Topic: Is it good or bad that Core development is virtually controlled by one company? - page 8. (Read 8220 times)

I think bitcoinocracy poll  is a quite good way to measure the economy majority interest, it can be quite handy for future change request evaluation, if the question is more human understandable

Many people vote blindly or based on rumor, so there should be first some small test for investor's knowledge level and then they will be directed to different poll that suits people with different understanding of bitcoin

Not sure if what you are saying is true / confirmed or not. But I prefer to have diversification in most aspects of life. The more separate and less monopoly, the better for everyone.

i debunkd many of your examples.. and you cant debunk my examples. so instead you try to hurt my reputation. the laughable thing is that "franky1" is just a username..

so lets try this out.. lets hear some honest answers without you meandering into reputation crap.

1. with blockstream dominating what goes into the code. how is bitcoin (staying on the main chain, not talking about altcoins or other crap) still open for anyone to handle.. (and dont talk about anyone can make their own GUI. im talking about the underlying code)

2. how is bitcoin the same vision of financial freedom based on satoshi's genesis block quote (hating where corporations fucked up world finance), when one corporation has dominating control and is ignoring the community, to instead blindly do its own plan.

3. how is bitcoin going to be useful for 50% (non-westerners) of the world that blockstream are blind to, instead of the handful of businesses that blockstream will envision using bitcoin, thus forcing general population away from bitcoin and onto other stuff.

i do find it funny that while (i think) you are in china. you are ok with transaction fee's being the equivelent of 5% of an hour minimum wage. .. but imagine if you were in australia, 5% is the equivelent to 80cents..

would you be happy paying ATLEAST 5% of hourly wage just to make a transaction, come on.. imagine you had to pay ATLEAST 5% of an australian minimum wage.. then you might see beyond your own circumstance and see that you are blindly kissing ass to people that want to price out china, india and about 50% of the world from using bitcoin.
i honestly thought a man of the world that has been to china and india would atleast see beyond the western world pricing and the corporate overlords to atleast see the real world

P.S i am not sponsored by anyone. i hate gavincoin as much as i hate blockstream corporate shit. i just want bitcoin to grow without the shady tactics.
your blind loyalty to blockstream and hate of anything not blockstream shows you are sponsored

You can't expect everyone in the ecosystem to vote on a poll, that is absurd. You try to get as many people as you can and then draw to conclusions. You have the link now, go try and find these 'majority holders' that are against it. As it currently stands there is more than 80% support for Core.

This would be a split, not consensus for 2 MB blocks.

Where is 51% defined as consensus?  The whitepaper?  Cite please!

And you know full well much less than 51% will given time inevitably appear, due to variance, as 51%.

The consensus mechanism is designed to discourage/prevent a situation where there is contention, via the extreme penalties (ie losing all your BTC) for defecting from the socioeconomic majority.

You don't get to be privy to, much less control, the Core Defense Network and small block militia's strategy, timing, and tactics.

You only get to find out what they are in the heat of battle, as the wildfire turns your attacking fleet into ash, shipwrecks, and corpses.

Now, isn't it well past time for you to concede that XT was defeated?

We're waiting....

I doubt this. Majority holders are probably not yet aware of this poll. If we make an effort and make them aware and win the poll, then Blockstream might back out again and say "bitcoin is not democracy", "mere winning wont do, you need 90%+" etc. So, there needs to be clear message from Blockstream that they'll move to 2mb if they lose this poll 51:49 and give us three months to send the message across.

As I don't even use Reddit it is rather odd that you would state that (perhaps you are just overwhelmed with having to deal with facts that you're not very used to having to).

Let's face it @franky1 - your sponsors are not going to be paying you for much longer (as you have failed them - you make them look foolish which is not really what they want for their money).

you can circle jerk your link to all your friends on /r/bitcoin/ to garner votes in your favour all you want..

i really think that you must have financial investment in blockstream
are they paying you using some of the $55mill pot of cash, or giving you a few premined sidechains. or some of the non-chain liquids?

They don't - http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/in-the-event-of-a-fork-i-will-sell-rbf-blockstream-core-coins-and-buy-classic-bitcoins.

You can carry on about "the community" but apparently they don't have any funds invested in BTC (so you think people that own zero BTC should make the decisions?).

Unless you are a supporter of "communism" (and this is very funny for me to be saying to you as I live in China) then you can't possibly support the idea of "the community" being some financially irrelevant minority making the decisions about Bitcoin.

because for the next 20 years the block reward covers costs..your blind mindset is that miners income is based on fee's..
seriously you lack logic.
and by the way im not a gavin fanboy.
the desire for 2mb is a community need way before gavin even mentioned it. even gavin disagreed with 2mb last year because he wanted 8-200mb(whatever it was).. he only settled on 2mb this year because the community wanted it first and he is now riding the community needs coke-tail..

it wasnt gavin that envisioned 2mb and the community followed gavin. it was the other way round.
so stop trying to make the whole community that wants 2mb into some crappy dirty corrupt crypptsy theifing toomin or some r3 bank loving gavincoin..

the community want 2mb.. not the corporate shit

Your post might seem correct to the average user, sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. You're putting a change in the Merke tree(s), sidechains and LN in the same bag. You're comparing the incomparable and calling them all altcoins (if I understood your post correctly)? You're trying to say that the 'satoshi white paper design' is the only and perfect design that should be included in/to Bitcoin? Appeal to authority? This must be a bad joke. Let's start:
1) Segwit has nothing to do with sidechains or LN as a concept (even though it carries necessary changes for LN).
2) Any altcoin could be a sidechain to Bitcoin with two-way peg and this has a wast amount of use cases; sidechain != LN
3) LN, being a second layer solution that enables two participants a theoretically infinite amount of transaction, is now a bad thing?
4) This has nothing to do with Mastercoin.

---

---

Corrections.

Any non-satoshi white paper design, e.g. segwit, side chain, LN, they are all alt-coins, because they know that alt-coin will never succeed alone, they try to become parasite on the main blockchain, or even morph the main chain by slowly changing its architecture

It is the same thinking behind Mastercoin, but Mastercoin did not succeed because they use expensive bitcoin transactions to do useless things like smart contract (the concept of smart contract is questionable, since without law enforcement backing, the smart contract will be defaulted easily without any consequence). However, if you can use a parasitic chain to enable thousands of transactions and merge them into one bitcoin transaction, then it becomes economically feasible, and you can make a lot of money from this parasitic chain while let the bitcoin network provide the top level security

In fact there is no way to stop this kind of parasitic chain from appearing, so the mission of core devs should be defending the blockchain from being polluted, not becoming the parasite and leech the value from blockchain

yeah but i could argue that the altcoin scene is "centralized to bitcoin", in the sense that no matter how many copy paste one can launch, the attention will always be on bitcoin

and in regard to the fee and microtransaction problem, it is easily fixable by lowering the fee when the minimum fee will be too high

In other words, Bitcoin should be a bank-to-bank payment system?

My own preference is that nobody would be poor and everyone could have the basic necessities of life for free, but that's simply not possible in the real world. Bitcoin is expensive. It's by far the most powerful distributed computing system ever conceived. And anyone who wants to use it has to pay for it. That's the plain reality of the matter, whether I like it or not.