.

AliceWonderMiscreations

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 107

I don't care what the CEO says, it's a web wallet.

ATguy

sr. member

Activity: 423

Merit: 250

Quote from: Lauda on March 05, 2016, 07:26:00 AM

Quote from: ATguy on March 05, 2016, 06:04:11 AM

As promised to miners by Bitcoin core, the onchain fees should be 100 times higher in mid future

Source?

Statement from Bitmain's Jihan Wu at 8btc explained to the Chinese community why miners sided with core at recent Hong Kong meeting

https://np.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/48kf18/daily_discussion_wednesday_march_02_2016/d0krl0w

Quote from: Lauda on March 05, 2016, 07:26:00 AM

Quote from: ATguy on March 05, 2016, 06:04:11 AM

here is not much will for real decentralization development from Bitoin Core where anybody is free to propose change to network and let it vote in provably fair method, up to a point many people starting to see Bitoin Core as a actual threat to Bitcoin.

Baseless speculation.

I dont see fair Core statement "welcome, let hash decide for your BIP109. If succesfull, we merge BIP109 immediatelly".

/r/btc is becoming almost as relevant as /r/bitcoin due to /r/bitcoin censorship. Unfortunatelly /r/btc is too radical and low post quality and you can still find beter post quality at /r/bitcoin though radical small block shills are still very vocal there and probably censorship still there but only lately I see big blocker good arguments to not be censored there so possibility for /r/bitcoin to become most relevant if free non censored discussion become norm there.

Quote from: Lauda on March 05, 2016, 07:26:00 AM

Not sure how this is relevant to the OP though. From what I see Bitcoin.org is quite important. If you search "Bitcoin" on Google the first result is Bitcoin.org followed by a Wikipedia article. The information on it has to be correct.

I agree, and although my first post was ontopic, my following replies are just to provide more info. Still, Coinbase can be used as a Bitcoin wallet - no doubt about this.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: ATguy on March 05, 2016, 06:04:11 AM

It is not much about today transaction fees, but the way these have to become in near future.

The website states now (as in the present) that the fees are low, which is correct.

Quote from: ATguy on March 05, 2016, 06:04:11 AM

As promised to miners by Bitcoin core, the onchain fees should be 100 times higher in mid future

Source?

Quote from: ATguy on March 05, 2016, 06:04:11 AM

here is not much will for real decentralization development from Bitoin Core where anybody is free to propose change to network and let it vote in provably fair method, up to a point many people starting to see Bitoin Core as a actual threat to Bitcoin.

Baseless speculation.

Not sure how all of this is relevant to the OP though. From what I see Bitcoin.org is quite important. If you search "Bitcoin" on Google the first result is Bitcoin.org followed by a Wikipedia article. The information on it has to be correct.

ATguy

sr. member

Activity: 423

Merit: 250

Quote from: Lauda on March 05, 2016, 05:37:38 AM

Quote from: ATguy on March 05, 2016, 05:35:58 AM

After I saw answers to question what is Bitcoin like "Decentralized development" and "low transaction fees" I become disgusted and closed the site.

Both are actually correct, unless you think that ~5-10 cents is 'high transaction fees'.

It is not much about today transaction fees, but the way these have to become in near future. As promised to miners by Bitcoin core, the onchain fees should be 100 times higher in mid future to compensate the low number of onchain transactions on artifically capped blockchain together with the fact miners wont get the offchain transaction fees which become centralized.

Given the amount of hate when anybody except one development team trying to solve the capacity problem with the highest compromise possible, and the fear of Bitcoin Core loosing monopoly thus spreading all the FUD (decentralization, developers leaving threats, holders crashing price, splitted chains with 2* more supply), there is not much will for real decentralization development from Bitoin Core where anybody is free to propose change to network and let it vote in provably fair method, up to a point many people starting to see Bitoin Core as a actual threat to Bitcoin.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: ATguy on March 05, 2016, 05:35:58 AM

Seriously, does it matter?

It does; it is a 'systemic risk' to mislead users like this.

Quote from: ATguy on March 05, 2016, 05:35:58 AM

After I saw answers to question what is Bitcoin like "Decentralized development" and "low transaction fees" I become disgusted and closed the site.

Both are actually correct, unless you think that ~5-10 cents means 'high transaction fees'.

Quote from: Denker on March 05, 2016, 05:17:42 AM

I support that!

Let's see what they say on Github (might take some time though).

ATguy

sr. member

Activity: 423

Merit: 250

Seriously, does it matter?

I dont think bitcoin.org is visited much anyway, and few days ago I visited the front page out of curiosity. After I saw answers to question what is Bitcoin like "Decentralized development" and "low transaction fees" I become disgusted and closed the front page. So thank you to bring that feeling again, maybe you can give more newcommers false hope just to find them out later the reality.

Denker

legendary

Activity: 1442

Merit: 1016

I support that!
Crybaby himself said that his company is not a wallet provider and therefore they should not be listed as such any longer.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: 25hashcoin on March 04, 2016, 04:57:03 PM

Classicbase is not a bitcoin wallet.

That's a nice name. Initially I thought this was just due to the support for Classic, but I completely missed the statement that Coinbase is not a wallet (or forgot about it).

Here you go. Let's see what happens.

Topic: Can we reopen this pull request? (remove Classicbase from bitcoin.org) (Read 1361 times)