Did you read this? This is crazy shit.

kelsey

legendary

Activity: 1876

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Eodguy149 on August 19, 2015, 05:47:44 AM

Quote from: DGulari on August 15, 2015, 07:06:51 PM

https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1

This very well could be the end of Bitcoin. In every case, it is insanely serious. Notably: "The decision process for Bitcoin Core - is broken".

Price to less than $100 before Wednesday. Bet me.

"The end of Bitcoin"

You should Google Bitcoin obituaries. Bitcoin has been extremely resilient in the face of adversity.

that's why they are not killing it directly.

but heading for a centralised, regulated watered down version of the original bitcoin Sad

"The Bitcoin Core project has shown it cannot reform and so it must be abandoned." Mike Hearn

thats what he really wants, full control.

Eodguy149

hero member

Activity: 578

Merit: 554

Quote from: DGulari on August 15, 2015, 07:06:51 PM

https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1

This very well could be the end of Bitcoin. In every case, it is insanely serious. Notably: "The decision process for Bitcoin Core - is broken".

Price to less than $100 before Wednesday. Bet me.

"The end of Bitcoin"

You should Google Bitcoin obituaries. Bitcoin has been extremely resilient in the face of adversity. The price may suffer in the short term but it isn't going anywhere Wink

MoorChael

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Hi guys. Do you really believe that all bad?

Kakmakr

legendary

Activity: 3542

Merit: 1966

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

I also do not like the little communication coming from the Core def team, but I prefer that over the rubbish being communicated from the Mike|Gavin team to promote a GovFork. These guys are going to plough into the gate so hard and it's going to hurt their reputation in the Bitcoin community for years to come.

Gavin should never have teamed up with Mike. He is way to unstable and would take Gavin down with him, when his fork fail. ^hmf^

NextTroll

newbie

Activity: 50

Merit: 0

Quote from: momore on August 19, 2015, 02:42:16 AM

Quote from: DGulari on August 15, 2015, 07:06:51 PM

https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1

This very well could be the end of Bitcoin. In every case, it is insanely serious. Notably: "The decision process for Bitcoin Core - is broken".

Price to less than $100 before Wednesday. Bet me.

Really crazy. Thanks for the link.

100$ , dreaming Grin

momore

member

Activity: 112

Merit: 10

Quote from: DGulari on August 15, 2015, 07:06:51 PM

https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1

This very well could be the end of Bitcoin. In every case, it is insanely serious. Notably: "The decision process for Bitcoin Core - is broken".

Price to less than $100 before Wednesday. Bet me.

Really crazy. Thanks for the link.

NextTroll

newbie

Activity: 50

Merit: 0

Gavin Andresen decided to do the project and the opinion of the developers don't care about it

Amph

legendary

Activity: 3248

Merit: 1072

Quote from: johnyj on August 16, 2015, 05:48:15 PM

The biggest question is: Why 20MB when you can go with much less risky 4MB or even 8MB?

in the principle it was done to avoid forking again and again after every need, to not cause trouble like you see right now(random crash)

but then chinese were against it and it was reduced to 8mb, but they are still against the idea of XT, and we probably end up upgrading it directly into core, with far more a less-severe increase, like 2MB

slaveforanunnak1

hero member

Activity: 743

Merit: 502

Quote from: GermanGiant on August 15, 2015, 07:12:15 PM

Quote from: DGulari on August 15, 2015, 07:06:51 PM

Price to less than $100 before Wednesday. Bet me.

No. It wont. Both party holds enough bitcoin to resist the price. Let me know how much you wanna bet and whether ready to escrow ?

Unless the cia used their fancy tools to make gavin destroy btc.

harrymmmm

hero member

Activity: 576

Merit: 503

Quote from: Mickeyb on August 18, 2015, 02:40:15 PM

Quote from: harrymmmm on August 16, 2015, 05:53:08 PM

Quote from: johnyj on August 16, 2015, 05:48:15 PM

The biggest question is: Why 20MB when you can go with much less risky 4MB or even 8MB?

20MB hasn't been on the table for some time now. XT is implementing bip101, which is initially 8MB.

It is implementing 8MB blocks, but Gavin also claims that having 20MB blocks by his calculations is completely safe. Now, why 20MB when even 1 MB is enough at the moment? Well probably so we don't have to go through this same BS several years down the road, at least that was his initial thinking, when he expected that the block size increase would go smoother. When he saw how tough nut is to crack with the 20MB, he has probably lowered the increase to the 8MB.

So ... what i said. Noone is looking at 20MB blocks any more. Why even bring it up at all?

Mickeyb

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

Move On !!!!!!

Quote from: harrymmmm on August 16, 2015, 05:53:08 PM

Quote from: johnyj on August 16, 2015, 05:48:15 PM

The biggest question is: Why 20MB when you can go with much less risky 4MB or even 8MB?

20MB hasn't been on the table for some time now. XT is implementing bip101, which is initially 8MB.

It is implementing 8MB blocks, but Gavin also claims that having 20MB blocks by his calculations is completely safe. Now, why 20MB when even 1 MB is enough at the moment? Well probably so we don't have to go through this same BS several years down the road, at least that was his initial thinking, when he expected that the block size increase would go smoother. When he saw how tough nut is to crack with the 20MB, he has probably lowered the increase to the 8MB.

maokoto

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 500

✪ NEXCHANGE | BTC, LTC, ETH & DOGE ✪

They will reach an agreement before Bitcoin falls and ruin them. To reach to the time when the actual block size is not enough without having a solution would mean big losses for both sides, and they would not have those loses.

kenbytes

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

i think bitcoin open new business oportunity for a lott of people ..i think it`s anough to survive

))

harrymmmm

hero member

Activity: 576

Merit: 503

Quote from: johnyj on August 16, 2015, 05:48:15 PM

The biggest question is: Why 20MB when you can go with much less risky 4MB or even 8MB?

20MB hasn't been on the table for some time now. XT is implementing bip101, which is initially 8MB.

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

The biggest question is: Why 20MB when you can go with much less risky 4MB or even 8MB?

harrymmmm

hero member

Activity: 576

Merit: 503

Quote from: gentlemand on August 16, 2015, 05:23:41 PM

Quote from: harrymmmm on August 16, 2015, 05:15:29 PM

Agreed

What irks me most is that simple, almost insignificant compromises would just make all this go away.
For example, if bip103's start date was move back a year to 2016/1/1, that would add 17% or so blocksize extra during 2016.
And I bet everyone would be happy!

Nah. There'd be screams of can kicking. But any action is better than no action.

Sure. At this point there's no avoiding a fork without a quick can kick I think.
That compromise would satisfy me, at least.
You can tell yourself that something is happening with the block size limit, at least. And it agrees with the core devs ... except that extra 17% increae thru 2016.
It just sounds like the kind of almost insignificant compromise that might bring people back together if they can get out of the corners they've painted themselves into.

harrymmmm

hero member

Activity: 576

Merit: 503

Quote from: ajareselde on August 16, 2015, 01:25:42 PM

Quote from: RoadTrain on August 16, 2015, 11:25:59 AM

Quote from: ajareselde on August 16, 2015, 11:12:47 AM

None the less, bitcoin needs to change and solve the possible spam from happening once again.

It's debatable whether Bitcoin really needs to change this way. It's also debatable whether this is an effective solution to spam.

I don't buy the spam argument at all. As I have argued, Bitcoin withstood that attack pretty well, and functioned as intended. The problem was that not every user had proper fee estimation algorithms built into their wallets, so some users have experienced delays. Had they used proper fees, there wouldn't be any problem, apart from slightly higher average and minimum fees.

Of course that doesn't mean we shouldn't raise the limit, but the reason for this is different.

I'm not as sure as you. The spam attack did some serious damage to confirmation times, or on the other hand at the least extorted users to set up a very high fee to get confirmation in some regular time.
Bitcoin is supposed to be cheap and fast solution, but there it was either one or the other, but certainly not both. Something obviously needs to change.

cheers

The highest fee that anyone needed to pay for a fast (simple) transaction was something like 0.5 millies (15 cents?). Not exactly expensive.

gentlemand

legendary

Activity: 2604

Merit: 3056

Welt Am Draht

Quote from: harrymmmm on August 16, 2015, 05:15:29 PM

Agreed

What irks me most is that simple, almost insignificant compromises would just make all this go away.
For example, if bip103's start date was move back a year to 2016/1/1, that would add 17% or so blocksize extra during 2016.
And I bet everyone would be happy!

Nah. There'd be screams of can kicking. But any action is better than no action.

harrymmmm

hero member

Activity: 576

Merit: 503

Quote from: MarketNeutral on August 16, 2015, 10:22:02 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 15, 2015, 09:19:53 PM

It is crazy shit. absolutely.

the sad thing is, Hearn is right. (yeah.... the same Mike Hearn that previously said whitelisting is a good idea... the same Mike Hearn that I said shouldn't be trusted) Sadly, he is making a lot more sense and communicating a lot better than the so called core devs!

I am hopeful the community will do the right thing and move to bigger blocks in time to avert bandwidth issues.

And I think Hearn is right: the "core devs" are being stubborn and selfish and want to do things their own way. They may be motivated as much by intellectual righteousness as by greed. Regardless, they have failed to articulate their positions to the community (as far as I have seen) and so as much as I've had a bias against Hearn, he's the good guy right now.

Good point. You're correct that Hearn is superior at communicating. The Core Devs are not clearly articulating their positions. At all.

I am indeed in the anti-Hearn camp, yet neither can I ally myself with the stumbling selfishness of the Core Devs.

What's disheartening is that this should be a nonissue, as most everyone supports larger blocks.

Agreed

What irks me most is that simple, almost insignificant compromises would just make all this go away.
For example, if bip103's start date was move back a year to 2016/1/1, that would add 17% or so blocksize extra during 2016.
And I bet everyone would be happy!

harrymmmm

hero member

Activity: 576

Merit: 503

Quote from: tokeweed on August 15, 2015, 07:14:08 PM

Eyes rolled as soon as I saw it's Mike Hearn. He and Gavin don't care about 'Bitcoin'... Not really. They have ulterior motives with this fork. Be careful and take what he writes with a grain of salt.

This is quite a longshot, but Satoshi's opinion is really needed about the matter here.

I know exactly what he would say. Something along the lines of 'less politics, more compsci'.

Topic: Did you read this? This is crazy shit. (Read 4263 times)