Pages:
Author

Topic: Finally, Bitcoin Core = REKT (Read 7769 times)

legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
May 06, 2016, 07:10:46 PM
I think the OP is still yet to actually show or tell us how Core is REKT

Still waiting...



...surely OP will deliver.    Undecided
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
February 09, 2016, 11:20:16 AM
I think the OP is still yet to actually show or tell us how Core is REKT
Core is REKT because Blockstream owns Maxwell and he has managed to create a kind of VETO power which prevents the masses from adopting large blocks.  Core is now controlled by a minority who want small blocks to enable their private company interests.  REKT!  Core is the alt.  SegWit is the alt. 

Satoshi anticipated blocks large than 1MB.  He didn't anticipate SegWit and side chain bullshit. 


Be careful lad, you don't want to be perma-limited to 'altcoin discussion', do you?

Shhhhh.  The emperor wears no clothes.
legendary
Activity: 2436
Merit: 1561
February 09, 2016, 10:14:53 AM
I think the OP is still yet to actually show or tell us how Core is REKT
Core is REKT because Blockstream owns Maxwell and he has managed to create a kind of VETO power which prevents the masses from adopting large blocks.  Core is now controlled by a minority who want small blocks to enable their private company interests.  REKT!  Core is the alt.  SegWit is the alt. 

Satoshi anticipated blocks large than 1MB.  He didn't anticipate SegWit and side chain bullshit. 


Be careful lad, you don't want to be perma-limited to 'altcoin discussion', do you?
hero member
Activity: 874
Merit: 1000
February 09, 2016, 09:44:19 AM
I think the OP is still yet to actually show or tell us how Core is REKT
Core is REKT because Blockstream owns Maxwell and he has managed to create a kind of VETO power which prevents the masses from adopting large blocks.  Core is now controlled by a minority who want small blocks to enable their private company interests.  REKT!  Core is the alt.  SegWit is the alt. 

Satoshi anticipated blocks large than 1MB.  He didn't anticipate SegWit and side chain bullshit. 

full member
Activity: 126
Merit: 100
February 09, 2016, 08:45:58 AM
... Core would most likely present a 90/95% consensus threshold with a longer grace period.
Only 90%? Shocked Too low! That ain't no consensus, that's a minority. Can only hope you'll staunchly oppose it, Citizen!

Sincerely,

The Violated 9.9% Majority.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 3000
Terminated.
February 09, 2016, 05:03:02 AM
No as in no there will be no hard fork? No as in it won't happen in April? No as in you don't like my face? No Wat?
No, as in no HF in April. That's not enough time to upgrade everything. If you've paying attention, Core would most likely present a 90/95% consensus threshold with a longer grace period.
legendary
Activity: 3248
Merit: 1070
February 09, 2016, 03:47:58 AM
Core is hard forking in April when CT is ready. Big blocks for everyone. Please return to your homes and places of business.

Isn't it?

they will hard fork in the end, segwit is not  afinal solution, so matter what they are thinking an d hard fork is needed, and i don't see the issue

there were in the past at elast two hard fork, and everything went right, so what's all the fuss now?
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1116
February 08, 2016, 09:09:49 PM
"Wall" of text. lol. The exact question you asked is addressed in the part you snipped!
What I've read has unfortunately wasted my time. Again, aside of the increase in TPS 2 MB blocks bring nothing new to the table. HF's should be used to fix long overdue bugs, but people have stopped being objective and technical and have succumbed to the 'power grab' attempts and 'Bitcoin will die if blocks are full' nonsense.

Core is hard forking in April when CT is ready. Big blocks for everyone. Please return to your homes and places of business.
Isn't it?
No.

No as in no there will be no hard fork? No as in it won't happen in April? No as in you don't like my face? No Wat?

CT won't exist until a HF is completed which will indeed raise maxBlockSize or add flexcap for capacity. If you have been following Core's development you would be aware that they want to increase blocksize directly and need to with a HF. They just want it done safely, with consensus, and with more changes than simply kicking the can over and over every time we need more capacity.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 3000
Terminated.
February 08, 2016, 09:00:28 PM
"Wall" of text. lol. The exact question you asked is addressed in the part you snipped!
What I've read has unfortunately wasted my time. Again, aside of the increase in TPS 2 MB blocks bring nothing new to the table. HF's should be used to fix long overdue bugs, but people have stopped being objective and technical and have succumbed to the 'power grab' attempts and 'Bitcoin will die if blocks are full' nonsense.

Core is hard forking in April when CT is ready. Big blocks for everyone. Please return to your homes and places of business.
Isn't it?
No.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1116
February 08, 2016, 07:57:29 PM
Core is hard forking in April when CT is ready. Big blocks for everyone. Please return to your homes and places of business.

Isn't it?
legendary
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1087
February 08, 2016, 07:52:43 PM
-snip-
No matter how many walls of text you write, Segwit remains better than a 2 MB block size. Tell me exactly what problems get solved by the 2 MB block size? As always: none. Does it fix malleability, does it enable simpler script upgrades? Of course it doesn't. Again Segwit is more complex, but people are falling back on personal incredulity in this case.

"Wall" of text. lol. The exact question you asked is addressed in the part you snipped!
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 3000
Terminated.
February 08, 2016, 02:26:08 PM
-snip-
No matter how many walls of text you write, Segwit remains better than a 2 MB block size. Tell me exactly what problems get solved by the 2 MB block size? As always: none. Does it fix malleability, does it enable simpler script upgrades? Of course it doesn't. Again Segwit is more complex, but people are falling back on personal incredulity in this case.

I think the OP is still yet to actually show or tell us how Core is REKT
He can't, because it isn't.
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 100
February 08, 2016, 02:16:26 PM
Would [arguably] not be in their best interest (because would be obvious/would kill trust in BTC/they're suddenly mining 100% of worthless coins, instead of only 75% of coins worth money. 75% of something is better than 100% of nothing. Or something like that. Or nothing like that.).

You would never know about the collusion, they could simply pre-mine 80% of the time. This only has relevance to the Core discussion because the miners controlling the hash power are likely the most powerful cohesive group in the bitcoin ecosystem since the development group appears fractured. Outside of general consensus, they will likely be the group that really decides which fork in the road everyone will travel.

Suggesting that Bitfury/KNC are chumps/wouldn't notice?
Sure, there's devious shit that may/probably does happen. At the end of the day, 'long as the implicit interests of BTC holders and BTC miners align, I (as a non-miner) couldn't care less.

If the interests don't align, we got a much bigger problem than a bunch of Chinese miners colluding to cheat non-Chinese miners Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 3346
Merit: 1617
#1 VIP Crypto Casino
February 08, 2016, 02:08:48 PM
I think the OP is still yet to actually show or tell us how Core is REKT
full member
Activity: 167
Merit: 100
February 08, 2016, 02:04:27 PM
Would [arguably] not be in their best interest (because would be obvious/would kill trust in BTC/they're suddenly mining 100% of worthless coins, instead of only 75% of coins worth money. 75% of something is better than 100% of nothing. Or something like that. Or nothing like that.).

You would never know about the collusion, they could simply pre-mine 80% of the time. This only has relevance to the Core discussion because the miners controlling the hash power are likely the most powerful cohesive group in the bitcoin ecosystem since the development group appears fractured. Outside of general consensus, they will likely be the group that really decides which fork in the road everyone will travel.


full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 100
February 08, 2016, 01:58:41 PM
If you're suggesting that mining is highly centralized, it sure is.

The Chinese miners should collude to work on pre-mining next blocks so they can get rid of BitFury and the Other category and control 100% of the hashing network as a group.

Would [arguably] not be in their best interest (because would be obvious/would kill trust in BTC/they're suddenly mining 100% of worthless coins, instead of only 75% of coins worth money. 75% of something is better than 100% of nothing. Or something like that. Or nothing like that.).
full member
Activity: 167
Merit: 100
February 08, 2016, 01:44:40 PM
If you're suggesting that mining is highly centralized, it sure is.

The Chinese miners should collude to work on pre-mining next blocks so they can get rid of BitFury and the Other category and control 100% of the hashing network as a group.
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 100
February 08, 2016, 01:41:44 PM
Let me explain one scenario. 75% of the miners change the consensus rules and create a new bitcoin fork...

Just to add some data to the discussion, this is a current chart of miners by percentage of blocks they are mining in the bitcoin network.

[img ]http://oi67.tinypic.com/2mqor47.jpg[/img]

Almost any combination of 3 of the top 5 miners (any combination that does not include BW and BCCC together) would constitute a majority of the hash power.

The total mining power of every group outside of the top 5 miners is 11%.

Not sure what you're saying. Yeah, many combinations of 3 would net a majority, but the magic number we're looking for is 75% (3/4). So think combos of 4 or 5.
If you're suggesting that mining is highly centralized, it sure is.
full member
Activity: 167
Merit: 100
February 08, 2016, 01:40:17 PM
I'll add this, here is the breakdown of pool by country:



Entities in China control 70% of the hashing power in the network.
full member
Activity: 167
Merit: 100
February 08, 2016, 01:34:02 PM
Let me explain one scenario. 75% of the miners change the consensus rules and create a new bitcoin fork...

Just to add some data to the discussion, this is a current chart of miners by percentage of blocks they are mining in the bitcoin network.



Almost any combination of 3 of the top 5 miners (any combination that does not include BW and BCCC together) would constitute a majority of the hash power.

The total mining power of every group outside of the top 5 miners is 11%.
Pages:
Jump to: