Topic: Is it good or bad that Core development is virtually controlled by one company? - page 9. (Read 8220 times)

The noise generators and disinfo agents shall not gain succor so long as Honey Badger ignores their odious presence.

Of course it did nothing but encourage them when you absolved yourself of commit access ('if the system is solid, attack the people').

That was predictable and I hope your reason for leaving was to spend more time coding or fishing or whatever, not to appease the liars and terrorists.

The walls of La Serenissima, high and strong, are defended by stouthearted men of mind who stand ready to quickly dispatch any incautious adversary.



Take heart Sir GMAX of Core; the only people feeling fire will be those foolish enough to attack Bitcoin's commanding heights!

a $1 purchase is a normal transaction. i can think of a million things people can buy.. the mindset you and others have is that america dominates.
do you realise that some countries only get paid $1 every 3 hours as a wage. that you can by a large plate of food for under $1. where $1 if used wisely can buy a couple bags of groceries..
once you move your mindset out of Emerica. and think of the world as a whole. you will see that your own preference is actually pricing 4billion people out of possibly using bitcoin for "normal transactions"
EG 1.3billion of china, minimum wage ~80cents
so if you think while being in ameria $7.50-$9 is a "normal transaction" then $1 is "normal transaction" to 1.3billion chinese
EG 1.2billion of china, minimum wage ~30cents
so if you think while being in ameria $7.50-$9 is a "normal transaction" then $1 is "normal transaction" to 1.2billion indians

so get your mindset out of the 300million americans and think of the 4billion-7billion world that do think $1 is "normal transaction" amount

but if blockstream expand its capacity. and stop with the fee greed. (it is possible to do without datacenters)
EG 2mb+ libsecp256k is fast processing times and more capacity.(that home users can afford to run without special servers
EG 2mb+ libsecp256k1 +segwit is even more capacity, and again manageable on home computers.
but
1mbsegwit + huge fee's to sway people over to sidechains.. is not expanding bitcoin, but making blockstreams pre-mined coins go from valueless to valuable, while strangling bitcoin.

bitcoin WAS suitable. for microtransactions.. thats what the 8 decimals are for!. the problem is the greed of fiat lovers pricing bitcoin into unsuitability

Bitcoin is a business. Nobody can deny that.

If it's controlled by one company ... hmm... it may be good, since this way it can surely grow. But it can be very bad, especially if they will tell the common user "I don't care about you".
But a company - any company - wants to earn money. If they go "the dark side", the people can - and will - just migrate to another coins. Really, there are plenty of coins just waiting around the corner for Bitcoin (as a business) to fail.


So if it's going to be a "closed business", Bitcoin will go down.
If it's indeed controlled by one company, that will not allow this to happen.

Remember that anyone is free to launch their own bitcoin and compete. Control is what we allow, IMO.

A $1 purchase is not a normal transaction that a normal person makes with an international payment system. I've been complaining about this increasingly loudly since 2012, long before Blockstream was founded.



Remember. Those are the things that I have said. You can't change that, regardless of when I said it.

Great posts, franky1.

its obvious that the blockstream shills dont want normal people making normal transactions on bitcoin blockchain


remember. Those are all the things that he has said. You can't change that, regardless of when he said it.

blockstream shills dont want bitcoin to be an open currency for anyone to be part of. anyone who is against the blockstream plan is essentially being told to STFU and get lost.

i think the blockstream lovers have lost complete sense of what bitcoin was all about. they really need to look at the genesis block message and see what the quote was pointing at.

corporate control of finance creates crisis, greed and controls that negatively affect normal people

It is not wrong. Those are all the things that he has said. You can't change that, regardless of when he said it.
Said the person that suddenly started supporting Classic like a true 'forker'. It is pretty obvious to a few of us.
If anything, as seen on bitcoinocracy.com there is barely any support (from the holders) for a fork.

Wrong. You're putting up tweets from long ago. In addition, you can't possibly be an objective contributor to this conversation.

He's not. '20 MB urgent' -> '2MB absurd' -> '2MB fork'. This is not compromising, this is manipulating. A thing can't be "urgent" if you can accept a 10x smaller version of it. Also you have no idea why he left Core because you were never more deeply involved ("eat, live and breath" the propaganda I'd say).

Correct. My post was actually directed at the person that you've quoted, but I felt like quoting you as well was better.

He's compromising on the blocksize.  The general public might be completely in the dark about who runs core now, but people that eat, live, and breathe bitcoin aren't as easily fooled. As a moderator on this forum, you are indirectly (at best) sponsored by Blockstream.

I think the rest of my post made it clear that it's a rhetorical question.

Wrong.
No it does not. This is not a fact, this is (paid) propaganda.




Those definitions are subjective, but definitely not under 100/1000.

I don't think there's an actual control over bitcoin development by such companies. if some developers are in their payroll, that doesn't mean it's not possible to keep the blockchain of bitcoin segragated from corporate interests.

they will have no choice at that point, because it would mean that their proposal is not well seen, and their soft work will be useless

if indeed miners and majority of the merchants are supporting more the simple increase to 2mb, then this is the way to go

Well this is quite a rare and good stance towards the development team. I've said this before and I'll say it again. People without a technical background can't even begin to imagine the complexity of the development of certain features. If they did understand the complexity, there would be much less toxicity (aside from sadists and trolls).

That's possible, however the poll is unlikely to indicate such.

RBF is not forced, it is opt-in now (IIRC). There is consensus on Segwit; the only people who are against it are those who fail to understand it; besides it is a soft fork (won't be activated without 95% consensus).

Will Blockstream Core agree to shift to 2mb if bitcoinocracy poll indicates more coins are supporting 2mb ?

dont forget to add "paymentcodes" to bloat transactions (defeating any positive segwit would have achieved reducing bloat) to hide transaction values.. which is more about breaking node validation ability.

i do love how the blockstream sockpuppets try to say only one person is getting paid from the $55mill.. but atleast i now see why so many people are sucking up to Sipa and blindly following his plan. (hoping for a payday if they kiss enough ass)

the thing i do find funny is that segwit archival mode (fullnode) data transmission is the same as a 2mb limit proposal. i find it funny that blockstream thinks that libsecp256k1 wont be included in other implementations to fix processing time.
then i find it funny that the blockstream crew want to force people off of bitcoin blockchain and get users onto valueless altcoins and security risk offchains. rather than doing what the real community want, which is to expand bitcoin (not blockchains).

i have nothing against sidechains, but the methods blockstream are doing it, are obvious to push people off of bitcoin. rather than making it a free choice to jump back and forth. this is done by no longer fixing the tx fee to a sub 2cent value that moves down in decimals if the fiat price increases, to keep transactions cheap. thus attempting to make bitcoin less useful for normal people.

the blind suggestion that segwit helps more people become fullnodes, is fundamentally flawed. most users will not enable archival mode and so when the 5000 peers connect together, not all of them will stick with being archival mode. as they are told "everything is fine compatible mode still works", users lose no function.. but there would be a lack of peers set as archival node to be able to get the full data to validate. (one of many bait and switch plans)
along with pushing part of the community onto sidechains, more users wont be using bitcoin fullnodes but instead running elements fullnode.

blockstream looks good on glossy paper. but in the reality of real life usage scenario's, all of those dreams evaporate and what is left is a incorporated bitcoin that normal people cant use because it has been outpriced with tx fee's and bloated with "paymentcodes" and other stuff.

if only blockstream thought logically that tx fee's are not even required as a income stream for atleast 2 decades, they would not be pushing for tx fee rise... oh wait they would, as they need the rise to push people away from bitcoin.

blockstream really do need to look at the genesis block message and remember what bitcoin was all about. as i feel that blockstream payday's have blinded people away from an open currency and swayed people over to the bad code and corporate strategy to create profit at the expense of controlling normal peoples finances.

by saying i want 2mb does not mean im in the r3 boat. i hate them for the same reasons as the blockstream corp. all i want is clean code that remains where bitcoin is the open currency for anyone to be part of.

a 2mb implementation with libsecp256k1 does not cause doomsday scenarios of needing datacenters to run fullnodes... its just that simple
if blockstream shills reply about the malle-fix. that too can be done in a dozen different ways too. without all of the hidden corporate agenda that would push normal people (the million+ population) away from hoarding bitcoins.

everyone knows that in april if they want to remain as full-node status, they are going to need to upgrade, so its not as soft as the glossy leaflet pretends. if you dont upgrade you wont be fully validating node. and if they do upgrade, some will choose not to run full archival mode, so blockstream will be cutting the full node population down. while not (longterm) increasing capacity because of the other features that add more bytes to a tx (after segwits promise of less bytes).

i see soo many bait and switch plans that end up pushing normal people down a one way street that moves away from hoarding bitcoins... and that is the thing that i do not find funny

Explain how they are "force feeding" RBF and SegWit. Those who do not like these features do not have to use them, and, more importantly, do not even need to upgrade in order for other people use them. Old versions of Bitcoin will continue to work, and new versions get new features. Users of the new version can even downgrade if there are problems with the new version. That's what makes soft forks less dangerous than hard forks.

Removing the rules against actions that the network protocol expressly forbids against the will of an economically significant portion of users, and risking a persistent ledger split in the process is not a comparable thing. It's something that Bitcoin Core strongly believe it does not have the moral or technical authority to do, and attempting to do so would be a failure to uphold the principles of the system. It's not something to do lightly, and people who think that it's okay to change the system's rules out from under users who own coins in it are not people that I'd want to be taking advice from-- that kind of thinking is counter to the entire Bitcoin value proposition.

The other things you're talking about are fully compatible updates which users can voluntarily choose to participate in or can choose to ignore. Users opt into applying them to their own transactions, and they shouldn't really be anyone elses business.  Neither of them are forces applied to third parties.

In the case of Opt-In RBF-- that is purely local node policy, not even a consensus rule. If even one miner wants to use it it could not be prevented even if all the other users and developers and all miners agreed that it was desirable to prevent. Worse, there are already miners out there doing full replacement without the signaling. Without the positive uses being able to opt in and voluntarily choose to use replacement, we will likely see more of that spread sooner. So you have something that causes no harm, potentially delays harm, and is fully optional being used to attack Bitcoin Core? I think that is really lame. Especially since replacement of non-final transactions was a feature in the _very first_ version of Bitcoin that was only turned off much later because as it was originally implemented it was a flooding vulnerability. In people's zest to politically manipulate others into disliking Bitcoin Core it seems that some have really lost the plot.

We all wait with abated breath while you go and cite that "explicit" definition for us.

It's nonsense in any case: When you're talking about the hard rules of the system-- the limits that make it valuable and tractable-- no amount of hashpower is enough to override it. Not 99.9%.  If a miner violates the hard rules of the system they are simply not miners anymore as far as all the nodes are concerned. This is an integral part of the checks and balances that create and preserve the incentives of the system: Miners can't just steal a bit on the side, their power is very strongly shifted to either participate honestly or DOS attack the whole thing (in which case the users would presumably change the proof of work), but not attack the system while continuing to have it usable.

But really, if any of you have an honest desire to continue a conversation-- go convince the OP to retract the wonky and non-factual claim. Otherwise this is all just a hall of mirrors.