Topic: So the bitcoin classic (2MB) coup was compromised? (Read 7382 times)

hearn got rekt and joined the hyperledger
gavin got REKT and joined bloq(DCG funded) which became the segwit+2mb proposal false promise of the NYA that actually caused segwit to activate, then the 2mb part never flourished

people are still trying to create bitcoin forks and pretend like its something serious???


That is funny in its own right.

Original Bitcoin Classic developer abandoned project, coin was taken over by investors community, contacted exchange to reactivate coin, they ask for a secret word, who have developer contacts please

They are trying to convince people to dump their BTC so the price crashes and it becomes useless.

what you're talking about, the roadmap is telling me that everything will be settled before the halving or around that

it seems Bitcoin Core BS whatever won't be seeing any more updates before July 2017 because the developers are too lazy to get around to it

I don't intend to insult you, but do you believe that you're the first person to think of this?

It's like saying "lets just have world peace".  It would be _fantastic_ to be in a world where hashrate was much more uniformly distributed. But wanting it to be true and there existing mechanisms to make it true (and to do so without even worse side effects) are not the same thing.

Exactly what is your plan to prevent 1 person = thousands of votes (botnet)? People sometimes tend to propose foolish ideas without looking at the global picture or thinking about various aspects of it. Let's not forget the fact that this would effectively mean throwing away over 1 Exahash of security.

perhaps we should return mining to individual wallets and eliminate chinese pools by replacing PoW with something energy efficient and more importantly 1cpu=1vote rather than the current "union block voting"

It's funny just how riled up you get by the truth!

Like you are desperate to try and discredit it.

In your haste, you didn't even make sense!

There could indeed be some further improvements upon governance within core as there appears to be an informal consensus being made where some developers are able to have a greater say than others(right now mostly because they have a proven record and are the most talented) ... but we could formalize a better governance model certainly that was more consistent.  

The difference between a democratic vote on the various implementations and a democratic vote within an implementation is great however. As the uninformed mob still may choose a conservative approach of picking the team with the most developers and highest experience out of fears of bugs and mistakes being introduced. This is both great in the sense that the best people are working on it and there isn't the most charismatic people voted in instead. Case in point -- Peter Todd is naturally hated by most for his contentious attitude and being obsessively stringent and nitpicky ... these qualities are typically abrasive and make him one of the worst marketing salespeople for bitcoin but one of the best testers, and troubleshooters and the fact that he is brilliant and a prolific coder doesn't hurt either.

consider.it may be good for somethings and I like the Toomin brothers but it is insane using that as a governance model.

i mostly agree.  the market does in fact decide what code to run in actuality.  if other constants become controversial, i'm sure there would be attempts to change them as well. 

Entrenchment is the hallmark of centralized development. Devs cooperating/competing within one repository doesn't really do it for me. 
I think perception of 'controlling tyrants' will be inevitable given that structure.

On the forefront it would appear that way ... being unrestricted and just allowing the free market to take its course. It may sound like a slippery slope argument but the same thing could be said about all other rules/restrictions within the protocol. Should we simply allow unrestricted sigops per block and let the market decide?

The reality of the situation is there are indeed restrictions and rules within bitcoin and for a good reason. It represents a careful balance of game theory and incentive structures that need to carefully reflect an understanding of technical limitations and economic realities.

This being said, it is a good idea to have many implementations of different devs cooperating or using coopertition with each other. The picture being painted of Core isn't quite accurate either with them being represented as controlling tyrants. Anyone can propose a BIP and anyone can contribute code to Core... sure it will be scrutinized and peer reviewed but that form of meritocracy is a good thing with vetting the right ideas.

The electricity costs in Iceland are even lower than China, and it's mostly geothermal, so presumably not so much of an environmental problem.  Maybe someone should look into that...

isnt the best way to avoid mob rule to remove the block size limit from the protocol layer?

They have more people than any other country but they only have about 20% of the global population, so why should they have more than 50% of the hashing power?

What they do have is cheap energy, but cheap energy accelerates climate change, which is a very serious problem.

Its not scare tactics but a really old wish list to solve mining centralization concerns that we have had for some time. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ltc-changing-the-litecoin-proof-of-work-function-to-avoid-asic-mining-359323

We really do not want democratic mob rule voting on the protocol design and centralized miners becoming compromised by states which is the direction we are heading. It is not a threat but a long held concern of ours and the  raison d'être of bitcoin. Part of me welcomes the split so I can dust off the gpu miners and another part of me sees hope in bitfury doing the right thing and selling their ASIC's to the wide public for reasonable fees to reverse the problem of mining centralization and node count drop off.

What scares us is this https://bitcoin.consider.it/

Bitcoin classic is looking like a trojan horse for BIP 101

I agree that not every one of the 45 core devs will move over to the new fork , but some of them very well may and I would be interested in joining them.

Scare tactics, trying to convince miners with false claims that Classic supports a PoW change because luke-jr managed to submit the pull request in Classic github calling for a PoW change. jtoomin closed it. Then gmaxwell suggested that changing PoW in Core would be on the table if miners adopted Classic. sipa reminded everyone that changing PoW in Core is really off the table.

nice to hear!

What about we ignore your consensus?