Do you trust core? - page 3. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Slow death

legendary

Activity: 3234

Merit: 1130

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: bettercrypto on April 09, 2017, 04:38:34 AM

Do we have a choice? So far Core had been the major group that make alot of commit to Bitcoin development, and we use it. As a mere user, what else can we do? We simply download the software and use it. Regardless of any political intent, I just want to use a well functioning wallet and a stable bug free network and I believe Core have the capability to deliver it.

This is the problem, for a currency that is said to be decentralized this is more centralized than it seems.

As long as I do not wait for confirmation and do not have to pay high fees... I will not have much to complain about.

Xester

hero member

Activity: 994

Merit: 544

I do not know if I am to believe their statements. I dont trust core at the same time I dont trust BU. I dont trust both of the parties at all since they are making up stories just to destroy each other with the selfish motives. They are creating stories to confuse the public and which make it hard for us as to whom to really believe. But one thing is for sure and that is I will stick with the core since the exchanger within our country have already made a statement that they will only accept bitcoin from the core.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: aarturka on April 09, 2017, 02:52:13 AM

I don't see any proven facts not to trust them,

How about their insane economic policies promoting full blocks and high fees?

How about their years-long saga of stalling, including breaking the HK agreement?

How about their censorship (openly addmited censorship on r/bitcoin and generally censoring elsewhere)?

How about their complete lack of communication with the community, except to pass down their one true scaling roadmap from up high?

How about their refusal to compromise with the community in the slightest bit when it comes to scaling, even rejecting 2MB/Segwit?

How about the huge conflict of interest that exists because Blockstream employs Greg Maxwell, Peter Wuille, Matt Corallo, and Luke-Jr?

AngryDwarf

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 501

Core don't run the network, miners do.

jtipt

hero member

Activity: 1050

Merit: 529

Do I Trust core? maybe not. Do I trust BU? absolutely not. But so far core has done a fine work in running the network, I don't completed trust them but if it's comes to trusting either core or BU I would most likely trust core because they have experience and are running the network decently.

bettercrypto

sr. member

Activity: 1498

Merit: 271

DGbet.fun - Crypto Sportsbook

Do we have a choice? So far Core had been the major group that make alot of commit to Bitcoin development, and we use it. As a mere user, what else can we do? We simply download the software and use it. Regardless of any political intent, I just want to use a well functioning wallet and a stable bug free network and I believe Core have the capability to deliver it.

bitkilo

legendary

Activity: 1638

Merit: 1010

https://www.bitcoin.com/

Do I trust what they say all the time, well no because I don't think that you can trust what anyone tells you 100% of the time and this is especially more so when money is involved.
Do I trust them to keep the network running, yes their history shows we have had a great thing for over 7 years now.

AngryDwarf

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 501

Quote from: Iranus on April 09, 2017, 04:21:26 AM

Quote from: AngryDwarf on April 09, 2017, 04:07:12 AM

Quote from: Iranus on April 09, 2017, 03:57:52 AM

I just think that the best solution is to go with the team that's established and doesn't require a hard fork which would be harmful to Bitcoin in the short term, especially with altcoins jumping at its sides for a permanent purpose.

Are you confusing hard fork with a bilateral spit? A high consensus hard fork does not result in two coins, it results in one long chain (that can have a re-org checkpoint coded in), and the other old chain is dead. No harm done.

From HODLers and general users, the HF wouldn't be that high consensus. Miners supporting it doesn't necessarily represent Bitcoin in general, and you'd end up with a continued debate about scaling and potentially a lot of Core supporters holding on to BTC and selling the BTU. Unless I'm understanding the fork wrong, everyone would have an equal number of BTC and BTU which could be sold/bought at will, right?

Uncertainty is never good for a market.

And yet again, you have changed high consensus hard fork into a core vs BU contentious fork argument. This irrational fear of hard forks that has been whipped up is detrimental to high consensus protocol development. Significant soft forks are dangerous kludges with high technical debt and a collection of nodes which are not following the same rules.

UASF is not very safe either:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/63pzmx/any_uasf_without_miner_majority_is_a_contentious/

UASF allows any resulting hard fork bilateral split to be blamed on the users for activating it without miner majority.

I hope any UASF advocates put there money where their mouth is and move all their funds to an anyonecanspend segwit key.

Iranus

hero member

Activity: 1792

Merit: 534

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: AngryDwarf on April 09, 2017, 04:07:12 AM

Quote from: Iranus on April 09, 2017, 03:57:52 AM

I just think that the best solution is to go with the team that's established and doesn't require a hard fork which would be harmful to Bitcoin in the short term, especially with altcoins jumping at its sides for a permanent purpose.

Are you confusing hard fork with a bilateral spit? A high consensus hard fork does not result in two coins, it results in one long chain (that can have a re-org checkpoint coded in), and the other old chain is dead. No harm done.

From HODLers and general users, the HF wouldn't be that high consensus. Miners supporting it doesn't necessarily represent Bitcoin in general, and you'd end up with a continued debate about scaling and potentially a lot of Core supporters holding on to BTC and selling the BTU. Unless I'm understanding the fork wrong, everyone would have an equal number of BTC and BTU which could be sold/bought at will, right?

Uncertainty like that is never good for a market.

AngryDwarf

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 501

Quote from: Iranus on April 09, 2017, 03:57:52 AM

I just think that the best solution is to go with the team that's established and doesn't require a hard fork which would be harmful to Bitcoin in the short term, especially with altcoins jumping at its sides for a permanent purpose.

Are you confusing hard fork with a bilateral spit? A high consensus hard fork does not result in two coins, it results in one long chain (that can have a re-org checkpoint coded in), and the other old chain is dead. No harm done.

Iranus

hero member

Activity: 1792

Merit: 534

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: Amph on April 09, 2017, 01:43:17 AM

i don't trust who is supporting bitcoin only for his own business and profit, you can't trust chinese miners as they primarely reason to exist is to milk yuan from bitcoin

there fore you can't trust their signaling for BU, what is left to trust? only core, but i'm always open for better proposal like the extention block for example, which on paper look better than segwit+LN

You shouldn't have to trust either. People should be able to not trust Core and also not want to go through with BU. A while ago jonald_fyookball claimed that people will take any change to a corrupt status quo even if smart people tell them not to (in his signature), but my view is that people shouldn't have to to trust the status quo to believe that an alternative is dumb.

When neither choice is ideal and you're kind of unclear on the exact technical details of either because any attempt at an explanation is wrought with opinion (the situation I'm facing) I just think that the best solution is to go with the team that's established and doesn't require a hard fork which would be harmful to Bitcoin in the short term, especially with altcoins jumping at its sides for a permanent purpose.

NeuroticFish

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 6382

Looking for campaign manager? Contact icopress!

Quote from: Deja on April 09, 2017, 03:14:23 AM

Bitcoin is remaining the same without any solution and a important problem is persisting, a problem so big that is cappable of ruining a currency. That upgrade should had been done years ago, not when the problem started to be visible.

As others said. No matter how big the block is, if somebody wants to, it will fill it. So the solution has to be .. something different.
I am not telling that SegWit is the best solution. I don't know.

Now.. from what I've read SegWit took quite a lot of time to be implemented and tested. The problem is indeed visible for long time, but it was not so serious and was revealed during spam tests. Also an interesting fact is that after such "high" period ends, the network clears itself in 1-2 days.

I still believe that somebody has interest in spamming the network, artificially making this problem big indeed.
Right now the mempool is the smallest I've seen in long time. https://btc.com/stats/unconfirmed-tx shows it at under 1MB!

ThirstyMoon

sr. member

Activity: 321

Merit: 250

How can you trust someone who censors opinions they don't like? You can just hope they understand that what they do is perilous and change their ways.

You can't really trust any party that is doing the right stuff for the wrong reasons either.

AngryDwarf

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 501

Quote from: Deja on April 09, 2017, 03:14:23 AM

Quote from: megashira1 on April 09, 2017, 02:27:55 AM

Core is in the hands of Blockstream; attempting to promote off-chain centralization. Yes, Miners are greedy assholes who too want centralization, BUT at-least their vested interests coincide with that of bitcoin users and holders. Bitcoin is pseudo-decentralized so pick the lesser of 2 evils which coincides with Satoshis original vision of Bitcoin.

The bad news is that either if it's one or another, Bitcoin is remaining the same without any solution and a important problem is persisting, a problem so big that is cappable of ruining a currency. That upgrade should had been done years ago, not when the problem started to be visible.

Yes, the problem of hitting maximum capacity for any extended period of time damages bitcoin user experience and hinders greater adoption. One team as shown they are not willing to address demand pressures in a timely fashion, instead fixating and promising future hopes. And some of these members think the block size should be reduced even further!

Deja

sr. member

Activity: 330

Merit: 250

Silverlink

Quote from: megashira1 on April 09, 2017, 02:27:55 AM

Core is in the hands of Blockstream; attempting to promote off-chain centralization. Yes, Miners are greedy assholes who too want centralization, BUT at-least their vested interests coincide with that of bitcoin users and holders. Bitcoin is pseudo-decentralized so pick the lesser of 2 evils which coincides with Satoshis original vision of Bitcoin.

The bad news is that either if it's one or another, Bitcoin is remaining the same without any solution and a important problem is persisting, a problem so big that is cappable of ruining a currency. That upgrade should had been done years ago, not when the problem started to be visible.

AngryDwarf

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 501

I think core (or at least the blockstream part of it) has created FUD around the dangers of a high level consensus planned hard fork. Soft forks on the segwit scale are just ugly kludges that create a two tiered network of nodes, and worst still represents a fundamental shift from the design of bitcoin.

BU I don't consider the best solution, but there are other big block nodes that can be run, so it is not core vs BU. I laughed when I looked at this authors prediction though:

https://steemit.com/fiction/@xwerk/cryptocurrency-market-cap-in-the-year-2020-or-bitcoin-ethereum-komodo-monero-bitcore-steem-decred-byteball-litecoin-lbry

aarturka

sr. member

Activity: 277

Merit: 250

I don't see any proven facts not to trust them, unlike Chinese, antpool, Wu, Ver, Andressen

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

asic s9 chip design 2015
asicboost theory 2015
both in production 2015
public released spring 2016

segwit 2merkle envisioned december 2015
in production spring 2016
public release october 2016

feb-march 2017 gmax finds flaw in 2merkle soft segwit.
cant redesign 2merkle segwit.
april 2017 gmax call asics a attack that knew about segwit and was designed specifically to stop segwit

..
logic fail (unless time travel is possible)

NeuroticFish

legendary

Activity: 3668

Merit: 6382

Looking for campaign manager? Contact icopress!

Quote from: quake313 on April 09, 2017, 02:34:51 AM

I suppose where money is concerned you cannot trust anyone Cry

This is actually the best answer.
We don't have to trust neither Core, neither BU.
We have to read all we can and decide for ourselves.

From what I've read, what Core tell makes more sense to me than what BU team tells. But that doesn't mean I am right in my decision.

So, OP, let's make the question fair: do you trust Bitcoin Unlimited?

quake313

sr. member

Activity: 268

Merit: 250

I suppose where money is concerned you cannot trust anyone Cry

Topic: Do you trust core? - page 3. (Read 2696 times)