"The code is the spec."
This is the source of the problem. It was a shortcut, but one that has costs long term.
Justus is right about that.
Until the code is frozen/deprecated and we have an functional spec, we will have this quandry.
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 296. (Read 2032266 times)
looks like Power hungry protectionism has been going on for a while, below is a link to an announcement of a new Bitcoin client and development gets discouraged quickly by a few core Devs in particular.
links below
this has been going on for a while
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-announcing-code-availability-of-the-bitsofproof-supernode-122013
I singled out the first posts by 2 core Devs. to get a taste for there personality in the wild - early days when everyone was working nicely. (note if you read it, many other devs. are quite encouraging.)
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-announcing-code-availability-of-the-bitsofproof-supernode-122013.msg1331489#msg1331489
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-announcing-code-availability-of-the-bitsofproof-supernode-122013.msg1389749#msg1389749
links below
this has been going on for a while
You've actually hit on a separate, but related issue.
There is a subset of toxic people and petty tyrants among the core developers who believe that what they do defines Bitcoin and wish to be the eternal gatekeepers of what is and is not allowed. They can't actually earn that position by virtue of being superior software engineers, so they keep it by resorting to FUD and other underhanded tactics any time some other developers try to get involved.
There's an extremely long list of people who would have tried to step up and participate, but have been effectively shut out by that cartel.
Bitcoin will be in a much stronger and more secure position once Bitcoin Core is deprecated, or is at least relegated to a minority position on the network. Part of the reason will be that the consensus will be derived from software implementations with a better design and higher code quality, and part of the reason will be because of limiting the effect of toxic developers so that more people will be willing to contribute.
PS: I still haven't forgotten that you never bothered to justify your "less decentralized" claim about colored coins.
Justus then posts a link to this thread,There is a subset of toxic people and petty tyrants among the core developers who believe that what they do defines Bitcoin and wish to be the eternal gatekeepers of what is and is not allowed. They can't actually earn that position by virtue of being superior software engineers, so they keep it by resorting to FUD and other underhanded tactics any time some other developers try to get involved.
There's an extremely long list of people who would have tried to step up and participate, but have been effectively shut out by that cartel.
Bitcoin will be in a much stronger and more secure position once Bitcoin Core is deprecated, or is at least relegated to a minority position on the network. Part of the reason will be that the consensus will be derived from software implementations with a better design and higher code quality, and part of the reason will be because of limiting the effect of toxic developers so that more people will be willing to contribute.
PS: I still haven't forgotten that you never bothered to justify your "less decentralized" claim about colored coins.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-announcing-code-availability-of-the-bitsofproof-supernode-122013
I singled out the first posts by 2 core Devs. to get a taste for there personality in the wild - early days when everyone was working nicely. (note if you read it, many other devs. are quite encouraging.)
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-announcing-code-availability-of-the-bitsofproof-supernode-122013.msg1331489#msg1331489
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-announcing-code-availability-of-the-bitsofproof-supernode-122013.msg1389749#msg1389749
Would you be able to expand on this?
Essentially, what characteristic is it that you are able to identify to determine if some humans are not influenced by money, and where do you see this?
Essentially, what characteristic is it that you are able to identify to determine if some humans are not influenced by money, and where do you see this?
I was just remarking offhandedly that I seem to have an unusual ability to read people, though it's only in *some* ways and in some quite limited types of situations.
I don't think they are bad people or have any ill will.
In my experience, over time, people tend to do what they are paid to do.
I agree that their loyalty is to Bitcoin, however I do see this as a conflict of interest.
The block size debate is one of the pain points where these interest are not aligned at all. I think that they want to do the right thing, both for themselves and for Bitcoin.
If Bitcoin fails, Blockstream also has problems, but if there are small blocks, there is a greater need for Blockstream's side chains to ease that problem.
It would be a somewhat more serious conflict of interest if say Western Union were the VC funding for Blockstream or something like that. So it is not a "major" problem, but it is a problem.
do you see his handling of the PressCenter.org situation as being reasonable or were you not around at that time to know?
I got into Bitcoin in mid-2012. Looks like it was before my time, unless I missed something.
well, no. it occurred April 2013.
since you said you've been reading all about Greg and the other devs to get a better understanding of them, you should add this to your reading list. it's a big part of the story to understanding:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1973084
have you ever heard Andreas or Trace Mayer get so mad? such language!
and then this gem of an interaction in which i participated:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162
note how gmax and Luke pull the same perverted "consensus" argument out of there pocket in a political battle where they, as a minority of 5(?) devs argued their wishes should hold sway over just about the entire community's? for color, Andreas got so mad, he coded up the alternative press center that exists today in fine fashion. gmax just yesterday, fails to learn and takes a cheap shot by saying his failed exclusion of Ver back then was "vindicated" by the Ripple action just a couple months ago. which totally ignores the well functioning, long lasting site Andreas was forced to code up that still includes Ver to this day.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/crqakk9
Note: While the following is all highly speculative as it must be, and though I'm wont to talk about people rather than actual issues, this case seems to warrant it.
I've been looking into Greg Maxwell quite a bit recently. All the core devs actually (except Wladimir), and the blockstream people. Greg seems a sincere and extremely intelligent fellow with the right kind of bent for the job. The way he knocked the wind out of Stellar's sails on Hacker News was quite something, just as one example.
However, I do sense that he and Gavin have a bit of an oil-and-water dynamic going on. I have never seen them debate directly, though that could be because he was busy recently and "caught a bit flat-footed" on Gavin's proposal, as he said. Seems like classic nerd/jock or cat/dog dynamic (I realize Gavin's also a nerd) with weird passive-aggressive miscommunications aplenty. The thing where Gavin said he spent an afternoon reviewing Greg's idea only to not have it acknowledged reminded me of that especially. Still need both sides of the story, and Gavin has his own subtle ways of being bitchy at times if you read between the lines so I won't draw conclusions.
It's most interesting to me, though, that Gavin and Greg have both proposed a series of 50% increases, yet these two seem as you said the main sticking point for this debate. Pieter seems not very entrenched, and Matt I suspect would go along with Greg and Pieter. Luke I'm not sure but on a hunch I'd say he would go wherever the action is dev-wise, despite his principled stances and eccentricities. He's not Mircea Popescu. Adam overall seems eminently reasonable and would probably not do anything disappointing, but that's just my cursory read.
Perhaps it's time to work some social magic to have Greg relax his position a bit. Since I've been reading almost all his posts, I've noticed he gives little glimmers of sunshine at times. He's not an unreasonable person, and despite his hardline stance I can tell he wants more than anything for Bitcoin to succeed. I could swear he gets less accommodative when Gavin's in the thread, though. The rays of sunshine seem to be buried deep in the comments when he's talking to someone else in a thread where Gavin is absent. Maybe just my imagination.
There are issues among such a group of people that we probably can't hope to understand. The politics, the interpersonal clashes, the miscommunications, the lingering grudges tinting things. Again, I think your implication may be right, this may be more a social issue than a technical one.
I've been looking into Greg Maxwell quite a bit recently. All the core devs actually (except Wladimir), and the blockstream people. Greg seems a sincere and extremely intelligent fellow with the right kind of bent for the job. The way he knocked the wind out of Stellar's sails on Hacker News was quite something, just as one example.
However, I do sense that he and Gavin have a bit of an oil-and-water dynamic going on. I have never seen them debate directly, though that could be because he was busy recently and "caught a bit flat-footed" on Gavin's proposal, as he said. Seems like classic nerd/jock or cat/dog dynamic (I realize Gavin's also a nerd) with weird passive-aggressive miscommunications aplenty. The thing where Gavin said he spent an afternoon reviewing Greg's idea only to not have it acknowledged reminded me of that especially. Still need both sides of the story, and Gavin has his own subtle ways of being bitchy at times if you read between the lines so I won't draw conclusions.
It's most interesting to me, though, that Gavin and Greg have both proposed a series of 50% increases, yet these two seem as you said the main sticking point for this debate. Pieter seems not very entrenched, and Matt I suspect would go along with Greg and Pieter. Luke I'm not sure but on a hunch I'd say he would go wherever the action is dev-wise, despite his principled stances and eccentricities. He's not Mircea Popescu. Adam overall seems eminently reasonable and would probably not do anything disappointing, but that's just my cursory read.
Perhaps it's time to work some social magic to have Greg relax his position a bit. Since I've been reading almost all his posts, I've noticed he gives little glimmers of sunshine at times. He's not an unreasonable person, and despite his hardline stance I can tell he wants more than anything for Bitcoin to succeed. I could swear he gets less accommodative when Gavin's in the thread, though. The rays of sunshine seem to be buried deep in the comments when he's talking to someone else in a thread where Gavin is absent. Maybe just my imagination.
There are issues among such a group of people that we probably can't hope to understand. The politics, the interpersonal clashes, the miscommunications, the lingering grudges tinting things. Again, I think your implication may be right, this may be more a social issue than a technical one.
Thanks for the insights, but I keep going back to who the f cares about these guys.
This is not the Federal Reserve, the devs are not board members where we need a certain # of votes from them. Or just because a majority of them say something, that that is law.
Bitcoin is about the user base, that is why I like Gavin's proposal to offer XT and put the vote to the marketplace. This is how ALL forks should be done IMHO. Make an alternative core and force those that want the force to gain majority on the new core.
Fundamentally by proposing this I think Gavin is doing an excellent job of adhering to Satoshi's vision.
BTW, from the voting on reddit today, the pro 20MB crowd seems to be winning.
i think the problem is that they've identified the wrong fundamental unit in the system. as geeks, they identify with the full node as that unit.
otoh, the economic majority identifies the user as that fundamental unit, which i think is correct. Metcalfe's Law will work off the user who needs cheap, reliable tx's to be onboarded.
and the full node and user are not mutually exclusive. increasing users will result in increasing nodes.
edit: if you listen to Gavin & Peter's debate on LTB yesterday, the node is all that Peter ever talks about.
otoh, the economic majority identifies the user as that fundamental unit, which i think is correct. Metcalfe's Law will work off the user who needs cheap, reliable tx's to be onboarded.
and the full node and user are not mutually exclusive. increasing users will result in increasing nodes.
edit: if you listen to Gavin & Peter's debate on LTB yesterday, the node is all that Peter ever talks about.
Bingo, Satoshi's invention and the core of Bitcoin is the distributed security mechanism. It is the essense of what Bitcoin is and how Bitcoin remains free of external influence. I still fail to see how this distributed security mechanism is in any way effected by an increase from 1 to 20MB blocks. Every single pool could easily handle the change and individual miners are completely unaffected.
But the dev's are focused on node number. It shows a lack of understanding the economics behind Bitcoin that Satoshi invented. Several of the core devs are now publicly saying on Reddit that Satoshi was wrong in his blocksize statements and centralization statements. This is glaring and shows just how little they understand.
Just because some programmer latched onto Bitcoin while it was a small pet project and took their free time to contribute to it, does not somehow certify that person as a superior expert, but that is exactly how they are behaving.
Personally all of this has made me believe more that Bitcoin would benefit from being under the MIT wing. It is a wing I know and trust.
do you see his handling of the PressCenter.org situation as being reasonable or were you not around at that time to know?
I got into Bitcoin in mid-2012. Looks like it was before my time, unless I missed something.
Would you be able to expand on this?
Essentially, what characteristic is it that you are able to identify to determine if some humans are not influenced by money, and where do you see this?
Essentially, what characteristic is it that you are able to identify to determine if some humans are not influenced by money, and where do you see this?
I was just remarking offhandedly that I seem to have an unusual ability to read people, though it's only in *some* ways and in some quite limited types of situations.
Note: While the following is all highly speculative as it must be, and though I'm wont to talk about people rather than actual issues, this case seems to warrant it.
I've been looking into Greg Maxwell quite a bit recently. All the core devs actually (except Wladimir), and the blockstream people. Greg seems a sincere and extremely intelligent fellow with the right kind of bent for the job. The way he knocked the wind out of Stellar's sails on Hacker News was quite something, just as one example.
However, I do sense that he and Gavin have a bit of an oil-and-water dynamic going on. I have never seen them debate directly, though that could be because he was busy recently and "caught a bit flat-footed" on Gavin's proposal, as he said. Seems like classic nerd/jock or cat/dog dynamic (I realize Gavin's also a nerd) with weird passive-aggressive miscommunications aplenty. The thing where Gavin said he spent an afternoon reviewing Greg's idea only to not have it acknowledged reminded me of that especially. Still need both sides of the story, and Gavin has his own subtle ways of being bitchy at times if you read between the lines so I won't draw conclusions.
It's most interesting to me, though, that Gavin and Greg have both proposed a series of 50% increases, yet these two seem as you said the main sticking point for this debate. Pieter seems not very entrenched, and Matt I suspect would go along with Greg and Pieter. Luke I'm not sure but on a hunch I'd say he would go wherever the action is dev-wise, despite his principled stances and eccentricities. He's not Mircea Popescu. Adam overall seems eminently reasonable and would probably not do anything disappointing, but that's just my cursory read.
Perhaps it's time to work some social magic to have Greg relax his position a bit. Since I've been reading almost all his posts, I've noticed he gives little glimmers of sunshine at times. He's not an unreasonable person, and despite his hardline stance I can tell he wants more than anything for Bitcoin to succeed. I could swear he gets less accommodative when Gavin's in the thread, though. The rays of sunshine seem to be buried deep in the comments when he's talking to someone else in a thread where Gavin is absent. Maybe just my imagination.
There are issues among such a group of people that we probably can't hope to understand. The politics, the interpersonal clashes, the miscommunications, the lingering grudges tinting things. Again, I think your implication may be right, this may be more a social issue than a technical one.
I've been looking into Greg Maxwell quite a bit recently. All the core devs actually (except Wladimir), and the blockstream people. Greg seems a sincere and extremely intelligent fellow with the right kind of bent for the job. The way he knocked the wind out of Stellar's sails on Hacker News was quite something, just as one example.
However, I do sense that he and Gavin have a bit of an oil-and-water dynamic going on. I have never seen them debate directly, though that could be because he was busy recently and "caught a bit flat-footed" on Gavin's proposal, as he said. Seems like classic nerd/jock or cat/dog dynamic (I realize Gavin's also a nerd) with weird passive-aggressive miscommunications aplenty. The thing where Gavin said he spent an afternoon reviewing Greg's idea only to not have it acknowledged reminded me of that especially. Still need both sides of the story, and Gavin has his own subtle ways of being bitchy at times if you read between the lines so I won't draw conclusions.
It's most interesting to me, though, that Gavin and Greg have both proposed a series of 50% increases, yet these two seem as you said the main sticking point for this debate. Pieter seems not very entrenched, and Matt I suspect would go along with Greg and Pieter. Luke I'm not sure but on a hunch I'd say he would go wherever the action is dev-wise, despite his principled stances and eccentricities. He's not Mircea Popescu. Adam overall seems eminently reasonable and would probably not do anything disappointing, but that's just my cursory read.
Perhaps it's time to work some social magic to have Greg relax his position a bit. Since I've been reading almost all his posts, I've noticed he gives little glimmers of sunshine at times. He's not an unreasonable person, and despite his hardline stance I can tell he wants more than anything for Bitcoin to succeed. I could swear he gets less accommodative when Gavin's in the thread, though. The rays of sunshine seem to be buried deep in the comments when he's talking to someone else in a thread where Gavin is absent. Maybe just my imagination.
There are issues among such a group of people that we probably can't hope to understand. The politics, the interpersonal clashes, the miscommunications, the lingering grudges tinting things. Again, I think your implication may be right, this may be more a social issue than a technical one.
do you see his handling of the PressCenter.org situation as being reasonable or were you not around at that time to know?
I think this is pretty decent good-faith attempt at mitigating financial influence, even though it's impossible to do that completely:
Personally I don't think either Adam or Greg are being influenced by the Blockstream entanglement yet, but in the future it is a danger. I think they simply formed Blockstream because of their scaling concerns, not the other way around - as their prior records show. I have a pretty good shill detector, and it was going crazy when I first heard about Open Coin / Ripple Labs
Quote from: Adam Back in http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/crqdnoo
We tried to do a number of things to backup the "cant be evil" mantra. That's why /u/pwuille and /u/nullc have contract clauses allowing them to resign if they view blockstream is doing something they disapprove of in connection with bitcoins interests and ethos and have blockstream pay their salary for a year to work on bitcoin (independently or under some foundation as they prefer).
Personally I don't think either Adam or Greg are being influenced by the Blockstream entanglement yet, but in the future it is a danger. I think they simply formed Blockstream because of their scaling concerns, not the other way around - as their prior records show. I have a pretty good shill detector, and it was going crazy when I first heard about Open Coin / Ripple Labs
Would you be able to expand on this?
Essentially, what characteristic is it that you are able to identify to determine if some humans are not influenced by money, and where do you see this?
Or are you simply saying that the conflict of interests is not sufficiently large to matter to you, not that it doesn't exist?
Reddit. i'm not the only one frustrated. notice how this discussion has been going on since 2010:
from awemany via /r/Bitcoin/ sent 10 minutes ago
show parent
Relevant: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.23049
From frigging 2010, nonetheless.
context full comments (443)reportmark unreadreply
from awemany via /r/Bitcoin/ sent 10 minutes ago
show parent
Relevant: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.23049
From frigging 2010, nonetheless.
context full comments (443)reportmark unreadreply
I think this is pretty decent good-faith attempt at mitigating financial influence, even though it's impossible to do that completely:
Very interesting point. My criticism is that they see humans as robots, not adapting, trying to solve everything through a code lens. Perhaps this is just an extension of that same logic.
i think the problem is that they've identified the wrong fundamental unit in the system. as geeks, they identify with the full node as that unit.
otoh, the economic majority identifies the user as that fundamental unit, which i think is correct. Metcalfe's Law will work off the user who needs cheap, reliable tx's to be onboarded.
and the full node and user are not mutually exclusive. increasing users will result in increasing nodes.
edit: if you listen to Gavin & Peter's debate on LTB yesterday, the node is all that Peter ever talks about.
otoh, the economic majority identifies the user as that fundamental unit, which i think is correct. Metcalfe's Law will work off the user who needs cheap, reliable tx's to be onboarded.
and the full node and user are not mutually exclusive. increasing users will result in increasing nodes.
edit: if you listen to Gavin & Peter's debate on LTB yesterday, the node is all that Peter ever talks about.
Very interesting point. My criticism is that they see humans as robots, not adapting, trying to solve everything through a code lens. Perhaps this is just an extension of that same logic.
i think the problem is that they've identified the wrong fundamental unit in the system. as geeks, they identify with the full node as that unit.
otoh, the economic majority identifies the user as that fundamental unit, which i think is correct. Metcalfe's Law will work off the user who needs cheap, reliable tx's to be onboarded.
and the full node and user are not mutually exclusive. increasing users will result in increasing nodes.
edit: if you listen to Gavin & Peter's debate on LTB yesterday, the node is all that Peter ever talks about.
otoh, the economic majority identifies the user as that fundamental unit, which i think is correct. Metcalfe's Law will work off the user who needs cheap, reliable tx's to be onboarded.
and the full node and user are not mutually exclusive. increasing users will result in increasing nodes.
edit: if you listen to Gavin & Peter's debate on LTB yesterday, the node is all that Peter ever talks about.
I've been looking into Greg Maxwell quite a bit recently. All the core devs actually (except Wladimir), and the blockstream people. Greg seems a sincere and extremely intelligent fellow with the right kind of bent for the job. The way he knocked the wind out of Stellar's sails on Hacker News was quite something, just as one example.
...
...
My sense after observing things for a while here is that Greg is actually a fairly patient person except in instance when the other person really ought to be doing better. I think that in addition to having significant inherent differences about the role of Bitcoin he has also lost patience with Gavin who is, by his own admission, not the brightest bulb.
On top of that, everyone who is anyone should be mortified at Gavin's slavish devotion to Hearn and the Bitcoin Foundation crowd who can be counted on for atrociously bad ideas by the standards of most early adopters. I'm sure that this is a contributing factor to Greg's loss of patience. This unbelievable scenario should make almost everyone 'run, not walk' away from Gavin, and I suspect that it was a major factor for Blockstream getting some wind in it's sails.
Note: While the following is all highly speculative as it must be, and though I'm wont to talk about people rather than actual issues, this case seems to warrant it.
I've been looking into Greg Maxwell quite a bit recently. All the core devs actually (except Wladimir), and the blockstream people. Greg seems a sincere and extremely intelligent fellow with the right kind of bent for the job. The way he knocked the wind out of Stellar's sails on Hacker News was quite something, just as one example.
However, I do sense that he and Gavin have a bit of an oil-and-water dynamic going on. I have never seen them debate directly, though that could be because he was busy recently and "caught a bit flat-footed" on Gavin's proposal, as he said. Seems like classic nerd/jock or cat/dog dynamic (I realize Gavin's also a nerd) with weird passive-aggressive miscommunications aplenty. The thing where Gavin said he spent an afternoon reviewing Greg's idea only to not have it acknowledged reminded me of that especially. Still need both sides of the story, and Gavin has his own subtle ways of being bitchy at times if you read between the lines so I won't draw conclusions.
It's most interesting to me, though, that Gavin and Greg have both proposed a series of 50% increases, yet these two seem as you said the main sticking point for this debate. Pieter seems not very entrenched, and Matt I suspect would go along with Greg and Pieter. Luke I'm not sure but on a hunch I'd say he would go wherever the action is dev-wise, despite his principled stances and eccentricities. He's not Mircea Popescu. Adam overall seems eminently reasonable and would probably not do anything disappointing, but that's just my cursory read.
Perhaps it's time to work some social magic to have Greg relax his position a bit. Since I've been reading almost all his posts, I've noticed he gives little glimmers of sunshine at times. He's not an unreasonable person, and despite his hardline stance I can tell he wants more than anything for Bitcoin to succeed. I could swear he gets less accommodative when Gavin's in the thread, though. The rays of sunshine seem to be buried deep in the comments when he's talking to someone else in a thread where Gavin is absent. Maybe just my imagination.
There are issues among such a group of people that we probably can't hope to understand. The politics, the interpersonal clashes, the miscommunications, the lingering grudges tinting things. Again, I think your implication may be right, this may be more a social issue than a technical one.
I've been looking into Greg Maxwell quite a bit recently. All the core devs actually (except Wladimir), and the blockstream people. Greg seems a sincere and extremely intelligent fellow with the right kind of bent for the job. The way he knocked the wind out of Stellar's sails on Hacker News was quite something, just as one example.
However, I do sense that he and Gavin have a bit of an oil-and-water dynamic going on. I have never seen them debate directly, though that could be because he was busy recently and "caught a bit flat-footed" on Gavin's proposal, as he said. Seems like classic nerd/jock or cat/dog dynamic (I realize Gavin's also a nerd) with weird passive-aggressive miscommunications aplenty. The thing where Gavin said he spent an afternoon reviewing Greg's idea only to not have it acknowledged reminded me of that especially. Still need both sides of the story, and Gavin has his own subtle ways of being bitchy at times if you read between the lines so I won't draw conclusions.
It's most interesting to me, though, that Gavin and Greg have both proposed a series of 50% increases, yet these two seem as you said the main sticking point for this debate. Pieter seems not very entrenched, and Matt I suspect would go along with Greg and Pieter. Luke I'm not sure but on a hunch I'd say he would go wherever the action is dev-wise, despite his principled stances and eccentricities. He's not Mircea Popescu. Adam overall seems eminently reasonable and would probably not do anything disappointing, but that's just my cursory read.
Perhaps it's time to work some social magic to have Greg relax his position a bit. Since I've been reading almost all his posts, I've noticed he gives little glimmers of sunshine at times. He's not an unreasonable person, and despite his hardline stance I can tell he wants more than anything for Bitcoin to succeed. I could swear he gets less accommodative when Gavin's in the thread, though. The rays of sunshine seem to be buried deep in the comments when he's talking to someone else in a thread where Gavin is absent. Maybe just my imagination.
There are issues among such a group of people that we probably can't hope to understand. The politics, the interpersonal clashes, the miscommunications, the lingering grudges tinting things. Again, I think your implication may be right, this may be more a social issue than a technical one.
hey iCE,
did u see ZB's link above; which i can't verify, btw:
/u/nullc is already backpedaling. and you know what happens next?
did u see ZB's link above; which i can't verify, btw:
if there is a standing backlog, we-the-community of users look to indicators to gauge if the network is losing decentralization and then double the hard limit with proper controls to allow smooth adjustment without fees going to zero (see the past proposals for automatic block size controls that let miners increase up to a hard maximum over the median if they mine at quadratically harder difficulty), and we don't increase if it appears it would be at a substantial increase in centralization risk.
/u/nullc is already backpedaling. and you know what happens next?
Here's the correct link from a month ago. I think you've read it before, though: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34090559/
ZB, you seem to be a good judge of human psychology.
I invite you to read a postscript to the link above,
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37xxmj/gavin_is_being_too_divisive_core_devs_need_to/crqqmzs
Note, particularly where Gregory claims Gavin won't engage on his proposal, and Gavin's actual response on the mailing list, and how he has been trying to engage since:
Gregory:
Quote
both UTXO in the control loop and the dynamic percentile limit and mining cost to increase were things I previously proposed on Bitcointalk. Gavin is completely and aggressively opposed to these things and has immediately shut down any discussion on them
Gavin:
Quote
Ignored them?
I spent an afternoon working up a spreadsheet to get a feel for how your quadratic adjustment algorithm would actually work.
I asked, specifically, for you to dig down into the idea of a hard cap, and got no response.
My last two or three emails to you have got no response (I understand you're busy, I sympathize, I know startups are hard)
The crux of the whole 1MB debate is that if these two people agreed a solution then it would fly and the 1MB problem would be put to bed.
However, it seems to me that Gregory does not want to work with Gavin on any solution, even if it is his own solution.
And I think this comment further in the thread is most insightful
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37xxmj/gavin_is_being_too_divisive_core_devs_need_to/crqy4vi
Your thoughts?
hey iCE,
did u see ZB's link above; which i can't verify, btw:
/u/nullc is already backpedaling. and you know what happens next?
did u see ZB's link above; which i can't verify, btw:
if there is a standing backlog, we-the-community of users look to indicators to gauge if the network is losing decentralization and then double the hard limit with proper controls to allow smooth adjustment without fees going to zero (see the past proposals for automatic block size controls that let miners increase up to a hard maximum over the median if they mine at quadratically harder difficulty), and we don't increase if it appears it would be at a substantial increase in centralization risk.
/u/nullc is already backpedaling. and you know what happens next?
Here's the correct link from a month ago. I think you've read it before, though: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34090559/
...
Smooth self-adjustment with properly aligned incentives, as opposed to sudden random jumps, is the preference of the non-Gavin core dev consensus.
Smooth self-adjustment with properly aligned incentives, as opposed to sudden random jumps, is the preference of the non-Gavin core dev consensus.
The 20x jump seems like a lot, but it actually would not completely destroy Bitcoin. Nor would it do jack-shit toward the starry-eyed dreams of a one-world currency by the mouth breathing newbs (and cypherdoc.) What the 20mb thing is is mostly a cover for the real meat which is exponential growth. That locks in the seeds of destruction and the 20mb mostly just acts as a valve to make sure there is no possibility to back out of the trap.
I don't know what happens next, and neither do you. Monero aside, a bloody civil war might set us back a bit.
Sure it will set us back in some ways, but it could be a golden (and only) opportunity to move forward on some really important fronts as well, and get beyond some obvious flaws in the early implementation of Bitcoin. I'm not holding my breath for this but it would be nice if it happened. As a guy who planned on sitting on most of my stash for many years in most circumstances, took one major pay-day already, and didn't put all my eggs in the Bitcoin basket anyway, a setback in price is not really that scary. Also, of course, with chaos comes opportunity.
actually, it's great to hear both of you guys backpedaling along with your hero-conflicted /u/nullc. i actually would look forward to adopting XT and leaving all you behind to wallow in stunt-coin confined here in the states. it would be a match made in heaven.
...
Smooth self-adjustment with properly aligned incentives, as opposed to sudden random jumps, is the preference of the non-Gavin core dev consensus.
Smooth self-adjustment with properly aligned incentives, as opposed to sudden random jumps, is the preference of the non-Gavin core dev consensus.
The 20x jump seems like a lot, but it actually would not completely destroy Bitcoin. Nor would it do jack-shit toward the starry-eyed dreams of a one-world currency by the mouth breathing newbs (and cypherdoc.) What the 20mb thing is is mostly a cover for the real meat which is exponential growth. That locks in the seeds of destruction and the 20mb mostly just acts as a valve to make sure there is no possibility to back out of the trap.
I don't know what happens next, and neither do you. Monero aside, a bloody civil war might set us back a bit.
Sure it will set us back in some ways, but it could be a golden (and only) opportunity to move forward on some really important fronts as well, and get beyond some obvious flaws in the early implementation of Bitcoin. I'm not holding my breath for this but it would be nice if it happened. As a guy who planned on sitting on most of my stash for many years in most circumstances, took one major pay-day already, and didn't put all my eggs in the Bitcoin basket anyway, a setback in price is not really that scary. Also, of course, with chaos comes opportunity.
hey iCE,
did u see ZB's link above; which i can't verify, btw:
/u/nullc is already backpedaling. and you know what happens next?
did u see ZB's link above; which i can't verify, btw:
if there is a standing backlog, we-the-community of users look to indicators to gauge if the network is losing decentralization and then double the hard limit with proper controls to allow smooth adjustment without fees going to zero (see the past proposals for automatic block size controls that let miners increase up to a hard maximum over the median if they mine at quadratically harder difficulty), and we don't increase if it appears it would be at a substantial increase in centralization risk.
/u/nullc is already backpedaling. and you know what happens next?
Nobody (except MP) said "never ever increase the blocksize." The debate is over when/how.
The proposal is in line with what gmax and others have been saying all along, and isn't "backpedaling."
Is there a pill or treatment program available for people who can't calm down and stop exaggerating?
Smooth self-adjustment with properly aligned incentives, as opposed to sudden random jumps, is the preference of the non-Gavin core dev consensus.
I don't know what happens next, and neither do you. Monero aside, a bloody civil war might set us back a bit.
Jump to: