Finally, Bitcoin Core = REKT - page 8.

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

Quote from: Lauda on January 30, 2016, 07:34:55 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on January 30, 2016, 07:26:28 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on January 30, 2016, 07:23:38 PM

1 - Blockstream took a bunch of VC money and will need to somehow turn a profit. The LN is their only "product" therefore LN must somehow generate revenue for blockstream

Lightning Network is a Joseph Poon invention. You're probably thinking of sidechains.

https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper-DRAFT-0.5.pdf

People seem to mix these two up. There's only 1 developer on the Blockstream payroll that is working on LN (as far as I know). Would the whole company put only a single developer on their "only product"? No. Another thing that people seem to forget is that they're free to develop LN themselves if they have the adequate skills to do so.

Oh, so what other products/services does blockstream offer? How else do then plan on generating revenue for themselves?

steeev

full member

Activity: 128

Merit: 103

classic's coinbase clunkers should implement their bloatcoin as a Bitcoin sidechain

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jE_elgnIw3M

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Quote from: bitlost on January 30, 2016, 08:00:23 PM

Quote from: MicroGuy on January 30, 2016, 07:43:56 PM

The conflicts of interest inside Bitcoin

consensus....ASAP!

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13728330

bitlost

member

Activity: 63

Merit: 10

Quote from: MicroGuy on January 30, 2016, 07:43:56 PM

The conflicts of interest inside Bitcoin core have reached near deadly levels. At one time core was free and independent, this is no longer true.

Taking a look around here, it's not very hard to see that most devs opposed to 2MB blocks are on Blockstream's payroll. Very sad and disgusting.

That should be and argument strong enough to drive the consensus towards the 2mb implementation ASAP!

MicroGuy

legendary

Activity: 2506

Merit: 1030

Twitter @realmicroguy

The conflicts of interest inside Bitcoin core have reached near deadly levels. At one time core was free and independent, this is no longer true.

Taking a look around here, it's not very hard to see that most devs opposed to 2MB blocks are on Blockstream's payroll. Very sad and disgusting.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on January 30, 2016, 07:26:28 PM

Quote from: Quickseller on January 30, 2016, 07:23:38 PM

1 - Blockstream took a bunch of VC money and will need to somehow turn a profit. The LN is their only "product" therefore LN must somehow generate revenue for blockstream

Lightning Network is a Joseph Poon invention. You're probably thinking of sidechains.

https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper-DRAFT-0.5.pdf

People seem to mix these two up. There's only 1 developer on the Blockstream payroll that is working on LN (as far as I know). Would the whole company put only a single developer on their "only product"? No. Another thing that people seem to forget is that they're free to develop LN themselves if they have the adequate skills to do so.

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Quote from: Quickseller on January 30, 2016, 07:23:38 PM

Quote from: Lauda on January 29, 2016, 03:56:32 PM

... The Lightning Network is going to be part of Bitcoin and it is free to use.

I am not sure how you think this would ever be possible.

1 - Blockstream took a bunch of VC money and will need to somehow turn a profit. The LN is their only "product" therefore LN must somehow generate revenue for blockstream

2 - Even if the above were untrue, there must be some mechanism to keep track of who is owed how much in the LN and whoever keeps track of this is not going to do this for free (in Bitcoin the miners do this via confirming transactions and extending the blockchain, and in return they get the block subsidy plus the tx fees)

Lightning Network is a Joseph Poon invention. You're probably thinking of sidechains.

https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper-DRAFT-0.5.pdf

Quickseller

copper member

Activity: 2996

Merit: 2374

Quote from: Lauda on January 29, 2016, 03:56:32 PM

... The Lightning Network is going to be part of Bitcoin and it is free to use.

I am not sure how you think this would ever be possible.

1 - Blockstream took a bunch of VC money and will need to somehow turn a profit. The LN is their only "product" therefore LN must somehow generate revenue for blockstream

2 - Even if the above were untrue, there must be some mechanism to keep track of who is owed how much in the LN and whoever keeps track of this is not going to do this for free (in Bitcoin the miners do this via confirming transactions and extending the blockchain, and in return they get the block subsidy plus the tx fees)

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on January 30, 2016, 07:06:28 PM

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/43fadt/peter_todd_segwit_is_not_safe_to_deploy_as_a_soft/
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-January/012301.html

I didn't follow it...

No. What you wrote is misleading and it is probably because you haven't looked into it yourself. He made a proposal on how to reduce the risk of deployment via the soft fork (regarding old nodes being unable to verify new data). I haven't followed up on the next posts on the list, but it seems like a good proposal that should shut some people up (that have been complaining about this like it was going to kill the whole system).

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Quote from: Lauda on January 30, 2016, 06:56:03 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on January 30, 2016, 06:14:53 PM

Peter Todd recently said it should probably be a hard fork. Did you follow that?

I didn't. Where?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/43fadt/peter_todd_segwit_is_not_safe_to_deploy_as_a_soft/
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-January/012301.html

I didn't follow it...

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on January 30, 2016, 06:14:53 PM

Peter Todd recently said it should probably be a hard fork. Did you follow that?

I didn't. Where?

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 30, 2016, 06:26:48 PM

3. We don't agree to anything but our own roadmap.

Only a minority disagrees with it. Another group is obsessed with Core and Blockstream and the third group is just weird.

Quote from: bitlost on January 30, 2016, 06:28:21 PM

It's almost impossible to reach 100 consensus
it makes more sense to think about "majority" instead of "everyone"

no?

100% is realistically impossible. 90-95% is possible and we should not even try anything under this number.

bitlost

member

Activity: 63

Merit: 10

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 30, 2016, 06:26:48 PM

Core's view of how Bitcoin should be governed:

1. All changes should be with conensus

2. Consensus means everyone agrees.

3. We don't agree to anything but our own roadmap

4. Therefore, anything but our way isn't consensus and can't happen.

5. Hard forks threaten consensus too, so no hard forking unless
we say so and no doing anything unless Gregory says its ok.

It's almost impossible to reach 100 consensus

it makes more sense to think about "majority" instead of "everyone"

no?

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Core's view of how Bitcoin should be governed:

1. All changes should be with consensus

2. Consensus means everyone agrees.

3. We don't agree to anything but our own roadmap.

4. Therefore, anything but our way isn't consensus and can't happen.

5. Hard forks threaten consensus too, so no hard forking unless
we say so and no doing anything unless Gregory says its ok.

BlindMayorBitcorn

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1116

Quote from: Lauda on January 30, 2016, 06:13:43 PM

Quote from: coins101 on January 30, 2016, 06:12:44 PM

I'm reasonably sure segwit will end up needing a hard fork. How do you deal with nodes that fail to update? There will be differences in the data between full nodes. There is too much risk at the moment with the soft fork without more testing.

It won't. Nodes that do not update will not be able to validate the data, that's about it IIRC.

Peter Todd recently said it should probably be a hard fork. Did you follow that?

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: coins101 on January 30, 2016, 06:12:44 PM

I'm reasonably sure segwit will end up needing a hard fork. How do you deal with nodes that fail to update? There will be differences in the data between full nodes. There is too much risk at the moment with the soft fork without more testing.

It won't. Nodes that do not update will not be able to validate the data, that's about it IIRC.

coins101

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Lauda on January 30, 2016, 05:25:53 PM

Quote from: coins101 on January 30, 2016, 05:00:23 PM

75% is often seen as a majority vote. If you are in the 25%, would you not consider it a fair vote and your view is in the minoirty? In any event, the level to be reached to achieve consensus is evidently the first thing that needs consensus.

I would not because Bitcoin is not a democracy.

Quote from: coins101 on January 30, 2016, 05:00:23 PM

Who knows what will happen, but as long as Bitcoin remains internet money, it will continue to evolve. Who knows, creating more capacity to expand its attractiveness may bring even more people into the development community.

Segwit offers an increase in capacity as well. Nothing special about the fork and 2 MB blocks. I do wonder what is going to happen though.

I'm reasonably sure segwit will end up needing a hard fork. How do you deal with nodes that fail to update? There will be differences in the data between full nodes. There is too much risk at the moment with the soft fork without more testing. It sounds feasible to soft fork, but....there is always a but.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: coins101 on January 30, 2016, 05:00:23 PM

75% is often seen as a majority vote. If you are in the 25%, would you not consider it a fair vote and your view is in the minoirty? In any event, the level to be reached to achieve consensus is evidently the first thing that needs consensus.

I would not because Bitcoin is not a democracy.

Quote from: coins101 on January 30, 2016, 05:00:23 PM

Who knows what will happen, but as long as Bitcoin remains internet money, it will continue to evolve. Who knows, creating more capacity to expand its attractiveness may bring even more people into the development community.

Segwit offers an increase in capacity as well. Nothing special about the fork and 2 MB blocks. I do wonder what is going to happen though.

siameze

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1000

Gavin has been unsucessful in trying to fracture Bitcoin and increase the blocksize already. What makes this approach any different besides magically changing a number ?

coins101

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Lauda on January 30, 2016, 04:54:30 PM

Quote from: coins101 on January 30, 2016, 04:42:58 PM

If you take emotion out of this, the version that reaches consensus first, reaches consensus for everyone. This happens every 10 minutes already. Joining the consensus opionion is part of the protocol.

Scenario: 75% miners adopt hard fork and it happens, 25% disagree. How can they reach consensus for "everyone"? This does not make sense.

Quote from: coins101 on January 30, 2016, 04:42:58 PM

On paper, why sould anyone leave? This is how bitcoin is supposed to work.

A lot of people will leave. However, maybe more would join. Who can know exactly what is going to happen?

75% is often seen as a majority vote. If you are in the 25%, would you not consider it a fair vote and your view is in the minoirty? In any event, the level to be reached to achieve consensus is evidently the first thing that needs consensus.

Who knows what will happen, but as long as Bitcoin remains internet money, it will continue to evolve. Who knows, creating more capacity to expand its attractiveness may bring even more people into the development community.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: coins101 on January 30, 2016, 04:42:58 PM

If you take emotion out of this, the version that reaches consensus first, reaches consensus for everyone. This happens every 10 minutes already. Joining the consensus opionion is part of the protocol.

Scenario: 75% miners adopt hard fork and it happens, 25% disagree. How can they reach consensus for "everyone"? This does not make sense.

Quote from: coins101 on January 30, 2016, 04:42:58 PM

On paper, why sould anyone leave? This is how bitcoin is supposed to work.

A lot of people will leave. However, maybe more would join. Who can know exactly what is going to happen?

Topic: Finally, Bitcoin Core = REKT - page 8. (Read 7754 times)