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 
Topic: Coinbase CEO: Core Team is a "Systemic Threat" - page 2. (Read 2538 times)
This is about Honey Badger, not silly old *me*. You are personalizing the debate because XT/Classic is failing so badly and you (being a sore loser) want an excuse to lash out.
I give up. WHO is Honey Badger ?
Any relation to Winnie The Pooh?
Honey Badger = Bitcoin
This is about Honey Badger, not silly old *me*. You are personalizing the debate because XT/Classic is failing so badly and you (being a sore loser) want an excuse to lash out.
I give up. WHO is Honey Badger ?
Any relation to Winnie The Pooh?
I think some more healthy competition against Core would be welcome
You are confusing "healthy" (ie positive-sum) competition among consensus-critical blockchains with unhealthy zero/negative-sum contention within a single consensus-critical blockchain.
Altcoins are Bitcoin's healthy competition. If Bitcoin isn't competitive we'll use Litecoin, Primecoin, and Monero instead.
Classic and other XT-like governance coup attempts are declarations of a war that only one side can win.
iCEBREAKER is example of user dividing Bitcoiners whenever he can, not because he has different opinion to some others, but because he is not willing to take compromises for the overal good to keep unity of Bitcoiners.
This is about Honey Badger, not silly old *me*. You are personalizing the debate because XT/Classic is failing so badly and you (being a sore loser) want an excuse to lash out.
I have no power to force (or prevent) the "dividing" of Bitcoiners, nor the ability to "take compromises for the overall good."
Honey Badger doesn't really give a damn about dividing (or unifying) Bitcoiners, and he sure as hell doesn't compromise to shut up some 'FreeTx4EVA' and 'BigBlocksRiteMeow' Gavinista idiots.
The problem is the core developers and yes Gavin is part of the problem. So much for a decentralize fantasy
Social skills are not relevant to good code,
No, but anyone with a little experience in software industry
would agree that they are much needed asset at times..
But of course we're talking about open source, which is a completely
different beast...
"Coups" and "takeovers" shouldn't even exist in this here space.
Brian got point, some Core developers dont have social skills and dont want make compromises with substantial part of Bitcoin users and companies.
Social skills are not relevant to good code,
When you compromise your code because it makes people happy, you often introduce bad code.
That's why OpenSSL became such a mess - FIPS compliance was wanted, weird extensions like Heartbeat that no one actually uses were wants, etc.
Sometimes the hackers with no social skills are the safest to have on a project.
Brian got point, some Core developers dont have social skills and dont want make compromises with substantial part of Bitcoin users and companies. This only result in dividing Bitcoin community, nothing good for Bitcoin.
Bitcoiners should become united and acknowledge that Bitcoin does not mean necessary Core, and while different opinions are welcomed and encouraged to be discused, majority of hashrate decides. This is giving trust to free market principes which are more likely to work than one group of people taking control.
You are confusing "healthy" (ie positive-sum) competition among consensus-critical blockchains with unhealthy zero/negative-sum contention within a single consensus-critical blockchain.
Altcoins are Bitcoin's healthy competition. If Bitcoin isn't competitive we'll use Litecoin, Primecoin, and Monero instead.
Classic and other XT-like governance coup attempts are declarations of a war that only one side can win.
iCEBREAKER is example of user dividing Bitcoiners whenever he can, not because he has different opinion to some others, but because he is not willing to take compromises for the overal good to keep unity of Bitcoiners.
Bitcoiners should become united and acknowledge that Bitcoin does not mean necessary Core, and while different opinions are welcomed and encouraged to be discused, majority of hashrate decides. This is giving trust to free market principes which are more likely to work than one group of people taking control.
I think some more healthy competition against Core would be welcome
You are confusing "healthy" (ie positive-sum) competition among consensus-critical blockchains with unhealthy zero/negative-sum contention within a single consensus-critical blockchain.
Altcoins are Bitcoin's healthy competition. If Bitcoin isn't competitive we'll use Litecoin, Primecoin, and Monero instead.
Classic and other XT-like governance coup attempts are declarations of a war that only one side can win.
iCEBREAKER is example of user dividing Bitcoiners whenever he can, not because he has different opinion to some others, but because he is not willing to take compromises for the overal good to keep unity of Bitcoiners.
I'm gone from coinbase.
After reading his latest blog, I can't be involved with a company that has a CEO like Brian Armstrong. He is dangerous.
After reading his latest blog, I can't be involved with a company that has a CEO like Brian Armstrong. He is dangerous.
Using something like Monero's dynamic block size seems like a simple fix to a huge issue.
That won't work on Bitcoin. You can ask Monero's developer himself (I forgot the exact reason why).Agree that block sizes can't keep rising infinitely, but a simple increase _is_ a tool available to us.
A hard fork isn't something simple.The proposal is a temporary increase to address immediate concerns, then focus on other scaling improvements (weak/thin blocks, IBLT, a proper implementation of SegWit, etc). This sounds more sensible and less risky to me than where we are now.
It isn't needed since we're getting Segwit now (however both might be too much right now).Maybe the too strong influence of certain Core devs (and Adam Back, oddly) does need to be addressed. I don't see it as a power grab, more of a reset.
That might be possible. However, surely it is better to be influenced by Adam than Coinbase.
Using something like Monero's dynamic block size seems like a simple fix to a huge issue. It is a dangerous game all developers are playing with Bitcoin at this moment. If all the core devs are shunned and the community goes with a fork like Classic, we could be losing a group of dedicated and skilled individuals that is the Core team. If Bitcoin then hits a roadblock or major issue, we might be shit out of luck. The biggest issue in my opinion is there is no real voting option. With large players controlling the majority of the network; the average user really doesn't have much say. It really is only the rich who have control now.
core or classic 
core for them, remember this is the ceo that was pro XT, this is say everything about how they think
right now it's just a bunch of "you're wrong my fork is better" argument
That's a complex economic question which is a straw man in this case. Just because they want to use it in a certain way, that does not make them a "systemic risk". You do have to realize that the block size limit can't be infinitely raised every time we start nearing the maximum that the blocks can take.
Agree that block sizes can't keep rising infinitely, but a simple increase _is_ a tool available to us. Core was, in my mind, at fault for not approving an increase before now. Like you say, this has been discussed for years, with zero action. There's absolutely no reason we should be experiencing full blocks / fee pressure / rushing a slightly hacky SegWit soft fork implementation (love SegWit, just don't think it's a good capacity band aid).I'd like to see actual proposals that help solve problems.
The proposal is a temporary increase to address immediate concerns, then focus on other scaling improvements (weak/thin blocks, IBLT, a proper implementation of SegWit, etc). This sounds more sensible and less risky to me than where we are now.I see nothing more than an attempt at taking over the keys of the main implementation (or control over developers).
Maybe the too strong influence of certain Core devs (and Adam Back, oddly) does need to be addressed. I don't see it as a power grab, more of a reset. 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.
That's a complex economic question which is a straw man in this case. Just because they want to use it in a certain way, that does not make them a "systemic risk". You do have to realize that the block size limit can't be infinitely raised every time we start nearing the maximum that the blocks can take. The limit was never intended for that and there has never been any discussion or BIP or similar relating to this _completely new policy_.
The discussion has been going on for years. 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.
He does so by just complaining (in a rather nicely written way). This is just going to cause additional dissent between the community (e.g. /r/btc). I'd like to see actual proposals that help solve problems.Quote
In order to avoid such a frightening scenario, Armstrong argued that we need to take “a path forward” that accomplishes 3 major goals:
Long term, we need to form a new team to work on the bitcoin protocol
Long term, we need to form a new team to work on the bitcoin protocol
I see nothing more than an attempt at taking over the keys of the main implementation (or control over developers).
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.
I doubt it the bitcoin devs are working for free. And a healthy competition is always a good thing even though the Core team has been a little bit too self-absorbed.
Most of them are. This is how open-source works. Some are employed by various entities.Brian Armstrong went pretty hard on the Core developers and their opinions on the block size.
It is a systemic threat because he can't push his own agenda. He's just wasting more time. This does not help anyone.
Well well well.
So crybaby doesn't get his Lollipop and all he can do again and again is yelling and behaving like a 5 year old.
That guy is a joke.A big joke!!!Situation is his company must be really serious.
So crybaby doesn't get his Lollipop and all he can do again and again is yelling and behaving like a 5 year old.
That guy is a joke.A big joke!!!Situation is his company must be really serious.
I'm starting to get the impression that coinbase is the main threat.
It's the core team that is the main threat.
I doubt it the bitcoin devs are working for free. And a healthy competition is always a good thing even though the Core team has been a little bit too self-absorbed.
Jump to: