Topic: Thoughts from Russia on the block size situation and Blockstream - page 4. (Read 7411 times)

Peter, the way you're biting every worm Hearn casts toward you is very disturbing.

This newly created issue of "developer centralization" is completely disingenuous and grounded in plain ignorance. Of course I am especially tired of seeing you rehashing the same tired concern (I imagine that's how GMax felt when you kept publicly supporting the false and misguiding conclusions of your paper) so allow me to quote myself again.

I agree, however what a group of people was doing is against the rules. Actually the staff let you guys off easy. Instead of punishing everyone for repetitive behavior (i.e. breaking the rule multiple times) they have decided to lock the thread. This is also off topic for this thread, and yet people are lucky (incl. me) that nobody is being punished for this behavior.

Please don't. The whole block size debate and now the 'blockstream is bad' debate has had enough of those. People need to cool down. Less threads need to be opened, and discussions should be focused in the appropriate threads.

That's a good stand!

@Peter: I am not saying you shouldn't support XT, I am saying some of your posts which essentially is for showing support to XT seems a bit stupid and you don't strike me as a stupid to me.

P.S. Before supporting any clients, make sure it is safe by checking source codes thoroughly.

* Edited.

I am not under the authority of any core dev but their historically reliable consensus development process. Its track record speaks for itself, having successfully ousted generally bad or harmful ideas out of contention for a push into the consensus code.

On the other hand you're trying to sell us into a top-down, outright authoritarian leadership of the development process  I know which one sits right with me and which one doesn't.

Speaking about authoritarianism, you don't seem to give a bat about being under the authority of Core devs no matter what they could decide. Pardon me but I fail to see your logic.

I considered creating a new sock-puppet name "Leonid Trolstoy" the other day.  Ultimately I almost never use the sock puppets I have so it was not worth the bother.

That's all well with us. Fork away and enjoy your authoritarian alt coin 

this really is the bottom line that is fundamental to open source coding and one which Bitcoin should not reject out of hand just b/c core dev spins a consensus mechanism as the ultimate goal to maintain control.

I get your point but I don't think Mike Hearn could easily make that kind of modification to the protocol and gain a lot of support behind. In that kind of scenario, if Mike introduce blocks that fits the agenda of a US government agency, it has good chances to be outright rejected by most international businesses and they will fork the code just like Mike and Gavin did. Also, what guarantees you have that Core won't do such a thing? There is none actually (I don't trust Mike as much as I don't trust Core team). The best guarantee we have is the ability to fork the code.

Forking the code without changing the protocol rules isn't a big deal. XT wasn't much of an issue before it changed the protocol rules (yes, conditionally, but even a conditional change is a change). If XT ends up with a big block protocol, it will be very hard for someone to fork XT and change the protocol again -- just like it's hard for XT to do it against Core now. On the other hand, if Hearn decides to implement more protocol changes in XT (and it's completely up to him), I strongly suspect people will be inclined to just go along with it.

Why do I think people will go along with it? I've been following this for a while.

Before BIP101, people were saying "oh, there won't be a hard fork unless there's 90% of miner agreement." Yes, 90%. I read that over and over. Then BIP101 came out and it said 75%. And supporters just switched to saying 75% instead of 90%. I won't be shocked at all if 75% gets dropped lower.

Then when it became clear XT would be released with BIP101, supporters were saying that Mike Hearn would make Gavin Andresen the main committer (or benevolent dictator). There was never any signal this would happen, but people (cypherdoc?) said he would "have to." Well, Hearn clearly intends to keep that role himself. Has this driven XT supporters away? Not that I've seen. They just accept it.

Would they accept it if Hearn adds blacklisting redlisting? If Hearn dropped support for Tor altogether? If Hearn added a condition that a block is only valid if the rewards are paid out to mining addresses registered with an official government agency? Well, let's just say I haven't been impressed by XT supporters being willing to stand up to Mike Hearn. He'll get whatever he wants. And you'll like it.

i'm pretty sure ppl can see who the major trolls are in these discussions.

Why looky here; Cypherdoc (Generalissimo of the Free Shit Nation) is back from the dead!  ...and reincarnated as YAWLC [yet another whiny little cunt.]  Lulz lovers everywhere rejoice!

I'm in the exact same position. I really don't understand why some people are so attached to Core. What makes it so special? Centralized development goes against every principles that make bitcoin a robust system in the fist place. Core = central point of failure until XT came into existence. No matter the outcome XT opened a Pandora's box for future development and implementations. I guess it takes time for people to accept this new reality.

Benevolent dictator of open source code that any body can fork if they disagree with it like they just did? Really?

Let me make my position clear:

(1) I view the block size limit as an anti-spam measure and I support increasing it.

(2) I believe Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization is presently in development and I support measures to reduce this centralization.

By supporting XT, I help push for both larger block sizes and help move us away from our dependency on Bitcoin Core.  

If another credible team forks Bitcoin Core into a third implementation that also supports larger blocks, I will support that implementation too.  

If the plan is to keep bitcoin decentralized by making Mike Hearn its benevolent dictator, then I think you might need to rethink your plan.

The reasons the core devs associated with Blockstream have opposed proposals to raise the block size are most likely the reasons they've given -- the same reasons some of them gave even predating the formation of Blockstream. I'm assuming everyone has been reading both sides of this debate and knows what those reasons are, right?

I don't agree at all that Blockstream or the associated core devs are a "cancer" for Bitcoin. But if that's how the XT supporters really feel, maybe it's time for a divorce. I'd rather not be in a community with people who always think "evil conspiracy" when they hear the word "profit."

then maybe you can explain why this troll take off thread on mine which has 0 posts on gold is allowed to continue?  it's filled with nothing more than anti XT troll posts:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up-noonoopol-1091654

Gotta agree with this picture...what's so hard to understand on that satoshi wanted bitcoin DECENTRALISED and it's the whole idea of it!!!

Huh?  I said maybe the almighty core dev isn't as perfect as some people think.
To me that sounds like expressing a possibility rather than a fact.

My posts probably just seem like facts because I'm usually on the right side of reality.