Topic: Do you trust core? (Read 2694 times)

we should review this 'trust' and differentiate to distinct terms like

I full trust in core - keeping the network up and running. They have done a great job here over many years in monitoring and fixing bugs. They know how to MAINTAIN.

I full trust in core's technical expertise and coding capabilities - they know their job.

I partially trust that they can sort out and filter all the ideas coming up and to them all day.

I less trust that they oversee all the economic impacts on these decisions they still are in charge.

I.o. to relief core's burden a bit - we need multiple clients here - market / economical decisions no single entity is able to define in FRONT and predictions here are normally wrong and we all are personal victims of prediction errors.

I'm happy if we have business here like blockstream and other comps concentrating on their 'duties' posted in their naming (and transparent agendas). Blockstream should be only responsible for streaming correctly the blocks - not more  

That might be glossing over recent turbulent history just a little, heh.  Ethereum has no governance problems in the sense that it has already split into two and those who couldn't reconcile their differences no longer have to.  If it hadn't separated into ETH/ETC as it did, there would almost certainly still be a problem.  Perhaps there is an argument to be made that Bitcoin would have fared better to do likewise before now, or may fare better to do so in the near future, but there's no way of knowing for sure.  Without both scenarios actually playing out, we can't tell if it's less damaging for the debate to rage on in stalemate or to force a divisive split and let the chips fall where they may.  Hopefully we reach a compromise soon and avoid finding out what effect a split would have.

I'm not a big Bitcoin guy, nowhere near a maximalist or similar, sometimes I don't even hold Bitcoin, only use it when needed like trading but this situation it's just sad honestly, especially how fragmented it all become. I know many still assume Bitcoin will not die and it will recover, that's fair enough. But I don't think it can come back from this amount of animosity that installed among the most important players. We have a big civil war in our hands and it's really a shame that they can all cooperate together.

Some months ago I was sure a resolution would come but lately I'm even wondering what is "Bitcoin" and in case of a split (or many) which side will claim its name and brand, that's all that matters to the public. They all have a right to be called Bitcoin right? Imagine the public reaction to that, do you honestly think it can recover from that? Ethereum and Ripple have no governance problems at the moment and they will suffer in terms of price in the short term but at least they will learn to avoid from this in the future. Tezos is actually trying to solve self governance. Others like Antshares/NEO follow the Hyperledger DPOS system where forks/splits are not possible.

Even if I'm not a big Bitcoin guy like I mentioned, I wouldn't want an scenario like this to happen, it's a bad image for the whole industry/market.

I have never doubts bitcoin core, however, we should know that the ability of a currency is always limited, Core can not meet current market demand, that is why it needs Some changes Everyone's consensus will be to create a nice bitcoin, but if it's deprecated and branched, the bitcoin may collapse....

... And more shit here

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-dangerously-shifted-incentives-of-segwit-1999889


Others can tell me what is next. A SW REKT threat or is there dispute?

Some more insight into interest conflicts and closed door meeting or face to face promises.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/theo-goodmans-wide-ranging-interview-with-jihan-wu-1998082

"We need a plan that will not drag the community into the blocksize issue from now on. For the growth of Bitcoin, blocksize is a minor issue that cost the community so much damage."

now that's something i can get behind no matter who says it. i don't know if it's possible but it's something that should be aimed for.

because it has always coincided with maximum agitation about block sizes. it happened around unlimited time and then eased off when unlimited looked like a piece of shit. it has now also magically eased off with the sewit2x thing.

if people stopped transacting as they are now then fees would never have been so high.

Why do you assume it was spamming and now the spamming has stopped.

With high fees it is perfectly reasonable to assume that users are making less transactions based on the huge amount of complaints and Core don't care.

Hehe, yeah. But with his effotrs he came to right conclusion. The way is the goal. Proof of Smoke PoS

That's some strong shit you're smoking there bud.

not particularly, but they are competent. the opposing team is both incompetent and vocally malevolent.

core has voiced concerns that chime with me far more than anything the mining cartels have come up with.

You only need to a run a full node to mitigate the risk involved in accepting a high value of payments from untrusted third parties. You do not need to run a node to spend or save bitcoin. Do you have a specific use case that requires you to run a full node?

You said everything else doesn't matter. I respectfully disagree. I think the value of bitcoin matters, and I think it derives that value from being useful. I think that increasing the cost of transactions reduces that utility. On chain is still a scarce resource regardless of blocksize, because of the marginal cost of mining a transaction.

Sure. My car was also fine first 7 years. But then it needed a HF.

Shit. The HF is 3 years shifted and kicked down the road because of very human lazy aproach or interest conflicts inside BScore. This car is OLD and misses new modern scaling inside. They want to lift the wreck on waky plane and close planes doors now.

The main problem with core is that they are not a cohesive group, the positive thing is that most people involved want bitcoin to do well. They have my trust because I dont see them compromising for their own personal interest. 

They've kept people's savings in bitcoin safe for 7+ years or 8, I lost the count. That is all that matters. The software must be solid, and I must be able to run a bitcoin full node, everything else doesn't matter. I couldn't care less about buying coffee with bitcoin if that means i can't run a full node, they seem to agree with this so they are good to go.

The hardforkers will fail because the other devs will make them lose money, it's a matter of time.

I hope we don't have 2 fucking bitcoins by the end of the year because my bitcoin saving will suffer.

Oh wait. Youve forgotton evil Linus from Linux, yeah. You just cannot trust anybody. This is why bitcoin needs to scale on chain. The most trustless way we have now since 2009!

Do you trust any person who are being paid to develop a technology that might disrupt Billion dollar businesses like MoneyGram and Western

union or possibly the whole banking sector? The moment when you get paid to do something, you have to follow instructions from someone.

Do you think for one moment the Bitcoin Unlimited team are doing this for the fun? They are getting paid too.. and this makes them corruptible

and unbiased. I trust nobody... not even Satoshi Nakamoto. {because I do not know who he/she or they are}

He is some ranting against BScore:


https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/is-matonis-wright-analyse-this-video-and-build-your-settled-view-1997310


I only trust the dense bitcoin network core seen there. 

I trust reliable working code, whoever designs it does not matter to me as long as it resolves an issue.
Then it is up to a community of miners nodes etc to do something with that code and come to a consensus.
Decentralized yet organized.