Topic: Thoughts from Russia on the block size situation and Blockstream - page 2. (Read 7411 times)

Yes very much agree with you
and to our Russian friend .There is good quote.If there is not possible to know what is about it is propably all about money

It would play out as a more efficient version of what's happening between XT and Core today.  Imagine that there are 5 competing implementations, each with between 10 - 30% of the node base.  They all run essentially the same consensus library because everyone knows it's very important to follow the longest chain, although they differ in features.  OK, so a few years down the road the community feels that a change needs to be made: we need bigger blocks!  Multiple proposals are put forward (as they are today), a big debate ensues (as it does today), and then each software implementation picks their favourite proposal and implements it to activate some time in the future (like what Bitcoin-XT did with BIP101).  

I believe this would be helpful to achieving consensus because now the user base has the ability to express their free choice more efficiently.  They will tend to migrate towards one of the particular implementations.  In an effort not to lose their user base, developers for the other implementations will make changes that at least make their code compatible (non-forkable) with what looks like the favoured solution.  

It's a sort of 'spontaneous consensus' event.  Of course, I can't prove that this will work, and that's one of the reasons why Bitcoin is an experiment.  However, if we need centralized development to keep Bitcoin decentralized, then it seems to me we've already lost.  

So how do you imagine this works? Let me guess... DEMOCRACY!

Everyone pushes their own code to the consensus and may the best one win? Everyone gets to vote somehow?

How do you propose different sets of developers working on their own implementation decide on a consensus code?

the "iCode" argument

 

Problem is, your checks are bouncing.   

ok, well I have written some Bitcoin code...a few utility scripts in the electrum section of this forum.
Nothing spectacular but since apparently more than you've done, the noob comments are funny.

Have a nice day.

Similar to how several people convinced themselves that "bitcoin couldn't scale" (and so now we see such a vicious backlash against increasing the max block size as these people overcome their cognitive dissonance), I think people also convinced themselves that Bitcoin Core would be the permanent core of Bitcoin (and again now they make up reasons for why we need centralized development to keep Bitcoin decentralized).  

It's sort of ironic that the push to increase the block size is what woke the community up to the problem of developer centralization in the first place.  Prior to this debate, people took it for granted that "basically everyone runs Core."  



In response to Brg444: everyone agrees that the consensus rules need to be such that the implementations don't permanently fork.  That's not the debate here.  The debate surrounds the question of why the choice should be dictated by a specific set of developers.  The only argument I've heard is a hand-wavy "well duh it will be chaos otherwise and the various implementations will all fork."  I don't find that convincing.  

"I don't write code, I write checks" - Jay-Z.... or was it? 

The Swiss get to vote on whether to be subjects of Brussels or vassals of the U.S. and not much more from the looks of things.  Peg you currency to the EU?  OK (for a while at least.)  Absorb whatever foreigners Brussels tells you to?  OK.  Cough up confidential customer bank records to the U.S.? OK.  Pathetic.

have you ever written any related Bitcoin code?

Sorry, that's just how I deal with disingenuous noobs.

Elements...yeah...we already knew that.  Well at least he gives a use case.  Still too vague overall.

btw, if you think your snide sarcasm makes you appear more intelligent or respected, let me inform you: it doesn't.

If you can't grasp what their model is after reading this then no amount of explaining will do the trick. Maybe you ought to ask them for a "take your kids to work day" kind of thing?

Another one of your comedy Freudian slips. 

I think the issue IS that blockstream continue to disclaim their business plan.. 


btw Its normal for business to disclose their business plans. Usually as part of a funding process and launch. They are rarely trade secret, whereas their IP might be.

This is a prime example of not arguing with idiots.

Best they can do is personal attacks like a loud mouth juvenile.

What a ridiculous and ignorant comparison.

We're talking about code. Not politics. GTFO

Please stop making assumptions about what I know or have done.

The point about blockstream isn't that they need to or should reveal trade secrets.
But many would like them to reveal enough to mitigate concerns over conflict of interests.
Whether or not that is feasible is unknown, but clearly they haven't done it and
I am pointing out that important fact.

As far as a centralized authority being in charge of the code, you are entitled to that opinion.
Ironically, that is an opinion Mike Hearn has expressed too.  But you are anti-XT.  So that
just shows you like the idea of authority, as long as it's one you agree with.

 Priviet,dont be shame ,your engllish is ok.There is very great  if people from your area of the  world are  coming here to discuss,I think there is a lot of hopes in bitcoin in Russia,Ukraine and now that hopes are broken
I will post you something on pm,i dont want to create of topic here
Even if btc will die digital currencys will stay,i am agree with you that situation is awful,already people call  that blockchain war.Sounds likecurrency war
Paka

Oh yeah! That's why Switzerland failed: Having more idiots "vote" on what should go into the consensus politics, instead of a gang of professionals who decide.

You've never had any interactions with the business world or educated yourself a little on the matter have you?

Let me break the news for you: no one is stupid enough to disclaim their business plans in full details.