Topic: Do you trust core? - page 2. (Read 2696 times)

I think where the money is concerned you can not trust anyone.
How do you expect trust from those you do not like? But hope you can. So need to be alert.

Of course time travel is possible, have you seriously ever dreamed of something and after a few days it comes true?
I wonder how did you come up with ASICboost all of a sudden in this post?
SW will kill ASICboost period, no need to beg them not to.

On a logical base core cannot really be pro UASF, since they said (?) SW is a compromise and they defined a long activation time and a high threshold to kick in absolutely safe.

They said with this: a compromise is only live with sufficient time and maximum support

Why now rush this in with a rant like style and risk split for a compromise? They feel fine doing nothing...before fuck sth up.

There seem to be some misconceptions being bandied about the forums regarding Core's stance on UASF.  To clarify, Core isn't supporting UASF at this time.  They're still arguing amongst themselves about the pros and cons of merging BIP 148.  Some of them believe it's too aggressive and could potentially result in a contentious split, while others may be in favour.  It's mainly a group of users and a Litecoin dev involved right now, so Core are mostly just watching from the sidelines to see how it shapes up.  I don't think they're going to do anything rash.

Don't be fooled by the overconfidence of the most vocal UASF proponents who might give the false impression that everyone, including Core, agrees with them.  That remains to be seen.  They make a lot of noise, but aren't backing it up with much in the way of action.  There are only ~800 nodes expressing support for it, out of a total of ~7200 currently reachable nodes worldwide.  That's about 11% of the network.  There's a huge distance to go in a short space of time if they want to activate in August.

This is cryptoland, where the golden rule is "never say never", so I could be wrong, but I don't rate their chances that highly at the moment.  Unless things change rapidly over the next few weeks, UASF = non-event.

To be honest, bitcoin core has a lot of experience, they are capable enough to lead the bitcoin to continue to grow, however, they seem too selfish, or somehow, they do not solve the trouble. Of bitcoin, so they are forced to change.

Hell no. Core is the one blocking scaling and trying to turn bitcoin into a settlement layer. Also their uasf game is the most dumbest and childish thing I've ever seen. Totally compromised by AXA. Educate yourself.

Maybe between the believe it or not against core because I didn't know about them if instead they really have the experience or not, but I get from info if they run her work well in running the network finally I would probably trust the core

We do not have the right to choose, we can not change anything, but we are their customers, we have the right to give our personal opinion and ask for their modification. Bitcoin was created from the head, but it grows thanks to all of us. Therefore, we need to give a general idea in order to fight. Bitcoin needs to change

Do you think the core can solve the current difficulties? I think no, me and you, and many others, we used to trust them, but what they give us is disappointment. They just want to protect their interests, and they force us to pay a premium for all transactions, but even transactions are not confirmed. so sad!

I trust no one, but I don´t think it's a matter of trust either, it´s a matter of proposals and to know which is the correct one to go ahead. In this aspect Core has an advantage, they are the developers and they are supposed to be the ones who know what they are doing.

Me too, I've trusted it before, but it always disappoints me, now I'm headed for a new solution, which is assessed to solve every problem. I hope it can be successful.

I used to believe in them, I used to expect them to be able to solve all the problems without any change, but they disappointed me, now it takes too much time, and We charge too high a fee.

Indeed, in a "trustless decentralized" system, people are looking for agreements by trusted entities to solve their problems

If we do not trust the core then who will we trust? I do trust the core since they are keeping bitcoin alive since a long time ago and if if it werent for them bitcoin would be encountering many problems today such as double spending and many more. They are keeping the blockchain alive and continuously making some upgrades to make bitcoin and its transaction much better.

Bad premise for a thread.  People place far too much emphasis on trusting or distrusting developers.  It's far cleaner and healthier to see competing codebases as products fighting for market share.  Free and open competition, with everyone attempting to provide a superior product.  Developers can design their product however they like and the market then selects via consensus.  In the event there's ever a gap in the market where users aren't happy with the code, competition in the market will result in another developer providing alternative code for users to run.  You don't have to trust any single group of devs, you just have to place all your belief in a free and open market. 

You also have to fight for that market to remain free and open against all those who would call for centralised protectionism to "shield" the market from a participant they don't personally trust.

It happens every time.  Someone reacts to a group or individual doing something they believe is wrong, so they call upon some sort of authority or central power to fix it.  Not understanding that, in doing so, they are a far bigger threat to the system than the person or persons they don't trust.  The second you introduce a central authority in Bitcoin, it stops working.

Everyone seems to doubt the motives of everyone else.  People fear "takeovers" and "power grabs" on both sides.  It's easy to get bogged down in all that negativity and it's easier still to start casting aspersions on those you see as a hazard to the well-being of the ecosystem.  But the whole thing gets a lot less scary when you remember that the code can't lie.  Neutral and transparent wins every time and that's what Bitcoin is.  If the effects of the code are neutral, obvious and stable, it doesn't matter who coded it, so picking sides is just silly.  The code will speak for itself and the market will choose the code.  Whatever you think about the developers, their intent or their proposals, trust the market to choose the best code available at the time.

In short:

No one cares who you do and don't trust in a trustless system;  No one cares who you think should be in control of a system that no one controls;  No one cares who you think has permission to edit the code in a permissionless system.

I always thought it should raise more eyebrows when one group repeatedly grows richer on the losses in trading. 

The last mempool crisis occurred around the time of the ETF decision. So some of it might have been caused by increased trading activity and arbitrage between exchanges. Maybe it was being spammed by people who did not want the ETF to be approved? Just an hypothesis without proof.

Some may be leaving, most may not.

I think that you mean "leaving" by the price falling for a while. That was pure speculation, based on the fear of the hard fork and the uncertainty.
As SegWit direction seems to get more traction and BU seems to lose, the price started rising again.

I am not happy with the mempool getting full so often. I am not happy that it's not "fixed" after so many discussions. But there has to be a better solution than BU.
I advocated the "no limit at all" solution until I was proven to be wrong. Now I listen to the ones that seem to know what they are doing and advocating the solution that has a chance to be better than just postpone the problem for some more months.

The marker share comparison give us no information at all. Money flows between BTC and alts and back continuously, making some speculators rich and making the others wonder what's happening.

This graph could also be used to show that lots of users are leaving... Put the market share of bitcoin vs rest of altcoins together.