Pages:
Author

Topic: Coinbase CEO: Core Team is a "Systemic Threat" (Read 2551 times)

legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
this is a fairly big problem.
Even though it is, people like Armstrong promote this service. Quite strange isn't it?

created by the ill conceived notion that running a full node should be accessible to everyone and anyone at a low low cost.
This ain't some 'ill conceived notion'. If you want Bitcoin to succeed then it has to be as decentralized as possible, and in order for it to remain as decentralized as possible you have to keep the cost of running a node as low as possible. Bitcoin is about individual sovereignty.

transacting on the blockchain should be accessible to everyone and anyone at a low low cost, not running its infrastructure..
Transacting on any layer should be accessible at a relatively low cost. Whether you transact on the main chain, side chain or LN it doesn't matter.

i can't Believe i have to make this case. 
A very strange case.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
This Coinbase guy, Armstrong is becoming a real pain in the ass & a genuine threat to the future of bitcoin.

which future?

Decentralized future, the future of proper devs at Core & Blockstream. Armstrong can't be trusted, he is in bed with government officials & doesn't give a shit about the fundamentals of bitcoin.
dont worry Armstrong is just 1 person, he can kick and scream all he wants as long as the majority disagree with him its going to be fine.

it must suck having to comply with US law. not sure obeying the law to the letter = in bed with government officials... probably means he doesn't want to get fucked by government officials.

legendary
Activity: 3304
Merit: 1617
#1 VIP Crypto Casino
This Coinbase guy, Armstrong is becoming a real pain in the ass & a genuine threat to the future of bitcoin.

which future?

Decentralized future, the future of proper devs at Core & Blockstream. Armstrong can't be trusted, he is in bed with government officials & doesn't give a shit about the fundamentals of bitcoin.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
This Coinbase guy, Armstrong is becoming a real pain in the ass & a genuine threat to the future of bitcoin.

which future?
legendary
Activity: 3304
Merit: 1617
#1 VIP Crypto Casino
This Coinbase guy, Armstrong is becoming a real pain in the ass & a genuine threat to the future of bitcoin.
legendary
Activity: 1806
Merit: 1521
Sad to see how Bitcoin is shooting itself in the foot with all of this nonsense.

Very sad, any ideas on how we can repair the mess before another 3 months (or more) fly by?

We just need Classic to fizzle out. Segwit rollout and continuation of Core roadmap =  Cool
sr. member
Activity: 532
Merit: 250
Sad to see how Bitcoin is shooting itself in the foot with all of this nonsense.

Very sad, any ideas on how we can repair the mess before another 3 months (or more) fly by?
It's been more than a year.  Prolly gonna be more than 3 more months
legendary
Activity: 2114
Merit: 1040
A Great Time to Start Something!
Sad to see how Bitcoin is shooting itself in the foot with all of this nonsense.

Very sad, any ideas on how we can repair the mess before another 3 months (or more) fly by?
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
proof ?
Proof of what? That it is a paid attack? Read this: A date with Sybil.
Quote
808 nodes for a maximum of 213 supporters

this is a fairly big problem.

created by the ill conceived notion that running a full node should be accessible to everyone and anyone at a low low cost.

transacting on the blockchain should be accessible to everyone and anyone at a low low cost, not running its infrastructure..

i can't Believe i have to make this case. 
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
proof ?
Proof of what? That it is a paid attack? Read this: A date with Sybil.
Quote
808 nodes for a maximum of 213 supporters
legendary
Activity: 1274
Merit: 1006
Trainman
segwit increases full node requirements just as much as 2MB blocks.
if you believe 2MB blocks will lead to node centralization, then you should come to the same conclusion with segwit.
'Just as much'? No. The problem with a dangerous TX that could take too long to process is not inherent to Segwit. Additionally, it is worth to say that 2 MB block size limit has positive effects that Segwit does not (i.e. Segwit comes with a few).

removing the ability to create a full node on a free AWS server should not be seen as a bad thing.
It is a paid Sybil attack.

proof ?
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
hmm we'd have to confirm that... but notwithstanding this attack
You don't need to confirm anything. Segwit makes validation time linear and prevents this attack (at current sizes).

there will be twice as many TX included pre block, requiring nodes to process relay and store twice as many TX, just as if we had simply increased block size.
Technically not twice, but yes that's right.

more is not always better?
It isn't. If it was, then we'd all run our nodes at the same locations and end up with a centralized network that could be easily shut down.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
segwit increases full node requirements just as much as 2MB blocks.
if you believe 2MB blocks will lead to node centralization, then you should come to the same conclusion with segwit.
'Just as much'? No. The problem with a dangerous TX that could take too long to process is not inherent to Segwit. Additionally, it is worth to say that 2 MB block size limit has positive effects that Segwit does not (i.e. Segwit comes with a few).


hmm we'd have to confirm that... but notwithstanding this attack
there will be twice as many TX included pre block, requiring nodes to process relay and store twice as many TX, just as if we had simply increased block size.


removing the ability to create a full node on a free AWS server should not be seen as a bad thing.
It is a paid Sybil attack.


but its cheap like dirt! ( is some cases Free ... )
maybe, it would be OK to increase node requirement such that its no longer cheap like dirt to do a Sybil attack.
by keeping requirement low we are opening an attack vector, and allowing the voice of nodes that matter to be downed out by 1000's "fake" nodes.

more is not always better?

IMO way too much emphasis has been placed on keeping node requirement low. and to ill effect, 1000's of classic node flood the network at the click of a button...
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
segwit increases full node requirements just as much as 2MB blocks.
if you believe 2MB blocks will lead to node centralization, then you should come to the same conclusion with segwit.
'Just as much'? No. The problem with a dangerous TX that could take too long to process is not inherent to Segwit. Additionally, it is worth to say that 2 MB block size limit has positive effects that Segwit does not (i.e. Segwit comes with a few).

removing the ability to create a full node on a free AWS server should not be seen as a bad thing.
It is a paid Sybil attack.

legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
The limit is there because resources are limited, and no limit would lead to massive node centralization. We have data that shows raising the block size now would not be a good idea. SegWit will buy us some time, then we can start considering a blocksize rise, always having in mind that scaling bitcoin worldwide without an additional layer is impossible without mass centralization on the nodes.
Exactly. The other guy does not know what he is talking about. 'The most influential' Core developers can't do anything on their own. This is very important and I don't think that some realize this. For example, if Maxwell was the only one against a feature and everyone else agrees then it would be implemented. The same happened with Gavin, almost everyone was against his proposal and thus it was rejected. Segwit should provide adequate amount of transaction space for now.
segwit increases full node requirements just as much as 2MB blocks.
if you believe 2MB blocks will lead to node centralization, then you should come to the same conclusion with segwit.

removing the ability to create a full node on a free AWS server should not be seen as a bad thing.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
The limit is there because resources are limited, and no limit would lead to massive node centralization. We have data that shows raising the block size now would not be a good idea. SegWit will buy us some time, then we can start considering a blocksize rise, always having in mind that scaling bitcoin worldwide without an additional layer is impossible without mass centralization on the nodes.
Exactly. The other guy does not know what he is talking about. 'The most influential' Core developers can't do anything on their own. This is very important and I don't think that some realize this. For example, if Maxwell was the only one against a feature and everyone else agrees then it would be implemented. The same happened with Gavin, almost everyone was against his proposal and thus it was rejected. Segwit should provide adequate amount of transaction space for now.
legendary
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1014
It is a systemic threat because he can't push his own agenda. He's just wasting more time. This does not help anyone.
Disagree. The most influential Core devs want to use the block size limit as a production quota, forcing fees up (and some TXs/users out), partly to focus the minds of devs on other solutions. They have said as much.

The limit was never intended for that and there has never been any discussion or BIP or similar relating to this _completely new policy_. Put another way, there would have been near zero support for a hard limit production quota if they had to introduce it via a BIP.

Also, how is he "wasting more time"? We have to sit around and wait for SegWit anyway, which is at least a month away. We can't do anything about that.

The limit is there because resources are limited, and no limit would lead to massive node centralization. We have data that shows raising the block size now would not be a good idea. SegWit will buy us some time, then we can start considering a blocksize rise, always having in mind that scaling bitcoin worldwide without an additional layer is impossible without mass centralization on the nodes.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
That there were 92 other contributors besides Gavin and Jeff Garzik, might suggest that they are indeed in the minority regarding their ideas. (See: release notes)
It does not only suggest, it is kind of a "fact". Most of the people who are actively contributing to Core agree on the plan forward. Additionally it might be worth to say that both Gavin and Garzik have been barely active in the Core development in the recent times and have not had any significant contributions in a while.

Technically, he is both. He was one of 94 contributors to the last release of Bitcoin Core.
Doesn't matter, he's Classic.

hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 502
CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!
The problem is the core developers and yes Gavin is part of the problem. So much for a decentralize fantasy
Gavin is not Core - he is Classic

Technically, he is both. He was one of 94 contributors to the last release of Bitcoin Core. That there were 92 other contributors besides Gavin and Jeff Garzik, might suggest that they are indeed in the minority regarding their ideas. (See: release notes)
legendary
Activity: 2786
Merit: 1031
The problem is the core developers and yes Gavin is part of the problem. So much for a decentralize fantasy
Gavin is not Core - he is Classic

Ever looked at this https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/graphs/contributors ?
Pages:
Jump to: