EB94 – Gavin Andresen: On The Blocksize And Bitcoin's Governance

megadeth

sr. member

Activity: 289

Merit: 252

bagholder since 2013

Quote from: johnyj on September 01, 2015, 07:56:39 PM

Quote from: megadeth on September 01, 2015, 06:48:30 PM

Quote from: johnyj on September 01, 2015, 06:25:34 PM

IT guys do not pay enough attention to an important fact that a monetary system is not a software project, they have totally different priorities. Thus any kind of change that is normal for a software project can be devastating for a monetary system

Imagine that Federal Reserve change the USD version every 3 months, and even fork it once a while, so that USD from New York is not interchangeable with USD from California, just because New York FED and San Francisco FED have different view on QE, then the whole US economy will be in chaos like what happened in North Korea

I don't think its fair to compare Bitcoin to the FED.
The users of Bitcoin are not central banks, they're regular geeks who want to buy coffee, digital goods and drugs.
The network must fork/change to cater to the majority of users.

The metaphor is to describe fundamental differences in normal software projects and financial infrastructure

When you upgrade a software, you can always fall back to the old version when the new version does not work or created unexpected behavior

However, when a financial system like bitcoin went wrong following a fork, the loss in financial transaction is permanent , even if you reinstall the old version, the loss is irreversible. This fundamental difference will prevent people from accepting any dramatic change at any time

If you were here during the 2013 fork, you might still remember that some people lost lots of coins following the fork, and those losses are permanent. The solution at that time is that the mining pools and wallet service providers compensated those users. I'm afraid that's not an option today when bitcoin are used at much larger scale and commands much higher value

I held coins through the 2013 fork and concur that losses occurred.
Bitcoin has forked multiple times in the past, including recently for the BIP66 change.
I don't see users fleeing en masse, given that the network continues to work today.
We will have to accept that for any technological advancement, a hard fork is part and parcel of it.
Wouldn't you rather have the value of your coins grow exponentially through better technology being added to Bitcoin such as lightning/bloom filtering txns/ relay networks?
Bitcoin must remain bleeding edge money following some core tenets, otherwise it will perish.

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

Quote from: megadeth on September 01, 2015, 06:48:30 PM

Quote from: johnyj on September 01, 2015, 06:25:34 PM

IT guys do not pay enough attention to an important fact that a monetary system is not a software project, they have totally different priorities. Thus any kind of change that is normal for a software project can be devastating for a monetary system

Imagine that Federal Reserve change the USD version every 3 months, and even fork it once a while, so that USD from New York is not interchangeable with USD from California, just because New York FED and San Francisco FED have different view on QE, then the whole US economy will be in chaos like what happened in North Korea

I don't think its fair to compare Bitcoin to the FED.
The users of Bitcoin are not central banks, they're regular geeks who want to buy coffee, digital goods and drugs.
The network must fork/change to cater to the majority of users.

The metaphor is to describe fundamental differences in normal software projects and financial infrastructure

When you upgrade a software, you can always fall back to the old version when the new version does not work or created unexpected behavior

However, when a financial system like bitcoin went wrong following a fork, the loss in financial transaction is permanent , even if you reinstall the old version, the loss is irreversible. This fundamental difference will prevent people from accepting any dramatic change at any time

If you were here during the 2013 fork, you might still remember that some people lost lots of coins following the fork, and those losses are permanent. The solution at that time is that the mining pools and wallet service providers compensated those users. I'm afraid that's not an option today when bitcoin are used at much larger scale and commands much higher value

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: megadeth on September 01, 2015, 06:48:30 PM

Quote from: johnyj on September 01, 2015, 06:25:34 PM

IT guys do not pay enough attention to an important fact that a monetary system is not a software project, they have totally different priorities. Thus any kind of change that is normal for a software project can be devastating for a monetary system

Imagine that Federal Reserve change the USD version every 3 months, and even fork it once a while, so that USD from New York is not interchangeable with USD from California, just because New York FED and San Francisco FED have different view on QE, then the whole US economy will be in chaos like what happened in North Korea

I don't think its fair to compare Bitcoin to the FED.
The users of Bitcoin are not central banks, they're regular geeks who want to buy coffee, digital goods and drugs.
The network must fork/change to cater to the majority of users.

What a sad vision you have for Bitcoin

megadeth

sr. member

Activity: 289

Merit: 252

bagholder since 2013

Quote from: johnyj on September 01, 2015, 06:25:34 PM

IT guys do not pay enough attention to an important fact that a monetary system is not a software project, they have totally different priorities. Thus any kind of change that is normal for a software project can be devastating for a monetary system

Imagine that Federal Reserve change the USD version every 3 months, and even fork it once a while, so that USD from New York is not interchangeable with USD from California, just because New York FED and San Francisco FED have different view on QE, then the whole US economy will be in chaos like what happened in North Korea

I don't think its fair to compare Bitcoin to the FED.
The users of Bitcoin are not central banks, they're regular geeks who want to buy coffee, digital goods and drugs.
The network must fork/change to cater to the majority of users.

meono

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: johnyj on September 01, 2015, 06:25:34 PM

IT guys do not pay enough attention to an important fact that a monetary system is not a software project, they have totally different priorities. Thus any kind of change that is normal for a software project can be devastating for a monetary system

Imagine that Federal Reserve change the USD version every 3 months, and even fork it once a while, so that USD from New York is not interchangeable with USD from California, just because New York FED and San Francisco FED have different view on QE, then the whole US economy will be in chaos like what happened in North Korea

Nonsense with terible analogy as always.

Blocksize increase is an on going topic for 2 yrs.

We all know the 1mb limit was only temporary. Stop talking nonsense cant you?

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

IT guys do not pay enough attention to an important fact that a monetary system is not a software project, they have totally different priorities. Thus any kind of change that is normal for a software project can be devastating for a monetary system

Imagine that Federal Reserve change the USD version every 3 months, and even fork it once a while, so that USD from New York is not interchangeable with USD from California, just because New York FED and San Francisco FED have different view on QE, then the whole US economy will be in chaos like what happened in North Korea

meono

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: brg444 on September 01, 2015, 01:25:06 AM

Quote from: Peter R on September 01, 2015, 01:17:11 AM

Quote from: brg444 on September 01, 2015, 01:11:06 AM

Now, assuming your suggestion to dissolve core makes any sense at all what do you propose happens of the dozen of developers currently maintaining it? They just go their merry way?

Not at all. They are talented coders who love doing what they are doing. I suggest they form groups of like-minded people and fork Core into their own competing implementations. Based on their reputations and good-will, they will no doubt attract strong user bases. These people are assets to the Bitcoin community.

Brg444, are you going to the Scalability Conference in Montreal? I'd like to meet you.

Then you should understand it is inevitable they all reconcile under the same implementation because it happens that although they sometimes have disagreements they are like-minded people and have shown an ability to work relatively well together. I haven't seen any sign of interest from any developer to jump-start their own implementation given the gigantic task this implies. Maybe what you want is for them to change the name (Bitcoin Core)?

I am still pondering the idea of going to the conference. I am concerned about my ability to provide sufficient insight given the apparently very technical focus. (I'm not a developer) That and the 150$ ticket. That said, I've never really had the chance to meet-up Bitcoin folks in person as the community around me is practically inexistant so I am somewhat curious. Guess I have a day or so to decide...!

Ofcourse you cant add crap. From your dumb post i know you dont have any technical knowledge at all. Lets be real here. You came to bitcoin as a speculator/trader. I guess your hate toward Gavin and Mike is because you believed they cause the price to fall.

Your lack of understanding bitcoin economy is amusing. Like you think miners are the one who gives bitcoin value. When did you join the bitcoin world again? After the price soared i bet.

Denker

legendary

Activity: 1442

Merit: 1016

Quote from: Iman E. Vilsok on August 31, 2015, 04:37:28 PM

I'll tell you one thing: That French guy in the advertisement needs to be popping that zit. The thing is trophy class!

If he put the event on youtube he could probably make more in views than he could from running that wallet service thing he's got going.

Oh my god this is so mean what you said but I had to laugh about it to be honest. Damn now I have pictures in my mind where he is standing infront of a mirror using his two index fingers trying to pop that thing. God damn it!

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: WhatTheGox on September 01, 2015, 02:17:47 AM

We defo need more of the power in bitcoin decentralized. We have 5 high priests? wow do we.. really like it if everyone was totally equal and computing power was the only winner.

Get away from my Bitcoin you socialist shill.

No one in this world is equal.

WhatTheGox

legendary

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

We defo need more of the power in bitcoin decentralized. We have 5 high priests? wow do we.. really like it if everyone was totally equal and computing power was the only winner.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Peter R on September 01, 2015, 01:17:11 AM

Quote from: brg444 on September 01, 2015, 01:11:06 AM

Now, assuming your suggestion to dissolve core makes any sense at all what do you propose happens of the dozen of developers currently maintaining it? They just go their merry way?

Not at all. They are talented coders who love doing what they are doing. I suggest they form groups of like-minded people and fork Core into their own competing implementations. Based on their reputations and good-will, they will no doubt attract strong user bases. These people are assets to the Bitcoin community.

Brg444, are you going to the Scalability Conference in Montreal? I'd like to meet you.

Then you should understand it is inevitable they all reconcile under the same implementation because it happens that although they sometimes have disagreements they are like-minded people and have shown an ability to work relatively well together. I haven't seen any sign of interest from any developer to jump-start their own implementation given the gigantic task this implies. Maybe what you want is for them to change the name (Bitcoin Core)?

I am still pondering the idea of going to the conference. I am concerned about my ability to provide sufficient insight given the apparently very technical focus. (I'm not a developer) That and the 150$ ticket. That said, I've never really had the chance to meet-up Bitcoin folks in person as the community around me is practically inexistant so I am somewhat curious. Guess I have a day or so to decide...!

S4VV4S

hero member

Activity: 1582

Merit: 502

Quote from: Mickeyb on August 31, 2015, 04:33:06 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 31, 2015, 04:21:34 PM

Quote from: hdbuck on August 31, 2015, 03:52:05 PM

Bitcoin doesn't need governance: Bitcoin is governance.

PS: Ph0rk you Gavin!

Lessons in propaganda: teaching the controversy.

"This is not about the block size but really about Bitcoin governance. It doesn't suit populist interests and we should change it!"

Hmmm, interesting how people must politicize everything, to satisfy their egos and make themselves feel good and important, even though the things they are trying to politicize weren't meant to get politicized and we're invented exactly to fight against this politicization.

True, but like you said, people must politicize everything, to satisfy their egos and make themselves feel good and important.
Think about it.
Bitcoin is open source, therefor anyone can modify the code.
However, if they become it's "politicians", then they have control (over something that is not mean to be controlled - ironic).

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: brg444 on September 01, 2015, 01:11:06 AM

Now, assuming your suggestion to dissolve core makes any sense at all what do you propose happens of the dozen of developers currently maintaining it? They just go their merry way?

Not at all. They are talented coders who love doing what they are doing. I suggest they form groups of like-minded people and fork Core into their own competing implementations. Based on their reputations and good-will, they will no doubt attract strong user bases. These people are assets to the Bitcoin community.

Brg444, are you going to the Scalability Conference in Montreal? I'd like to meet you.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Peter R on September 01, 2015, 12:59:43 AM

But two of these "most technically-able developers" have now regrouped around XT. This regrouping seems like a useful method to resolve impasses (e.g., XT has now implemented several features that were blocked by Core).

For absolutely valid reasons. Are you for trust-adding censorship lists Peter? You realize these did not make Core because there was a majority consensus against them and not because a "rogue" dev exercised his veto.

Quote from: Peter R on September 01, 2015, 12:59:43 AM

I agree. But I thought you didn't. Didn't you say that what Gavin and Mike are doing is some how a coup and is unethical?

I absolutely did because it is. You "thought I didn't" because you suffer from the same sick tendency to build strawmen suggesting we are somehow against permissionless innovation instead of understanding and recognizing our arguments. To quote:

Quote from: brg444 on September 01, 2015, 12:40:09 AM

What we ask is to let code stand on its own. Gavin has been publicly lobbying the industry to support its BIP101 and maintained a steady PR campagin in the last couple months using blog posts, MSM interview to try to converge support for its "solution" by steering the masses using populist ideas and appeal to authority.

That is what's "wrong" about the whole XT fiasco.

Quote from: Peter R on September 01, 2015, 12:59:43 AM

Lastly, he didn't address the main problem with the current centralized development model: "With this level of centralization, it may be possible in the future for a group of coders to prevent important changes from being made in a timely fashion (e.g., should their interests no longer align with those of the larger Bitcoin community)."

This would imply all of the independent devs working under core have been compromised. Highly unlikely. If a consensus is reached that an important change needs to be made action will be taken and those publicly working against consensus will be evicted from the decision process or the consensus of developers will move to a new implementation if the git repo has somehow been hi jacked.

Now, assuming your suggestion to dissolve core makes any sense at all what do you propose happens of the dozen of developers currently maintaining it? They just go their merry way?

I mean.. seriously Peter get a grip. Please don't go full retard. You know you're about to cross that line when you post such a stupid topic to the Bitcoin dev list :

Quote

Let's kill Bitcoin Core and allow the green shoots of a garden of new implementations to grow from its fertile ashes

Do you seriously expect people to take you seriously?

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: brg444 on September 01, 2015, 12:35:47 AM

Let go of what? What do you propose replaces Bitcoin Core?

Probably 3 or 4 forks from Core, XT being one of them. Another probably implementing BIP100.

Quote

The idea you describe is the natural result of the most technically-able developers having regrouped around was was originally the reference implementation.

But two of these "most technically-able developers" have now regrouped around XT. This regrouping seems like a useful method to resolve impasses (e.g., XT has now implemented several features that were blocked by Core).

Quote

There are already multiple different implementations of Bitcoin. Gavin himself states in his interview we shouldn't need more than 3-4.

I agree.

Quote

No one is stopping anyone from creating different implementation so I'm not sure I understand the apparent need for a change in attitude here?

I agree. But I thought you didn't. Didn't you say that what Gavin and Mike are doing is some how a coup and is unethical?

Quote

I think s7r had an absolutely down to earth response to what I can only qualify as your "flavor-of-the-day" concern trolling on the Bitcoin dev list: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010796.html

He said that he agreed that multiple implementations would be helpful, but he was worried that Bitcoin Core was the only really stable one at the moment. I pointed out how that's not a problem, since the new implementations would fork from Core.

He also said that the fact that anyone can contribute code means Bitcoin Core is decentralized. I disagree. We already know that ideas that were allowed in XT were blocked from Core. Therefore, we need mulitple implementations run by people of various ideologies, to gain more diversity.

Lastly, he didn't address the main problem with the current centralized development model: "With this level of centralization, it may be possible in the future for a group of coders to prevent important changes from being made in a timely fashion (e.g., should their interests no longer align with those of the larger Bitcoin community)."

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: meono on September 01, 2015, 12:31:42 AM

Quote from: Peter R on September 01, 2015, 12:12:43 AM

Quote from: brg444 on August 31, 2015, 11:51:35 PM

Quote from: meono on August 31, 2015, 11:50:30 PM

Quote from: Peter R on August 31, 2015, 09:26:57 PM

Quote from: knight22 on August 31, 2015, 09:06:22 PM

That was a great interview. A lot of good point have been made. Worth watching.

I was happy to hear Gavin say that he wants to "get to the point where there will be multiple robust implementations of the core protocol." Based on the opposition I've received here to similar ideas I've proposed, I thought that perhaps I was missing something. I'm more confident now that I'm not. We need to decentralize development.

This gave me a new talking point: "Let's kill Bitcoin Core and allow the green shoots of a garden of new implementations to grow from its fertile ashes"

More info on the idea: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-September/010802.html

Yup bitcoin core is dead. Many newbies here still can't grasp this simple concept.

Forking is by design feature of bitcoin. Bitcoin core is nothing but an implementation of the protocol. It is NOT the protocol itself.

How is it "dead"? Who's taken its place?

Nothing is dead. What is slowly dying, however, is the idea that the implementation called "Core" is somehow core to Bitcoin.

Core is locked-up; Wladimir won't integrate changes without Core Dev consensus. With all the arguing, I think there's now too much bad blood around Core. Why not let it go? Let's not reach consensus with Bitcoin Core. This will then provide impetus for new implementations to fork from Core (like XT did) and implement whatever scaling solution they deem best. The users will then select the winning solution simply based on the code they choose to run. The other implementations will then rush to make compatible changes in order to keep their dwindling user bases.

This is the decentralized spirit of Bitcoin in action. Creative destruction. Consensus formed simply by the code we run.

Thats the beauty of permissionless system.

These damn fools somehow believe there must be a "permit" (which they call "consensus" without understanding wtf that means) to implement a new protocol change.

Not to mention there is NO way to enforce what they're preaching but go on forums and attack everyone who agrees with the change. Heck even using character assassination against the coder as a way to judge his code/idea

Lucky humanity only contains small amount of these fools.

Stop trying to kill strawmans. No one ever said anyone should need a permit to implement protocol change.

What we ask is to let code stand on its own. Gavin has been publicly lobbying the industry to support its BIP101 and maintained a steady PR campagin in the last couple months using blog posts, MSM interview to try to converge support for its "solution" by steering the masses using populist ideas and appeal to authority.

That is what's "wrong" about the whole XT fiasco.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Peter R on September 01, 2015, 12:12:43 AM

Quote from: brg444 on August 31, 2015, 11:51:35 PM

Quote from: meono on August 31, 2015, 11:50:30 PM

Quote from: Peter R on August 31, 2015, 09:26:57 PM

Quote from: knight22 on August 31, 2015, 09:06:22 PM

That was a great interview. A lot of good point have been made. Worth watching.

I was happy to hear Gavin say that he wants to "get to the point where there will be multiple robust implementations of the core protocol." Based on the opposition I've received here to similar ideas I've proposed, I thought that perhaps I was missing something. I'm more confident now that I'm not. We need to decentralize development.

This gave me a new talking point: "Let's kill Bitcoin Core and allow the green shoots of a garden of new implementations to grow from its fertile ashes"

More info on the idea: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-September/010802.html

Yup bitcoin core is dead. Many newbies here still can't grasp this simple concept.

Forking is by design feature of bitcoin. Bitcoin core is nothing but an implementation of the protocol. It is NOT the protocol itself.

How is it "dead"? Who's taken its place?

Nothing is dead. What is slowly dying, however, is the idea that the implementation called "Core" is somehow core to Bitcoin.

Core is locked-up; Wladimir won't integrate changes without Core Dev consensus. With all the arguing, I think there's now too much bad blood around Core. Why not let it go? Let's not reach consensus with Bitcoin Core. This will then provide impetus for new implementations to fork from Core (like XT did) and implement whatever scaling solution they deem best. The users will then select the winning solution simply based on the code they choose to run. The other implementations will then rush to make compatible changes in order to keep their dwindling user bases.

This is the decentralized spirit of Bitcoin in action. Creative destruction. Consensus formed simply by the code we run.

I think you're just trying to "teach the controversy" and turn the whole nature of this debate around.

I think the bad blood you are describing is nothing but generally healthy debate and a necessary conservative attitude toward a very fragile consensus system.

Let go of what? What do you propose replaces Bitcoin Core?

The idea you describe is the natural result of the most technically-able developers having regrouped around was was originally the reference implementation.

There are already multiple different implementations of Bitcoin. Gavin himself states in his interview we shouldn't need more than 3-4. Do you understand why some are more popular than others? No one is stopping anyone from creating different implementation so I'm not sure I understand the apparent need for a change in attitude here?

I think s7r had an absolutely down to earth response to what I can only qualify as your "flavor-of-the-day" concern trolling on the Bitcoin dev list: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010796.html . If you are really being honest (which I'm increasingly beginning to think you are not) then I think it's worth considering your "concerns" are overblown. Stop buying everything Mike Hearn tries to sell you.

meono

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: luv2drnkbr on September 01, 2015, 12:24:52 AM

Quote from: brg444 on August 31, 2015, 10:40:58 PM

Quote from: knight22 on August 31, 2015, 10:34:59 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 31, 2015, 10:30:43 PM

Quote from: knight22 on August 31, 2015, 10:24:51 PM

Quote from: Envrin on August 31, 2015, 10:18:39 PM

Quote from: Peter R on August 31, 2015, 09:26:57 PM

This gave me a new talking point: "Let's kill Bitcoin Core and allow the green shoots of a garden of new implementations to grow from its fertile ashes"

We have those. They're called alt-coins, and they all suck.

Not to mention, they're all based off Bitcoin Core code.

Alt-clients =! alt-coins

There is a distinction.

Alt-client =! Bitcoin XT

There is a distinction.

Nope, my bitcoin XT is compatible with your bitcoin Core. We can send bitcoins to each others.

Otherwise in which category you would put XT?

XT is attempting to fork the network and change the consensus rules. It is no longer simply "just another implementation".

By that logic, every patch and fix to Bitcoin is an alt-coin. The original limit of putting in the 1mb cap was an alt-coin from the original.

In fact, XT is *less* of an alt-coin than that. Even if XT gets its 75%, if everybody then suddenly decides "nevermind I'm sticking to 1mb", those 1mb blocks will still be valid according to it, and it will still follow the long chain proof of work. So this change is actually less incompatible than numerous soft and hard forks of the past, yet you consider all of those "Bitcoin" but somehow XT is an alt-coin.

"Bitcoin" is whatever the community determines it to be. If BIP101 gains traction and becomes what people use, then "Bitcoin" will be that, and everybody else in the world except you will consider your 1mb chain to be an alt-coin.

XT doesn't change a damned thing unless and until the community agrees that the change needs to be implemented. It doesn't activate unless and until there's already consensus. To claim that it's a contentious fork, or that it's an alt-coin, is just factually incorrect.

A simple way to put this is: bitcoin become bitcoinXT .... If they really care about the name.

meono

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: Peter R on September 01, 2015, 12:12:43 AM

Quote from: brg444 on August 31, 2015, 11:51:35 PM

Quote from: meono on August 31, 2015, 11:50:30 PM

Quote from: Peter R on August 31, 2015, 09:26:57 PM

Quote from: knight22 on August 31, 2015, 09:06:22 PM

That was a great interview. A lot of good point have been made. Worth watching.

I was happy to hear Gavin say that he wants to "get to the point where there will be multiple robust implementations of the core protocol." Based on the opposition I've received here to similar ideas I've proposed, I thought that perhaps I was missing something. I'm more confident now that I'm not. We need to decentralize development.

This gave me a new talking point: "Let's kill Bitcoin Core and allow the green shoots of a garden of new implementations to grow from its fertile ashes"

More info on the idea: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-September/010802.html

Yup bitcoin core is dead. Many newbies here still can't grasp this simple concept.

Forking is by design feature of bitcoin. Bitcoin core is nothing but an implementation of the protocol. It is NOT the protocol itself.

How is it "dead"? Who's taken its place?

Nothing is dead. What is slowly dying, however, is the idea that the implementation called "Core" is somehow core to Bitcoin.

Core is locked-up; Wladimir won't integrate changes without Core Dev consensus. With all the arguing, I think there's now too much bad blood around Core. Why not let it go? Let's not reach consensus with Bitcoin Core. This will then provide impetus for new implementations to fork from Core (like XT did) and implement whatever scaling solution they deem best. The users will then select the winning solution simply based on the code they choose to run. The other implementations will then rush to make compatible changes in order to keep their dwindling user bases.

This is the decentralized spirit of Bitcoin in action. Creative destruction. Consensus formed simply by the code we run.

Thats the beauty of permissionless system.

These damn fools somehow believe there must be a "permit" (which they call "consensus" without understanding wtf that means) to implement a new protocol change.

Not to mention there is NO way to enforce what they're preaching but go on forums and attack everyone who agrees with the change. Heck even using character assassination against the coder as a way to judge his code/idea

Lucky humanity only contains small amount of these fools.

luv2drnkbr

hero member

Activity: 793

Merit: 1026

Quote from: brg444 on August 31, 2015, 10:40:58 PM

Quote from: knight22 on August 31, 2015, 10:34:59 PM

Quote from: brg444 on August 31, 2015, 10:30:43 PM

Quote from: knight22 on August 31, 2015, 10:24:51 PM

Quote from: Envrin on August 31, 2015, 10:18:39 PM

Quote from: Peter R on August 31, 2015, 09:26:57 PM

This gave me a new talking point: "Let's kill Bitcoin Core and allow the green shoots of a garden of new implementations to grow from its fertile ashes"

We have those. They're called alt-coins, and they all suck.

Not to mention, they're all based off Bitcoin Core code.

Alt-clients =! alt-coins

There is a distinction.

Alt-client =! Bitcoin XT

There is a distinction.

Nope, my bitcoin XT is compatible with your bitcoin Core. We can send bitcoins to each others.

Otherwise in which category you would put XT?

XT is attempting to fork the network and change the consensus rules. It is no longer simply "just another implementation".

By that logic, every patch and fix to Bitcoin is an alt-coin. The original limit of putting in the 1mb cap was an alt-coin from the original.

In fact, XT is *less* of an alt-coin than that. Even if XT gets its 75%, if everybody then suddenly decides "nevermind I'm sticking to 1mb", those 1mb blocks will still be valid according to it, and it will still follow the long chain proof of work. So this change is actually less incompatible than numerous soft and hard forks of the past, yet you consider all of those "Bitcoin" but somehow XT is an alt-coin.

"Bitcoin" is whatever the community determines it to be. If BIP101 gains traction and becomes what people use, then "Bitcoin" will be that, and everybody else in the world except you will consider your 1mb chain to be an alt-coin.

XT doesn't change a damned thing unless and until the community agrees that the change needs to be implemented. It doesn't activate unless and until there's already consensus. To claim that it's a contentious fork, or that it's an alt-coin, is just factually incorrect.

Topic: EB94 – Gavin Andresen: On The Blocksize And Bitcoin's Governance (Read 1873 times)