Topic: Is Blockstream the reason why 4 core developer won´t increase the blocksize? (Read 7087 times)

Even if 1% of all this is true, its not a good news. Everybody is yelling that they want things be decentralized but then dev it self is centralized. Whether you are for bigger or smaller blocks we need really independent devs or bitcoin will get screwed. If LN works for now I am happy but not having independent devs would be a disaster on long run.

fact not fiction
1. blockstream devs have already partnered up with mining pools: eligius pool, and btcc.com..
2. blockstream devs have already partnered up with a few exchanges too: Bitfinex, BTCC, Kraken, Unocoin, and Xapo

and once people are told they cant have their bitfinex withdrawals as they are SW liquids and not normal pre 2016 bitcoin transactions.. people will be forced to upgrade just to get their money back. then non upgraded users want to cashout to a xapo card, guess what xapo prefers SW liquid transactions too
so in the end the users have little choice but to convert or be left behind

Wrong. So mentioning the planned features (signed by developers) makes me a fanboy (disregarding the fact that I did open a thread about it the day it was presented)?

I don't see anything here but speculative nonsense that is not really related to the thread. Core developers can't force anything upon the users, the users and the industry make the choices.

lauda your a segwit fanboy.. we know it you know it.. now move along

lets talk about the real bitcoin blockchain where signatures are checked and no funny business is going on for the benefit of the few little people..

i said last year 3 options of the direction blockstream could go.. and it seems they want to not increase the block size ever.. force people to use non signatured transactions. then bloat the blocks with 250bytes of data to hide the values spent of each transaction. so that eventually bitcoins blockchain will only hold 2000 tx a block or less of uncheckable data.. forcing people to not use bitcoins blockchain.. but blockstreams sql database known as liquid.

so you can keep pushing segwit all you like.. goodluck with it, see you when bitcoin is ruined

No, it is not (answer to the title). SegWit will be deployed (hopefully) in the upcoming months and an increase of the blocksize in addition to that could possibly be too much ATM.

Bump

-Bump (don't forget to not forget)

Love your signature line. lol

I really miss MPOE-PR. There are a lot of people working on Bitcoin code with less going for them than MP.

Look at whos siding with Mircea now,.....

I must say the fear monger works wonder, it brainwashed some of the members on here to now go against what they said before this drama.

The only people who could be against the block size limit increase/removal are the blind, the clueless, or bound to the success of another project.

To keep bitcoin decentralized and under control of nobody we must make it accessible to everyone. This means hundreds of transactions per second and 1 MB blocks can't handle this. Other solutions are proprietary.

It has been a while since this thread was posted in so it would be nice to hear about any changes and make sure people are aware of all areas of the debate.
Looking quickly just noticed a beta published on June 9 no update on the BIP proposal as far as I can tell at this time.
http://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-open-source-code-sidechains/
http://coinjournal.net/blockstreams-adam-back-describes-the-road-ahead-for-decentralized-sidechains/

This thread is very helpful.Didn't know that it existed before. Especially right now we should bump it up more often so that people who have no clue what is going on can study it. LaudaM has brought up some real good arguments why both sides might be important for Bitcoin's future, i.e. increasing the blocksize + sidechains.

simply put:

Satoshi Nakamoto - Bitcoin Whitepaper

I can tell how incredibly stupid you are from looking at your post history but do you mean to tell me that you can't tell it's the same outcome. Someone that has the first million coins whether it's before or after launch - same outcome. Back on ignore for you - bye, bye.

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? How many coins does Satoshi have genius?

Everyone bitches about how horrible altcoins are because they're premined.  o_O

i agree.  just to be sure we get most of them we should invalidate all of the coins till early 2012.

Cheers!  Thanks so much for your vote.  Someday when I have a budget for it, and more technical ability, I hope to set up a node myself.  Of course by then there might not be any point to a small time home based node.  But sane people like you should help keep us safe from the recent insanity and nonsense.  Thanks!

Thanks for the links Lauda, I will have to read up on this guy.  He sounds like a real menace, threatening to kill people.  He might see a psychiatrist, they can help with that sort of thing.

XT up and running.

I've come to despise the Bitcoin Core developer's obstructionist position, and have voted with my nodes.

For those who are new to things, note that the first >1mb block (or otherwise incompatible) block XT produces will release what I call 'XTaint' into the wild.  That would be the 25 block reward (the 'coinbase'.)

What a possessor of XTaint (or it's derivative) can do is to mix a little in to a spend to themselves.  The spend will be invalid on Core so their Core holdings are unimpacted, but will be valid on XT so they can run it right down to an exchange or pawn it off on some other XT user.

Of course the converse is also true.  Coretaint can be used by XT users in the same manner.  Choose your side wisely if you are going to play these games, or just sit on your hands for a (long-ish) while.

Likely many others will join in the games so thing become what I call a 'battle royal'.  The weaker ones (and maybe others) will employ various kinds of tricks such as analyzing alternate forks and artificially legalizing transactions tainted with other coinbase, or simply monitoring for spend activity on other chains and devaluing them.

Some chains might distribute some 'free taint' which _must_ be mixed into future spends.  Some might force deep storage to be dug out and re-spent for various reason.

Some chains might switch to merge mining in hopes of using the extreme sha256 for backing while hoping to protecting against POW attacks.  Some might tweak their POW to limit the danger.  Some will go temporarily or permanently central for oracle service to guard against attacks.

There will be exchanges where people can bet on outcomes and play the various spreads.  Even different spends within a chain will be valued differently depending on whether they are 'universal' or not.  Spends consisting only of coin prior to 'the event' will command a premium.  So long fungibility.

This, and likely countless things I've not thought of, are what lies inside Pandora's box,  The lid can be pried off by forking without decent consensus, but eventually it probably will be pried off anyway so it would not be fair to blame Gavin for the event but simply the timing thereof.  There is a lot of value in the blockchain and a lot of people trying to get that which currently is controlled by others, and a lot of others trying to protect what they have buried within.  It's going to be fun.

Obviously these are just my predictions.  But, FWIW, I predicted that BTC in the single digits could be a very good buy among other decent calls over the years.  I also predicted that UTXO's buried in the blockchain would retain a value (if not grow) in an event such as I've described, and that was one of my rationals for taking the position I did.