[SHOCK] Core dev and Blockstream employee tells bitcoin users to use fiat! - page 9.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: iamTom123 on June 03, 2017, 03:15:47 AM

Quote from: deisik on June 02, 2017, 12:08:31 PM

Quote from: dissident on June 02, 2017, 12:00:20 PM

Some altcoin will take the throne if bitcoin doesn't change. Things change... deal with it or be pushed out of the way. Pigs get slaughtered.

And Litecoin will most likely be a new king of crypto

Regarding the noise raised by the OP, I have heard many people claiming here that miners have been screaming for years about the necessity of the blocksize increase. If it is really so (I don't know, but let's assume that) and the blocksize increase was (is) as urgent and pressing as they have been screaming, what prevents them from introducing this change on their own (given their hashing power monopoly)? Okay, some dudes would be quick to retort that they want consensus and all that but if there is no consensus may be the bigger blocks are not in fact so urgent as these miners are pretending them to be? As I see it, you can't possibly have it both ways

It is quite sad that there are people whom the Bitcoin community and ordinary users bestowed trust on and yet they seems to be not working for the good of Bitcoin and its many stakeholders. However, I do believe that this is just a temporary setback as soon we can have a robust Bitcoin emerging.

I don't agree that soon LiteCoin will take over the throne of Bitcoin even if all those people manning Bitcoin now will transfer to the former. Having those people transferred can even help Bitcoin in the long run so they can replaced by people who have the PASSION and CARE for Bitcoin.

It is time for them to go somewhere as honestly we don't need these kind of people connected to Bitcoin

You seem to be overly obsessed with Bitcoin

It is only a tool, be it a currency or just a speculative asset. The same basically pertains to any other cryptocoin out there as well as money in general. It is certainly not about passion or care, it is about using it, and most people use Bitcoin as a vehicle for speculation. You may like or you may not like it, but if all these people (or just the majority of them) switch to some other coin (not necessarily Litecoin), Bitcoin will be dead, and this is life

iamTom123

hero member

Activity: 490

Merit: 501

Quote from: deisik on June 02, 2017, 12:08:31 PM

Quote from: dissident on June 02, 2017, 12:00:20 PM

Some altcoin will take the throne if bitcoin doesn't change. Things change... deal with it or be pushed out of the way. Pigs get slaughtered.

And Litecoin will most likely be a new king of crypto

Regarding the noise raised by the OP, I have heard many people claiming here that miners have been screaming for years about the necessity of the blocksize increase. If it is really so (I don't know, but let's assume that) and the blocksize increase was (is) as urgent and pressing as they have been screaming, what prevents them from introducing this change on their own (given their hashing power monopoly)? Okay, some dudes would be quick to retort that they want consensus and all that but if there is no consensus may be the bigger blocks are not in fact so urgent as these miners are pretending them to be? As I see it, you can't possibly have it both ways

It is quite sad that there are people whom the Bitcoin community and ordinary users bestowed trust on and yet they seems to be not working for the good of Bitcoin and its many stakeholders. However, I do believe that this is just a temporary setback as soon we can have a robust Bitcoin emerging.

I don't agree that soon LiteCoin will take over the throne of Bitcoin even if all those people manning Bitcoin now will transfer to the former. Having those people transferred can even help Bitcoin in the long run so they can replaced by people who have the PASSION and CARE for Bitcoin.

It is time for them to go somewhere as honestly we don't need these kind of people connected to Bitcoin.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: franky1 on June 02, 2017, 03:14:36 PM

Quote from: deisik on June 02, 2017, 02:50:54 PM

Then you should understand what it comes down to

If you fail somehow, I can help. It pretty much means that those miners allegedly screaming about larger blocks for so many years are outright liars. If there were real necessity in larger blocks (as Larger Blocks advocates seem to claim), forking Bitcoin would be an inevitable outcome greeted and welcomed by virtually everyone (and his fucking dog). But given that miners are not going to fork Bitcoin any time soon, it proves as well that they are up to something else, something different from what they are so vocal about

pools changing the rles without consensus is just them making their own altcoin

Why are you laying yourself out to evade addressing the dilemma I pointed out?

You can call that coin an altcoin or whatever, but this doesn't change anything. If things are as bad in respect to blocksizes as miners are claiming them to be (not actually miners but some dudes here that are pretending that they are), then, as I said, forking Bitcoin (making an altcoin, in your speak) would be inevitable, and it would be welcomed by virtually anyone (since the situation was dire and no longer tolerable or acceptable). If it is in fact "evitable", then the miners are lying, or the dudes who are telling that the miners "have been screaming for years about the blocksize increase" are lying. So who is lying here?

Chin Cheng

sr. member

Activity: 255

Merit: 250

Quote from: 25hashcoin on June 02, 2017, 03:33:47 PM

Quote from: moviebuff777 on June 02, 2017, 03:01:03 PM

I guess we should start stocking up on litecoin and other altcoins then. Maybe a balanced portfolio is the best solution.

Or just wait for the chainsplit if Core won't compromise. If bitcoin is successfully overtaken, then I see little hope for cryptos a whole. That said, nothing against diversification.

Diversifying your portfolio is well and good if you are in a healthy market,there are a lot of egos and personalities tied in this scaling debate and it is really impossible to find a proper solution,i can understand why they get pissed off and ask others to use fiat,bitcoin being an open source experiment i will enjoy the perks as long as i can trade.

25hashcoin

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Quote from: moviebuff777 on June 02, 2017, 03:01:03 PM

I guess we should start stocking up on litecoin and other altcoins then. Maybe a balanced portfolio is the best solution.

Or just wait for the chainsplit if Core won't compromise. If bitcoin is successfully overtaken, then I see little hope for cryptos a whole. That said, nothing against diversification.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: deisik on June 02, 2017, 02:50:54 PM

Then you should understand what it comes down to

If you fail somehow, I can help. It pretty much means that those miners allegedly screaming about larger blocks for so many years are outright liars. If there were real necessity in larger blocks (as Larger Blocks advocates seem to claim), forking Bitcoin would be an inevitable outcome greeted and welcomed by virtually everyone (and his fucking dog). But given that miners are not going to fork Bitcoin any time soon, it proves as well that they are up to something else, something different from what they are so vocal about

pools changing the rles without consensus is just them making their own altcoin..

it seems you dont understand consensus..
pools cannot control consensus.
pools can only either stick to consensus or make an altcoin..

devs refuse to make an implemntation for pools, users to have a viable choice to change consensus..
with all the REKT campaigns the tower guarding of bips and even all the moderation of reddit and the tech discussion topic of this forum.. trying to get any change that is not blockstream sanctioned is futile

i actually hope BLOCKSTREAM devs jump over to litecoin. and then the independant BITCOIN devs remain with bitcoin and then open transparent and no barrier changes can happen again.

its gone down hill since 2014

(downhill as in real things that matter, code, control, ethos, direction) - dont reply simply about "price upwards"

moviebuff777

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!

I guess we should start stocking up on litecoin and other altcoins then. Maybe a balanced portfolio is the best solution.

European Central Bank

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1087

Quote from: 25hashcoin on June 02, 2017, 02:53:55 PM

I'm just saying the specific amount of this tx fee isn't the point. I'm saying the mentality held by someone who's part of a group with much perceived power in bitcoin has a completely negative, toxic, and counterproductive outlook on the whole thing, and it should be clear to anyone and everyone that further motives are indeed involved.

it was a stupid, unhelpful and arrogant answer i agree. but he is kind of famous for getting out of bed on the wrong side fairly often.

anyway my take is that these guys take no account of economic realities and user experience for the sake of technical safety, perfection and future security. all the while the real users are losing out are may well migrate elsewhere.

neither side is being realistic. core might carry on pontificating until there's nothing left to pontificate. the users might break the whole thing in the rush to get back to the good old days, or walk away.

there's a middle ground in there somewhere.

i don't buy core as the evil empire seeking to drive users into bankster arms. their main issue is lack of pragmatism.

25hashcoin

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Quote from: European Central Bank on June 02, 2017, 02:49:49 PM

they are not. and i have. and that's why i emptied all of the high input addresses before this happened.

and i still think you're a bot.

I'm just saying the specific amount of this tx fee isn't the point. I'm saying the mentality held by someone who's part of a group with much perceived power in bitcoin has a completely negative, toxic, and counterproductive outlook on the whole thing, and it should be clear to anyone and everyone that further motives are indeed involved.

25hashcoin

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Quote from: franky1 on June 02, 2017, 02:45:45 PM

Quote from: RodeoX on June 02, 2017, 02:40:40 PM

Some guy said something!!!! OMG, this must be huge!!!? Huh

"some guy"
the Bips tower guard who refuses entry to anything not friendly with king blockstream tell you if you dont like the direction king blockstream is going use fiat....

shows how controlled bitcoin is.
bitcoin meant to have no barriers of entry and if the bips tower guard is so arrogant to not want opposition. then he should not be the guard.

replace him
get someone else in control of the bips that wont shut down idea's purely because they do not lead to the blockstream emerald city via their roadmap

imagine it this way.
1990's microsoft make word '95. someone suggests a new feature.. and bill gates shouts if you dont like it my way then go use a marker pen...
microsoft word would hav not grown to be as useful as it is now. it would have just been notepad

QFT and spot on analogy.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: franky1 on June 02, 2017, 02:36:57 PM

Quote from: deisik on June 02, 2017, 02:14:48 PM

Now try to address the dilemma I stated

If increasing block size is so urgent as you say, why miners don't just hard fork Bitcoin (given their mining monopoly)?

because consensus (real consensus) not the reddit propaganda crap the fudsters script... REAL consensus doesnt work by pools simply making bigger blocks.
those bigger blocks would get rejected in 3 seconds

Then you should understand what it comes down to

If you fail somehow, I can help. It pretty much means that those miners allegedly screaming about larger blocks for so many years are outright liars. If there were real necessity in larger blocks (as Larger Blocks advocates seem to claim), forking Bitcoin would be an inevitable outcome greeted and welcomed by virtually everyone (and his fucking dog). But given that miners are not going to fork Bitcoin any time soon, it proves as well that they are up to something else, something different from what they are so vocal about

European Central Bank

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1087

Quote from: 25hashcoin on June 02, 2017, 02:48:34 PM

Acting like common tx prices are reasonable....have you even used bitcoin lately?

they are not. and i have. and that's why i emptied all of the high input addresses before this happened.

and i still think you're a bot.

25hashcoin

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Quote from: European Central Bank on June 02, 2017, 02:45:13 PM

it's a crappy answer, but the guy who started that thread is trying to move 71 inputs all at once. that's gonna create a headline fee even when things are calmer.

i could see the writing was on the wall with fees a while back. i consolidated everything before they got to the current levels. i hope the fee situation recovers but i addressed it for myself before this could've happened.

Acting like common tx prices are reasonable...He would have given the same answer to any amount. and you wonder why you haven't used bitcoin lately?

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: RodeoX on June 02, 2017, 02:40:40 PM

Some guy said something!!!! OMG, this must be huge!!!? Huh

"some guy"
the Bips tower guard who refuses entry to anything not friendly with king blockstream tell you if you dont like the direction king blockstream is going use fiat....

shows how controlled bitcoin is.
bitcoin meant to have no barriers of entry and if the bips tower guard is so arrogant to not want opposition. then he should not be the guard.

replace him
get someone else in control of the bips that wont shut down idea's purely because they do not lead to the blockstream emerald city via their roadmap

imagine it this way.
1990's microsoft make word '95. someone suggests a new feature.. and bill gates shouts if you dont like it my way then go use a marker pen...
microsoft word would hav not grown to be as useful as it is now. it would have just been notepad

European Central Bank

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1087

it's a crappy answer, but the guy who started that thread is trying to move 71 inputs all at once. that's gonna create a headline fee even when things are calmer.

i could see the writing was on the wall with fees a while back. i consolidated everything before they got to the current levels. i hope the fee situation recovers but i addressed it for myself before this could've happened.

RodeoX

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1147

The revolution will be monetized!

Some guy said something!!!! OMG, this must be huge!!!? Huh

25hashcoin

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Quote from: deisik on June 02, 2017, 02:29:06 PM

Quote from: 25hashcoin on June 02, 2017, 02:18:47 PM

Quote from: deisik on June 02, 2017, 02:14:48 PM

Quote from: unamis76 on June 02, 2017, 02:01:56 PM

luke-jr was replying basically saying "you don't like Bitcoin? fine, then nobody is putting a gun to your head and demanding you to use it". That being said, this isn't an issue that can simply be ignored, indeed.

Quote from: deisik on June 02, 2017, 12:08:31 PM

what prevents them from introducing this change on their own (given their hashing power monopoly)? Okay, some dudes would be quick to retort that they want consensus and all that but if there is no consensus may be the bigger blocks are not in fact so urgent as these miners are pretending them to be? As I see it, you can't possibly have it both ways

Consensus is indeed the answer to your question. The fact that there is no consensus doesn't mean that scaling isn't urgent, as proven by the post referred to in the OP (and many other posts...)

Now try to address the dilemma I stated

If increasing block size is so urgent as you say, why miners don't hard-fork Bitcoin? As I said and repeat it again specifically, you can't have it both ways. If there is really an urgency in increasing the blockzise, miners should be safe in forking Bitcoin since (given the urgency) everyone and damned dog will quickly and unreservedly switch to this fork. If they won't, then all outcries and screams are in fact no more that deliberate and cynical attempts to prevent from implementation genuine solutions that would actually scale Bitcoin up. This is the point which is unbearable to some Big Blocks advocates here so that they openly declare me on their ignore lists (and then deciding to unignore for some obscure reason)

I just think you're jumping the gun. Increased blocksize is urgent, but the network isn't entirely crippled yet....I'd say we are at a tipping point where something needs to be done. So I'd say let's wait until Segwit2x code is released, see what happens through July, and then if STILL Core won't compromise and miners won't fork off I would say you have a good argument. I just think the miners are being extremely patient. With the current price still rising, it's definitely not in their interest to split the chain.....yet. Something's going to give in the next 60 days however, I'm confident. If core doesn't compromise then we will have a big block chain to go with the 1mb settlement Core chain

That's what I'm telling next

And now you are about to arrive at the same conclusion and inference that I had come to myself some time ago (I made a few posts of that as well). My point is that miners are interested in keeping the current status quo, at least, as long as prices are rising. How come? Because any decision that is going to be accepted will hurt them financially. And here's the crux of the matter. If you look at the actions of the parties involved it from this point of view, it becomes abundantly clear that miners, rogue miners are intentionally putting grit in the machine. They come up with a sort of compromise but make it unacceptable so the stalemate is set to continue, which is what they aim at

What is this unacceptable compromise? They have been pushing for bigger blocks for a while now. Consensus on bigger blocks would just put bitcoin price through the freaking roof, so I really don't believe the miners are stalling for their own profit gains. They simply oppose segwit mostly due to the fact that they believe Core is trying to cripple bitcoin, they don't trust letting them have segwit without a blocksize increase...which is doing a huge service to bitcoin. We should all be thanking them, I know I will be personally once we rid Bitcoin of Core and Blockstream. https://medium.com/@zhangsanbtc/why-we-must-oppose-cores-segwit-soft-fork-bitcoin-miner-jiang-zhuo-er-tells-you-why-28f820d51f98

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: deisik on June 02, 2017, 02:14:48 PM

Now try to address the dilemma I stated

If increasing block size is so urgent as you say, why miners don't just hard fork Bitcoin (given their mining monopoly)?

because consensus (real consensus) not the reddit propaganda crap the fudsters script... REAL consensus doesnt work by pools simply making bigger blocks.
those bigger blocks would get rejected in 3 seconds

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: 25hashcoin on June 02, 2017, 02:18:47 PM

Quote from: deisik on June 02, 2017, 02:14:48 PM

Quote from: unamis76 on June 02, 2017, 02:01:56 PM

luke-jr was replying basically saying "you don't like Bitcoin? fine, then nobody is putting a gun to your head and demanding you to use it". That being said, this isn't an issue that can simply be ignored, indeed.

Quote from: deisik on June 02, 2017, 12:08:31 PM

what prevents them from introducing this change on their own (given their hashing power monopoly)? Okay, some dudes would be quick to retort that they want consensus and all that but if there is no consensus may be the bigger blocks are not in fact so urgent as these miners are pretending them to be? As I see it, you can't possibly have it both ways

Consensus is indeed the answer to your question. The fact that there is no consensus doesn't mean that scaling isn't urgent, as proven by the post referred to in the OP (and many other posts...)

Now try to address the dilemma I stated

If increasing block size is so urgent as you say, why miners don't hard-fork Bitcoin? As I said and repeat it again specifically, you can't have it both ways. If there is really an urgency in increasing the blockzise, miners should be safe in forking Bitcoin since (given the urgency) everyone and damned dog will quickly and unreservedly switch to this fork. If they won't, then all outcries and screams are in fact no more that deliberate and cynical attempts to prevent from implementation genuine solutions that would actually scale Bitcoin up. This is the point which is unbearable to some Big Blocks advocates here so that they openly declare me on their ignore lists (and then deciding to unignore for some obscure reason)

I just think you're jumping the gun. Increased blocksize is urgent, but the network isn't entirely crippled yet....I'd say we are at a tipping point where something needs to be done. So I'd say let's wait until Segwit2x code is released, see what happens through July, and then if STILL Core won't compromise and miners won't fork off I would say you have a good argument. I just think the miners are being extremely patient. With the current price still rising, it's definitely not in their interest to split the chain.....yet. Something's going to give in the next 60 days however, I'm confident. If core doesn't compromise then we will have a big block chain to go with the 1mb settlement Core chain

That's what I'm telling next

And now you are about to arrive at the same conclusion and inference that I had come to myself some time ago (I made a few posts about that as well). My point is that miners are interested in keeping the current status quo, at least, as long as prices are rising. How come? Because any decision that is going to be accepted will hurt them financially. And here's the crux of the matter. If you look at the actions of the parties involved from this point of view, it becomes abundantly clear that miners, rogue miners are intentionally putting grit in the machine. They come up with a sort of compromise but make it unacceptable so that the stalemate is set to continue, which is exactly what they aim at. Regarding Segwit2x code, do you really think it will be less buggy than BU, and Core is ever going to accept it? Its aim is the same as that of now dead BU, it is not meant to be actually implemented, as was the case with pure BU

25hashcoin

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Quote from: deisik on June 02, 2017, 02:14:48 PM

Quote from: unamis76 on June 02, 2017, 02:01:56 PM

luke-jr was replying basically saying "you don't like Bitcoin? fine, then nobody is putting a gun to your head and demanding you to use it". That being said, this isn't an issue that can simply be ignored, indeed.

Quote from: deisik on June 02, 2017, 12:08:31 PM

what prevents them from introducing this change on their own (given their hashing power monopoly)? Okay, some dudes would be quick to retort that they want consensus and all that but if there is no consensus may be the bigger blocks are not in fact so urgent as these miners are pretending them to be? As I see it, you can't possibly have it both ways

Consensus is indeed the answer to your question. The fact that there is no consensus doesn't mean that scaling isn't urgent, as proven by the post referred to in the OP (and many other posts...)

Now try to address the dilemma I stated

If increasing block size is so urgent as you say, why miners don't hard-fork Bitcoin? As I said and repeat it again specifically, you can't have it both ways. If there is really an urgency in increasing the blockzise, miners should be safe in forking Bitcoin since (given the urgency) everyone and damned dog will quickly and unreservedly switch to this fork. If they won't, then all outcries and screams are in fact no more that deliberate and cynical attempts to prevent from implementation genuine solutions that would actually scale Bitcoin up. This is the point which is unbearable to some Big Blocks advocates here so that they openly declare me on their ignore lists (and then deciding to unignore for some obscure reason)

I just think you're jumping the gun. Increased blocksize is urgent, but the network isn't entirely crippled yet....I'd say we are at a tipping point where something needs to be done. So I'd say let's wait until Segwit2x code is released, see what happens through July, and then if STILL Core won't compromise and miners won't fork off I would say you have a good argument. I just think the miners are being extremely patient. With the current price still rising, it's definitely not in their interest to split the chain.....yet. Something's going to give in the next 60 days however, I'm confident. If core doesn't compromise then we will have a big block chain to go with the 1mb settlement Core chain.

Topic: [SHOCK] Core dev and Blockstream employee tells bitcoin users to use fiat! - page 9. (Read 6040 times)