Topic: Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong calls the industry to fork Bitcoin Core - page 8. (Read 9288 times)
November 04, 2015, 11:33:22 AM
The funny thing is that none of the alts have fixed this either!
November 04, 2015, 11:17:30 AM
-snip-
Too big of a backlog certainly affects transacting entities negatively. Saying otherwise is BS. I think in a lot of scenarios it does matter how fast the tx gets included in a block.
Higher fees will lead to people searching a cheaper alternative. As for the amount of fees, it depends on the backlog and number of transacting parties. I think everyone shared goal is to have as many participants as possible, that will lead to more utility, more robust and stronger network and markets.
Your writing style suggest that your sentences are not connected. Thus the statement from the 3rd row was interpreted differently compared to the 2nd one. Yes, the people with the wealth care about the random peasants. It's always been like that. Too big of a backlog certainly affects transacting entities negatively. Saying otherwise is BS. I think in a lot of scenarios it does matter how fast the tx gets included in a block.
Higher fees will lead to people searching a cheaper alternative. As for the amount of fees, it depends on the backlog and number of transacting parties. I think everyone shared goal is to have as many participants as possible, that will lead to more utility, more robust and stronger network and markets.
I never said that a backlog of transactions has no negative effect. I said that it would not ruin businesses and definitely not quickly. If someone is willing to sacrifice security because of being cheap enough to include $0.2 (random amount) in fees, then they can go ahead.I think BIP101 is the best solution as it does not give more power to miners than necessary like bip100 (that would open up an other can of worms). I would love to see actual tests (testnet?) with unlimited blocks .
Unlimited blocks -> easy attack vector. With BIP101 blocks could become either too big or too small at any point in time which would cause harm. Have you not watched Montreal? 
November 04, 2015, 10:57:31 AM
hopefully this will come to an end in december or january...
November 04, 2015, 10:57:07 AM
What is the current status on different proposals for this matter?
I haven't looked into it for a while. Any code for the other BIPs, any decisions in sight?
Since nobody answered my question, I guess, that nothing changed in the last 2 months. Just another hate against hate-thread.I haven't looked into it for a while. Any code for the other BIPs, any decisions in sight?
You guys are ridiculous, but thanks for the reminder, why I haven't been active ...
No, there is no significant progress. Other lateral progress could include CheckLockVerifyTime opcode has made it's way into version 0.12 of the core client, so the last of the barriers to using Lightning will soon be gone.
So, no substantial progress on the blocksize issue, but progress is being made on scaling solutions. Scaling solutions that are going to maintain mining decentralisation.
November 04, 2015, 10:51:29 AM
BIP101 is the only proposition which is more than a concept and has actual code.
I think participants will re-evaluate if we bump into the limit and it causes some inconvenience.
Miners cannot afford unhappy users, their business would be ruined quite quickly.
Wrong. This is a simplified version of a possible scenario based on (nearly) zero evidence. To clear up: 1) Miners don't really care about you; 2) Businesses would not be ruined because of a backlog of transactions, certainly not quickly; 3) People who want their transactions processed sooner need only to include a higher fee; it is that simple. Anyone saying that the fees are going to become $1+ instantly is spreading nonsense. BIP101 is one of the worst possible "solutions" that I've read about. It comes close to the 'no limit at all' idea. I think participants will re-evaluate if we bump into the limit and it causes some inconvenience.
Miners cannot afford unhappy users, their business would be ruined quite quickly.
Tl;dr: Nobody can predict the future, so stop trying to predict the block size.
I'm not saying that I can predict anything, only my opinion. (mind the I think part)
As for your opinion that miners do not give a shit about users is obviously wrong. Without an userbase/satisfied participants they have no bitcoin mining business.
Too big of a backlog certainly affects transacting entities negatively. Saying otherwise is BS. I think in a lot of scenarios it does matter how fast the tx gets included in a block.
Higher fees will lead to people searching a cheaper alternative. As for the amount of fees, it depends on the backlog and number of transacting parties. I think everyone shared goal is to have as many participants as possible, that will lead to more utility, more robust and stronger network and markets.
I think BIP101 is the best solution as it does not give more power to miners than necessary like bip100 (that would open up an other can of worms). I would love to see actual tests (testnet?) with unlimited blocks .
Mind that I'm open to alternatives, but the keeping of a crippling limit.
November 04, 2015, 10:48:04 AM
I doubt there will be another workable implementation ready by December. The only other one that I am aware off is Bitcoin Unlimited but I don't think it will be a popular choice.
Changing the blocksize to e.g. 2 MB required less than 5 minutes of work unless you're really bad at what you're trying to do. Implementing a BIP is something else. I also think that there is enough time to implement a working BIP in Core before Hong Kong, or something else. Don't listen to what Mike is feeding you. Just because he would not be able to finish it in time, that does not mean that someone else would not either. We should all be patient. We shall see where we should head after Hong Kong. I took a break from that, so I am not sure, if you have been still arguing all that time. For someone who is discussing this topic for such a long time, the statement "Changing the blocksize to e.g. 2 MB required less than 5 minutes of work" is just plain stupid. You should be aware, that it is not about changing the code, but also getting it to the nodes/miners, which is not a trivial task, everybody who works in Software Engineering knows that. I might even have pointed that out to you personally in the past.
So, could you explain to me, why you are making such a stupid statement? Are you really just an idiot?
Or maybe in your quest of kissing the core devs asses you just don't care of how stupid your statements are, as long as they show the greatness of you masters? Don't you see, that you lose every credibility with such a statement? Or maybe you are just trying to fool your sig-campaign employers into thinking that you are not just spamming the forum?
This are the only 3 possibilities I can think of.
November 04, 2015, 10:17:51 AM
I doubt there will be another workable implementation ready by December. The only other one that I am aware off is Bitcoin Unlimited but I don't think it will be a popular choice.
Changing the blocksize to e.g. 2 MB required less than 5 minutes of work unless you're really bad at what you're trying to do. Implementing a BIP is something else. I also think that there is enough time to implement a working BIP in Core before Hong Kong, or something else. Don't listen to what Mike is feeding you. Don't listen to what blockthestream is feeding you.
November 04, 2015, 10:14:21 AM
I doubt there will be another workable implementation ready by December. The only other one that I am aware off is Bitcoin Unlimited but I don't think it will be a popular choice.
Changing the blocksize to e.g. 2 MB required less than 5 minutes of work unless you're really bad at what you're trying to do; thus a workable implementation does not take much time. Implementing a BIP is something else. I also think that there is enough time to implement a working BIP in Core before Hong Kong, or something else. Don't listen to what Mike is feeding you. Just because he would not be able to finish it in time, that does not mean that someone else would not either. We should all be patient. We shall see where we should head after Hong Kong. Update: Slight corrections. Waiting for a reply from someone who is not on ignore.
November 04, 2015, 10:13:47 AM
BIP101 is the only proposition which is more than a concept and has actual code.
I think participants will re-evaluate if we bump into the limit and it causes some inconvenience.
Miners cannot afford unhappy users, their business would be ruined quite quickly.
Wrong. This is a simplified version of a possible scenario based on (nearly) zero evidence. To clear up: 1) Miners don't really care about you; 2) Businesses would not be ruined because of a backlog of transactions, certainly not quickly; 3) People who want their transactions processed sooner need only to include a higher fee; it is that simple. Anyone saying that the fees are going to become $1+ instantly is spreading nonsense. BIP101 is one of the worst possible "solutions" that I've read about. It comes close to the 'no limit at all' idea. I think participants will re-evaluate if we bump into the limit and it causes some inconvenience.
Miners cannot afford unhappy users, their business would be ruined quite quickly.
Tl;dr: Nobody can predict the future, so stop trying to predict the block size.
If nothing is done by Core before the end of December, the industry is planning a fork with BIP101 probably done with XT. That is something we can be sure of.
A hard fork to XT is solely at the discretion of bitcoin miners and miners have shown they are opposed to XT and BIP 101 with their Coinbase votes.
November 04, 2015, 10:08:43 AM
If nothing is done by Core before the end of December, the industry is planning a fork with BIP101 probably done with XT. That is something we can be sure of.
Be sure of? No. Is it a possible scenario? Yes. Just because we might not be using Core anymore that does not necessarily mean that we are going to be using XT. I doubt there will be another workable implementation ready by December. The only other one that I am aware off is Bitcoin Unlimited but I don't think it will be a popular choice.
November 04, 2015, 10:08:04 AM
X-POST
How many full nodes does "the industry" run?
How much hashing power do they have behind them?
How many bitcoins do they own?
The industry ofBitcoinfiat companies is the economic minority. Their decision have no incidence within the Bitcoin economy.
How much hashing power do they have behind them?
How many bitcoins do they own?
The industry of
November 04, 2015, 10:04:41 AM
If nothing is done by Core before the end of December, the industry is planning a fork with BIP101 probably done with XT. That is something we can be sure of.
Be sure of? No. Is it a possible scenario? Yes. Just because we might not be using Core anymore that does not necessarily mean that we are going to be using XT. November 04, 2015, 10:01:22 AM
BIP101 is the only proposition which is more than a concept and has actual code.
I think participants will re-evaluate if we bump into the limit and it causes some inconvenience.
Miners cannot afford unhappy users, their business would be ruined quite quickly.
Wrong. This is a simplified version of a possible scenario based on (nearly) zero evidence. To clear up: 1) Miners don't really care about you; 2) Businesses would not be ruined because of a backlog of transactions, certainly not quickly; 3) People who want their transactions processed sooner need only to include a higher fee; it is that simple. Anyone saying that the fees are going to become $1+ instantly is spreading nonsense. BIP101 is one of the worst possible "solutions" that I've read about. It comes close to the 'no limit at all' idea. I think participants will re-evaluate if we bump into the limit and it causes some inconvenience.
Miners cannot afford unhappy users, their business would be ruined quite quickly.
Tl;dr: Nobody can predict the future, so stop trying to predict the block size.
If nothing is done by Core before the end of December, the industry is planning a fork with BIP101 probably done with XT. That is something we can be sure of.
November 04, 2015, 09:53:39 AM
BIP101 is the only proposition which is more than a concept and has actual code.
I think participants will re-evaluate if we bump into the limit and it causes some inconvenience.
Miners cannot afford unhappy users, their business would be ruined quite quickly.
Wrong. This is a simplified version of a possible scenario based on (nearly) zero evidence. To clear up: 1) Miners don't really care about you; 2) Businesses would not be ruined because of a backlog of transactions, certainly not quickly; 3) People who want their transactions processed sooner need only to include a higher fee; it is that simple. Anyone saying that the fees are going to become $1+ instantly is spreading nonsense. BIP101 is one of the worst possible "solutions" that I've read about. It comes close to the 'no limit at all' idea. I think participants will re-evaluate if we bump into the limit and it causes some inconvenience.
Miners cannot afford unhappy users, their business would be ruined quite quickly.
Tl;dr: Nobody can predict the future, so stop trying to predict the block size.
November 04, 2015, 09:48:48 AM
what will happen otherwise? they will simply continue to use core? because i think they don't known how consensus, work if they think they can instigate a change in this way
nothing will happen by december, and certainly mainers are not in favor of XT
nothing will happen by december, and certainly mainers are not in favor of XT
BIP101 is the only proposition which is more than a concept and has actual code.
I think participants will re-evaluate if we bump into the limit and it causes some inconvenience.
Miners cannot afford unhappy users, their business would be ruined quite quickly.
November 04, 2015, 07:44:36 AM
Everybody knows that. I wrote: ' a darkcoin'. That means any dark cryptocoin.
I've never really heard anyone call altcoins for darkcoins except if they meant the actual darkcoin. But yeah, that was the only confusion.
Any specific altcoins you call "dark" or just all of them?
November 04, 2015, 07:32:48 AM
What is the current status on different proposals for this matter?
I haven't looked into it for a while. Any code for the other BIPs, any decisions in sight?
Since nobody answered my question, I guess, that nothing changed in the last 2 months. Just another hate against hate-thread.I haven't looked into it for a while. Any code for the other BIPs, any decisions in sight?
You guys are ridiculous, but thanks for the reminder, why I haven't been active ...
November 04, 2015, 07:18:40 AM
Maybe not; otherwise they wouldn't attract so many bitcoiners.
Coinbase just exploits its dominant position, this doesn't make it a good company nor adds credibility to that CEO guy words.
It's up to you and MOA to build a better business that is more trustfull to the community. The more bitcoiners who trust you, the more dominant you become.
you are so lost in the rage of your vendetta you do not see how far you have strayed. Because bitcoin is all about putting your trust into dominant central institutions like coinbase with your wealth and financial data in Brian Armstrong's hands?!
Please just try to leave the politics at the door and contribute to the technical solutions.
You know very well which side represents the vendetta and enforced domination: The cheerleaders of the Totalitarians and the Censors.
There is only one real central institution: The core developers. But this centralization will soon be history.
November 04, 2015, 06:54:20 AM
Maybe not; otherwise they wouldn't attract so many bitcoiners.
Coinbase just exploits its dominant position, this doesn't make it a good company nor adds credibility to that CEO guy words.
It's up to you and MOA to build a better business that is more trustfull to the community. The more bitcoiners who trust you, the more dominant you become.
you are so lost in the rage of your vendetta you do not see how far you have strayed. Because bitcoin is all about putting your trust into dominant central institutions like coinbase with your wealth and financial data in Brian Armstrong's hands?!
Please just try to leave the politics at the door and contribute to the technical solutions.
November 04, 2015, 06:43:53 AM
Maybe not; otherwise they wouldn't attract so many bitcoiners.
Coinbase just exploits its dominant position, this doesn't make it a good company nor adds credibility to that CEO guy words.
It's up to you and MOA to build a better business that is more trustfull to the community. The more bitcoiners trust your business, the more dominant you become.
Jump to: