... 
Topic: How do we stop the division in the Bitcoin community? (Read 1130 times)
Just run a version of Bitcoin and do a lot of fake propaganda about it. This way you'll convince some people to do the same as you. Then the other community will regress and will finally disappear. Not sure if you would need to do something for this to happen ...
... 
Yes, I think it had some good effects on the developers. They are more open now, they are explaining and they try to fight to give their best. Most of them discuss in an appropriate way. And of course they consider the voices of the users. It's somewhat like politicians that want to be chosen, get the votes. It's a good thing I think.
I disagree, I would even say that it is not an indirect result of the 'division'. The community did complain several times at various places that there was a lack of communication and thus the developers have started working on that aspect. If anything, the division wasted everyone's time.Difference of opinion is not a division.
Imagine the following: We are looking at a black table. I tell you that it is black and you tell me that it is white. Is this a difference of opinion? I'd say that it isn't.The sticks in the mud need to be drowned out by the more reasonable guys.
The only ones that were ever rolling in the mud, were the 'fork' fanatics. This division might actually be good for bitcoins, it keeps developers on their toes to keep improving on past achievements.
No. 
This division might actually be good for bitcoins, it keeps developers on their toes to keep improving on past achievements.
Yes, I think it had some good effects on the developers. They are more open now, they are explaining and they try to fight to give their best. Most of them discuss in an appropriate way. And of course they consider the voices of the users. It's somewhat like politicians that want to be chosen, get the votes. It's a good thing I think.
Division in Bitcoin community you say? Hи шaгy нaзaд!!
There is nothing wrong with the submission of a opposing implementation to Bitcoin Core, because it is in the best interest of the technology to make suggestions and to develop new ideas to improve the technology.
I think the answer is here. People propose what they think it's best for the Bitcoin community and the community choses what works best and everyone merges under the same set of rules. After settling on a new set of rules, we have no division anymore.
I don't think it can be done. People have drawn lines in the sand and they're gonna stick to them no matter what the other guy does. The sticks in the mud need to be drowned out by the more reasonable guys.
As the old saying goes "money talks" what we do is make this thing a success and every one will be caught up in the fortune they make they wont care about devision.......lol 
This division might actually be good for bitcoins, it keeps developers on their toes to keep improving on past achievements.
not always. We can clearly see that as we have a second contentious fork attempt.
its only a contention when some blockstream fanboys do all they can to refuse to upgrade.. thats the whole meaning of the word contention.
bitcoin is suppose to be that all rules should be put into all implementations that way there is no control.
but if one power house veto's any logical upgrade then that makes blockstream the power grabber.. because they only want to do things one way..
the only way is to find a good compromise between the contenders, if they can come up with something with sub-consensus between their best intentions, then, they would settle an agreement, on that thing that they both see as a good for the future of bitcoin
Good point, but what will this be regarding the current situation? We have people who deliberately throttle down the block size to pave the road for side chains and then we have another group trying to do a power grab. These two groups are deeply divided at this moment and I cannot see how any of them will make any compromise. ^hmmmm^
We will always be divided because we have different views on what is beneficial for Bitcoin.
Not always. We can clearly see that as we have a second contentious fork attempt.The people on the one side {Core} seem to think that a smaller block size, combined with other side-chains will solve the problem of scalability and on the other side {Classic} you have the people, who wants to jump to bigger block sizes immediately to solve the scalability problem with one solution. Each of these sides have the same goal in mind, but with a different approach.
I don't think that Classic supporters believe that "bigger block sizes immediately to solve the scalability problem with one solution", because that is completely false. A block size increase is no solution of any sort, it is a kick of the can down the road and always will be.i am quite sure that once every 3 to 6 months there will be a new alternative popping up claiming to be the change we all have been waiting for. the only way we can support core is by continuing to run the core client, and nothing else.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Bitcoin Reloaded in a few months.
We will always be divided because we have different views on what is beneficial for Bitcoin. The people on the one side {Core} seem to think that a smaller block size, combined with other side-chains
will solve the problem of scalability and on the other side {Classic} you have the people, who wants to jump to bigger block sizes immediately to solve the scalability problem with one solution. Each of
these sides have the same goal in mind, but with a different approach. Time will tell what roadmap will be the best, but one thing is certain, and that is scalability in the short term.. will be addressed by
both implementation.
will solve the problem of scalability and on the other side {Classic} you have the people, who wants to jump to bigger block sizes immediately to solve the scalability problem with one solution. Each of
these sides have the same goal in mind, but with a different approach. Time will tell what roadmap will be the best, but one thing is certain, and that is scalability in the short term.. will be addressed by
both implementation.
altcoins are the division personified honestly, especially the non bitcoin fork coins like monero and nxt
the only way is to find a good compromise between the contenders, if they can come up with something with sub-consensus between their best intentions, then, they would settle an agreement, on that thing that they both see as a good for the future of bitcoin
the community can't return back to how it was before all this nonsense started. it has just started. prepare yourself for more splitting up of the community. i am quite sure that once every 3 to 6 months there will be a new alternative popping up claiming to be the change we all have been waiting for. the only way we can support core is by continuing to run the core client, and nothing else.
It's fully normal that, when people think that the persons that rule something does not act in their interest anymore, they start to act in a way that supports their interest.
I'm not sure if classic can do that though. But it is a legit thing to disagree and do your own thing.
Besidest that, I think you misunderstand "divide et imperia". It means let two different groups fight each other and then win as the third party. Common thing the US is doing before they invade countries.
In bitcoin I don't see the third party and it's not like a third party could overwhelm all bitcoiners somehow.
I'm not sure if classic can do that though. But it is a legit thing to disagree and do your own thing.
Besidest that, I think you misunderstand "divide et imperia". It means let two different groups fight each other and then win as the third party. Common thing the US is doing before they invade countries.
In bitcoin I don't see the third party and it's not like a third party could overwhelm all bitcoiners somehow.
That is, for now. Whe'd never know wen that third party would come and take over, or in what form. It may not be a person or even an organization, as it can be as simple as an idea.
I get what OP wants to say. This division isn't helping at all, but you see, this is the way to achieve a consensus. The US went first to a civil war before emerging as a global power. Maybe after this we'd be in the right path.
I agree. Bitcoin is really weak now. Not the price but bitcoin itself is pretty fragile. And it will become worse since I don't see a solution that will come fast enough to prevent the downspiral to move on.
And yes... a weak bitcoin would be the time to attack. Hopefully no plan is behind.
It's fully normal that, when people think that the persons that rule something does not act in their interest anymore, they start to act in a way that supports their interest.
I'm not sure if classic can do that though. But it is a legit thing to disagree and do your own thing.
Besidest that, I think you misunderstand "divide et imperia". It means let two different groups fight each other and then win as the third party. Common thing the US is doing before they invade countries.
In bitcoin I don't see the third party and it's not like a third party could overwhelm all bitcoiners somehow.
I'm not sure if classic can do that though. But it is a legit thing to disagree and do your own thing.
Besidest that, I think you misunderstand "divide et imperia". It means let two different groups fight each other and then win as the third party. Common thing the US is doing before they invade countries.
In bitcoin I don't see the third party and it's not like a third party could overwhelm all bitcoiners somehow.
That is, for now. Whe'd never know wen that third party would come and take over, or in what form. It may not be a person or even an organization, as it can be as simple as an idea.
I get what OP wants to say. This division isn't helping at all, but you see, this is the way to achieve a consensus. The US went first to a civil war before emerging as a global power. Maybe after this we'd be in the right path.
How can the community come back together and fight for one goal? < Making Bitcoin the center of attention > It is not healthy for everyone to attack each other on public platforms and debate should be centered on making Bitcoin better.
by stopping the contention and to work together.
having extra buffer forces nothing. but allows natural growth. its better to have features and not need to use them straight away, rather than avoid features and argue that one company should be the decision makers.
bitcoin should include alot more features and alot more buffer. then let the community decide which ones they want to use.
for instance the blocklimit.
increasing the buffer does no harm, because its ultimately the miners that decide if they want to make bigger blocks. so its their preferencial settings that mean the most.
not increasing it means that some implementations will have the higher settings and some dont. and this contention will cause a fork.
refusing any feature is bad. it causes not only social conflict but also chain conflicts (forks and orphans)
blockstream should never ever ever have gained peoples blind faith to delay things just to suit their agenda.
And I think bitcoin is free for now because government won't see it as significant force.
As we all know a simple regulation of ASIC manufacturers would harm bitcoin - for example by forcing manufacturers to add kill switches to the hardware, or require ASIC users to have licenses for mining.
As we all know a simple regulation of ASIC manufacturers would harm bitcoin - for example by forcing manufacturers to add kill switches to the hardware, or require ASIC users to have licenses for mining.
The killswitch will be a bit hard. There will still be countries that would produce them as a niche. Though importing them might be risky at the borders.
Licences... not anymore when bitcoin would be a risk. Then bitcoin would be forbidden and price would go down alot.
Julius Caesar said, "Divida et Impera" - Divide and rule and since he divided Rome, no one ever contradicted him. We see some forces, trying to do the same. Divide and conquer may refer to: Divide and rule, in politics, sociology and economics, a strategy to gain or maintain power.
It is not Julius Cesar who invented this strategy. The maxim divide et impera has been attributed to Philip II of Macedon, and together with the maxim divide ut regnes was utilised by Caesar and the French emperor Napoleon.And I think bitcoin is free for now because government won't see it as significant force.
As we all know a simple regulation of ASIC manufacturers would harm bitcoin - for example by forcing manufacturers to add kill switches to the hardware, or require ASIC users to have licenses for mining.
Jump to: