Decentralization? Yeah, right. Bitcoin is not even decentralized. - page 2.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: RawDog on January 08, 2016, 12:33:42 PM

It is actually being overrun and taken over by these two clowns:

•Pieter Wuille
•Gregory Maxwell

"Bitcoin Core: a project run by two men" - Please read this

Blockstream is a disaster for Bitcoin. It is a privately owned company who gained access to the commit access for the Core. Now, they are using that commit access as a blocking tool to cripple bitcoin with 1MB - for the purpose of making their private Liquid system more needed.

This is bullshit.

We need to stack the Core Dev team with guys who aren't working on private projects funded by private interests that have objectives that conflict with a good solid working Bitcoin.

firstly bitcoin is decentralized.

secondly. IF they do inevitably cripple bitcoin by never allowing a blocksize increase, by bloating each transaction by an extra 250bytes with the confidential transactions proposal. and then destroy the signature verification when removing them by asking everyone to use segwit.. then yea things can cripple bitcoin and people will move over to the pegged 'liquid' system which is not even a blockchain, but a hybrid of what bitinstant was.

i do laugh when they say risking security by dumping sigs is ok, as it helps reduce bloat.. and then propose to rebloat the blockchain with another proposal straight after

but...

but...

it will only work if people are actually dumb enough to download blockstreams version that has obvious crippling features.

miners dont really want to cripple bitcoin. because they know if people move over to "liquid" then the demand for bitcoin would die. and thus shooting themselves in the foot mining something that is dropping in value..

so anyone wanting to be a full node.. check what your getting yourself into and the long term effects. rather than the 2 minute PR story thats handed alongside proposals

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Quote from: RawDog on January 08, 2016, 04:09:11 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

...

But, as long as these two clowns have a stranglehold on the blocksize - the Lightning network is more needed. If they would stop blocking blocksize increases, they would lose their demand for that shit solution.

I don't usually get involved in the "blocksize debate" very often,
mostly because I'm not testing the system, understand the system, and its true capabilities,
and thus, I have no idea what is or is not truly feasible in this relation.

In that light, I would like to point out that even with a blocksize increase,
the average tx will still take an average 10 minutes for a single confirm.

The "lighting network" would allow a work around,
whereby merchants and others can finally "sell/buy their coffee",
with a single confirm, and not have to wait 10 mins (or more) for such.

Increasing the blocksize from 1Megabyte to even a (crazy) 500 Terabytes,
still doesn't solve the issue for smaller, everyday, simple purchases.

Just my non-expert opinion.

RawDog

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1026

Quote from: AtheistAKASaneBrain on January 08, 2016, 12:57:54 PM

Another baseless shitpost. These two "clowns" have contributed more to Bitcoin than what you'll ever do. Just for Confidential Transactions by Gmaxwell and SigWit by Peter deserve a lot of praise. Also they aren't centralizing shit. If you don't like core, go run an XT node, no one is forcing you to run a Core node. And lets remind again the fact that Lightning Network is still the best thing we have to scale Bitcoin worldwide, meanwhile those hating can't come up with something better (raising the blocksize does absolutely nothing in the long term, and periodically hard-forking is stupid). This has been discussed a million times already to be honest.

'the best thing'. Sure, it is the 'best thing' if you are an equity owner of Blockstream which intends to charge people money to use their network - a network that is only needed if the bitcoin blockchain is crippled by 1MB blocks.

I am glad those guys contributed. Awesome. No doubt they have contributed. But, now they want to own bitcoin. That is raging bullshit.

Quote from: ?? on ??

Easy solution : Move to Bitcoin XT or use altcoin
Moderate solution : Make petition for bitcoin developers to keep bitcoin decentralized
Hard solution : Give a lot of money to bitcoin developers & ask to develop bitcoin to be better & decentralized
Impossible(?) solution : Make new BIP proposal or make altcoin with good innovation

Also, while blockstream is not fully decentralized, but it isn't part of bitcoin itself, so you just can avoid it.

But, as long as these two clowns have a stranglehold on the blocksize - the Lightning network is more needed. If they would stop blocking blocksize increases, they would lose their demand for that shit solution.

rienelber

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

quote author=AtheistAKASaneBrain link=topic=1319626.msg13487863#msg13487863 date=1452275874]
Another baseless shitpost. These two "clowns" have contributed more to Bitcoin than what you'll ever do. Just for Confidential Transactions by Gmaxwell and SigWit by Peter deserve a lot of praise. Also they aren't centralizing shit. If you don't like core, go run an XT node, no one is forcing you to run a Core node. And lets remind again the fact that Lightning Network is still the best thing we have to scale Bitcoin worldwide, meanwhile those hating can't come up with something better (raising the blocksize does absolutely nothing in the long term, and periodically hard-forking is stupid). This has been discussed a million times already to be honest.
[/quote]

Perfect answer. To talk about centralization is to miss the point of bitcoin completely.

RodeoX

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1147

The revolution will be monetized!

Quote from: BTCBinary on January 08, 2016, 02:50:20 PM

Bitcoin is still decentralized. Unfortunately, as mining is becoming increasingly dominated by large mining corporations the blockchain is being privatized and bitcoin is becoming centralized

That trend could continue and further consolidation could happen. But those entities are just being rewarded for their effort and capitol investment. This has always been part of the bitcoin system. It is not meant to reward people equally for participation, it rewards based on your work.

Even the biggest mines have no more ability than you. They may be mining large numbers of coins. But consider their huge investment in hardware, electricity, taxes, employees, warehouse rent, etc.

BTCBinary

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

Bitcoin is still decentralized. Unfortunately, as mining is becoming increasingly dominated by large mining corporations the blockchain is being privatized and bitcoin is becoming centralized

RodeoX

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1147

The revolution will be monetized!

It may be worth noting that "decentralized" has a specific meaning in computing. Bitcoin is decentralized.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_computing

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

The actual problem with the whole issue is that we as a community,
should have created a simple "organization" to only help fund the devs, long ago.

This "dev fund organization" would never do any conferences, videos, ads, lobbying, or etc., but only to help finance devs.
If this was done properly, then many of the issues and calls of "conflicts of interest" today would not exist.
This "organization" would have no vote, or say, or power, other than to collect donations and disburse to devs monthly or so.

Whether the current dev standing is correct or not, with regards to the current hold on a 1mb limit, is irrelevant.
An organization only to fund the devs, and provide them the ability to live comfortably and work on Bitcoin,
is something that should have existed since the early days. Purported issues voiced today only exist because of lack of insight in the past.

The Bitcoin Foundation is not what I'm talking about, they tried to do too much and wasted so much.

AtheistAKASaneBrain

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 509

Another baseless shitpost. These two "clowns" have contributed more to Bitcoin than what you'll ever do. Just for Confidential Transactions by Gmaxwell and SigWit by Peter deserve a lot of praise. Also they aren't centralizing shit. If you don't like core, go run an XT node, no one is forcing you to run a Core node. And lets remind again the fact that Lightning Network is still the best thing we have to scale Bitcoin worldwide, meanwhile those hating can't come up with something better (raising the blocksize does absolutely nothing in the long term, and periodically hard-forking is stupid). This has been discussed a million times already to be honest.

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1070

is blockstream even a thing for bitcoin yet? until it's not a thing it does not matter, it's like one of those idea for bitcoin that still need to be approved by the general consensus rule

RawDog

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1026

It is actually being overrun and taken over by these two clowns:

•Pieter Wuille
•Gregory Maxwell

"Bitcoin Core: a project run by two men" - Please read this

Blockstream is a disaster for Bitcoin. It is a privately owned company who gained access to the commit access for the Core. Now, they are using that commit access as a blocking tool to cripple bitcoin with 1MB - for the purpose of making their private Liquid system more needed.

This is bullshit.

We need to stack the Core Dev team with guys who aren't working on private projects funded by private interests that have objectives that conflict with a good solid working Bitcoin.

Topic: Decentralization? Yeah, right. Bitcoin is not even decentralized. - page 2. (Read 2448 times)