Why do we have governments?
Why do we have central authorities? central banks?
There must be some compelling reasons for the above.
Isn't everything in the code?
Wasn't this intended to happen?
Who are miners and who are users?
Bitcoin was meant to be mined but never thought about times like now, miners being separated from users/supporters. in the eyes of code, miners are users and users are miners/community.
Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 85. (Read 120014 times)
What is it you don't understand? Devs set the rules. If the rules are broken, the whole system becomes broken...
Now the core devs can accomplish what satoshi couldn't. They can set new rules and save bitcoin from being centralized.
Yeah, no. Seems like you need to read the whitepaper again. Now the core devs can accomplish what satoshi couldn't. They can set new rules and save bitcoin from being centralized.
You can't "save bitcoin from being centralized" by centralizing around only 1 group of devs. Because, English.
...followed by a 1 year long activation phase followed by the bulk of the bitcoin community running full nodes choosing to run core's segwit signalling...
While that is technically true, a certain percentage (unknown if large or small) did so because (until this last update) the choice was:- updates and signal,
- no updates and no signal, or
- some unknown new entity.
The core Devs were too late to act...
ASIC Mining = Centralized business
...
There seems to be a confused irony in your statements. It seems that you think that a decentralized Bitcoin should remain centralized around the devs of a specific wallet. Or am I reading that all wrong?ASIC Mining = Centralized business
...
What is it you don't understand? Devs set the rules. If the rules are broken, the whole system becomes broken. This system is broken for what it is and devs should fix it.
Everything has a starting point. Satoshi created bitcoin and he was in the center of the bitcoin's blockchain system for a while. Means bitcoin was centralized around Satoshi but he didn't like it so he tried to make it decentralized with the support of the people, us.
ASIC companies hacked the code, he failed.Now the core devs can accomplish what satoshi couldn't. They can set new rules and save bitcoin from being centralized.
They don't like the 4 MB segwit blocks, but want to shrink them to 2 MB?
No, they want to grow them to 8MB, with non-witness blocks being 2MB, which a) requires a hard fork, and b) is vulnerable due to the quadratic hash validation issue (they're saing it's 2MB solely to cause confusion on this point). If they really wanted 8MB blocks, they could do so mostly safely by increasing the non-witness weight to 8x, so as to leave non-witness blocks at 1MB, but they're not interested in increasing capacity safely; they just want to take over the network, or destroy it in the attempt.
They don't like the 4 MB segwit blocks, but want to shrink them to 2 MB?
No, they want to grow them to 8MB, with non-witness blocks being 2MB, which a) requires a hard fork, and b) is vulnerable due to the quadratic hash validation issue (they're saying it's 2MB solely to cause confusion on this point). If they really wanted 8MB blocks, they could do so mostly safely by increasing the non-witness weight to 8x, so as to leave non-witness blocks at 1MB, but they're not interested in increasing capacity safely; they just want to take over the network, or destroy it in the attempt.
They don't like the 4 MB segwit blocks, but want to shrink them to 2 MB? What a mess! Why can't they just go with the current proposal, and cap the blocks at 2 MB?
Babies.
Babies.
can someone explain to me how these two are different
i guess my question is what is the difference between their "SegWit" and the one that have been being signaled so far apart from the obvious 2MB and why is it bad?
2 years of planning and explanation and community involvement, feedback, critical review, code auditing and testing, followed by a 1 year long activation phase followed by the bulk of the bitcoin community running full nodes choosing to run core's segwit signalling. So far we have nothing from BSFORK in terms of code and a bombshell announcement and everyone is expected to be running it within 4 months or be left high and dry. Quote
They plan to do a hard fork within 4 months that both activates segwit and creates a base block size increase of 2MB concurrently.
agreed to ignore pretty much all scaling signalling and adopt their own
agreed to ignore pretty much all scaling signalling and adopt their own
i guess my question is what is the difference between their "SegWit" and the one that have been being signaled so far apart from the obvious 2MB and why is it bad?
The core Devs were too late to act...
ASIC Mining = Centralized business
...
There seems to be a confused irony in your statements. It seems that you think that a decentralized Bitcoin should remain centralized around the devs of a specific wallet. Or am I reading that all wrong? ASIC Mining = Centralized business
...
can someone explain to me how these two are different
i guess my question is what is the difference between their "SegWit" and the one that have been being signaled so far apart from the obvious 2MB and why is it bad?
Quote
They plan to do a hard fork within 4 months that both activates segwit and creates a base block size increase of 2MB concurrently.
agreed to ignore pretty much all scaling signalling and adopt their own
agreed to ignore pretty much all scaling signalling and adopt their own
i guess my question is what is the difference between their "SegWit" and the one that have been being signaled so far apart from the obvious 2MB and why is it bad?
The core Devs were too late to act. All of these crap has been foreseen by many people years ago.
ASIC Mining = Centralized business
They should have changed the PoW mech. before everything went out of control. It is still not too late. Many people will cry, many will leave bitcoin, bitcoin will make a huge dive but it is more important to have a decentralized/user supported currency.
I don't give a little fuck about if bitcoin loses its marketcap to eth, dash or any other centralized scamcoin. It doesn't matter.
Do i worry because Facebook has a bigger market cap than bitcoin? No. Same goes for the other altcoins. Printing your own money is not a joke. The governments may not take action against them and they may even promote them but you'll never know what they are going to do tomorrow.
There was a reason why Satoshi hid his identity. It is because this shit is serious.
When cryptocoins become a threat to the Banks, all of those altcoin owners will look for a hole to hide themselves.
Make your mind. Stay anonymous, stay decentralized. Peace.
ASIC Mining = Centralized business
They should have changed the PoW mech. before everything went out of control. It is still not too late. Many people will cry, many will leave bitcoin, bitcoin will make a huge dive but it is more important to have a decentralized/user supported currency.
I don't give a little fuck about if bitcoin loses its marketcap to eth, dash or any other centralized scamcoin. It doesn't matter.
Do i worry because Facebook has a bigger market cap than bitcoin? No. Same goes for the other altcoins. Printing your own money is not a joke. The governments may not take action against them and they may even promote them but you'll never know what they are going to do tomorrow.
There was a reason why Satoshi hid his identity. It is because this shit is serious.
When cryptocoins become a threat to the Banks, all of those altcoin owners will look for a hole to hide themselves.
Make your mind. Stay anonymous, stay decentralized. Peace.
...It is time to drain the swamp. Let's kick ASIC miners out of bitcoin.
Thanks for that; I needed a good chuckle this morning.
This agreement is a joke and a trap to fool the community once again!
BIP148!
Enough said.
BIP148!
Enough said.
so no one sees this as one step towards a broader consensus rather than the final deal?
a significant enough spread of mining power just stated their willingness to go segwit. they also did it without any technical input. maybe they're now waiting to see what developers and exchanges have to say and it'll finish up with something everyone's happy enough with after their suggestions.
a significant enough spread of mining power just stated their willingness to go segwit. they also did it without any technical input. maybe they're now waiting to see what developers and exchanges have to say and it'll finish up with something everyone's happy enough with after their suggestions.
Nah, that would be too easy. We have to continue casting aspersions, fighting and escalating until everyone is completely alienated and no one agrees with anyone.
A fractious split is pretty much a self fulfilling prophecy if the tone doesn't change soon, because nearly everyone involved is beating the war drums like an asshat lately.
Let's be fair here. You can't exactly begrudge them drawing up their own plans when the UASF crowd fired first.
False comparison. One plans to be a *user-activated-soft-fork* the other one plans to be a *cartel-activated-hard-fork*.Talk about being blinded by your own hubris. "My nuke is morally superior to their nuke"? Is that what we're going with?
Well maybe both of them started as a bluff and now are forced to play their hands to completion...
Nothing's being forced until someone pulls the trigger. If you set yourself down the path of activating UASF, you're pulling the trigger and forcing their hand. If they set themselves down the path of activating a non-consensual hard fork, they're pulling the trigger and forcing your hand. No one has pulled the trigger yet, so simmer down and start negotiating before things escalate any further.
Regularly change bitcoin algorithm can solve this problem (mining dominance by big companies), but it needs central hard fork policy
Indeed, I said that already a few times. This is why PoW has always a centralization effect of some sorts.
It's one big proposal that i think won't gain big support from community since it incompatible/ignore other bitcoin scaling solution. I doubt this plan will be success since who knows who write and test the code.
Regularly change bitcoin algorithm can solve this problem (mining dominance by big companies), but it needs central hard fork policy
Let's hit the goddamn red button so all those cartel companies eat shit.
This PoW thing took the deciding mechanism from the users and gave them to big companies. Bitcoin is not about the mining companies. It never was. It was all fine when they were favoring the users rights but if they decide to take over, we need to take counter measurements.
It is time to drain the swamp. Let's kick ASIC miners out of bitcoin.
This PoW thing took the deciding mechanism from the users and gave them to big companies. Bitcoin is not about the mining companies. It never was. It was all fine when they were favoring the users rights but if they decide to take over, we need to take counter measurements.
It is time to drain the swamp. Let's kick ASIC miners out of bitcoin.
Regularly change bitcoin algorithm can solve this problem (mining dominance by big companies), but it needs central hard fork policy
In essence this means the pools are creating a fork of the current bitcoin code which is planned to be incompatible with any current version should their hard fork go ahead. Which means that every single current code node user, be they core, BU, classic, XT, whatever, is currently going to be on an incompatible fork of bitcoin after their planned deployment in September. So they are asking the entire community to ignore all existing bitcoin implementations and adopt their software node implementation before that time, or risk being on a very hashrate poor fork, even though there is no published code to support this September fork yet.
Brilliant. My view of things is going to be tested experimentally. Being a scientist, I love experiments even if it is to be shown that I misunderstood things: then I learn.
It's becoming every day more exciting. What will win ? Non-mining nodes ? Hash rate collusion ? Immutability ? Experimental outcome will tell.
I'm looking forward to how this is going to work out... one way or another, it are interesting times in crypto land, and we're going to progress in our understanding of these things.
Whats the meaning of this? The beginning of Centralized bitcoin? I feel bad about this 
Whatever. So should we expect 300,000 TX backlog next time?
Let's hit the goddamn red button so all those cartel companies eat shit.
This PoW thing took the deciding mechanism from the users and gave them to big companies. Bitcoin is not about the mining companies. It never was. It was all fine when they were favoring the users rights but if they decide to take over, we need to take counter measurements.
It is time to drain the swamp. Let's kick ASIC miners out of bitcoin.
This PoW thing took the deciding mechanism from the users and gave them to big companies. Bitcoin is not about the mining companies. It never was. It was all fine when they were favoring the users rights but if they decide to take over, we need to take counter measurements.
It is time to drain the swamp. Let's kick ASIC miners out of bitcoin.
Jump to: