Topic: Thoughts from Russia on the block size situation and Blockstream - page 8. (Read 7342 times)

Thats exactly the point.

Go around and tell ppl, thats not censorship because its private property is absurdly dumb,

There is a big difference to when a government commits censorship compared to when a private entity does. However even though a private entity has the right to censor its own space, in the same way that you could do so in your own home. It does not however follow that such action is justified, it is not. It is the wrong thing to do even if you have the right to do it.

Of course not. It's your house 

I wish i can invite Lauda to my house one day for a cup of tea. We can talk all kind of stuff. But as soon as she/he mention bip100, i will slap his/her face. Ask a question why? another slap to the face.... keep going with the topic and i will kick her/his bottoms so hard , she/he can barely work.

Its not censorship at all you know.
 

Really? You are putting out the "but North Korea is worse"-card? You must be really desperate.
Fact is, threads r/bitcoin got deleted. That is censorship. If it is a private forum, doesn't matter at all in the definition of censorship. Look it up at at Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

So, could you please don't change the definition of words, just because it suits your agenda?

If we do not increase the blocksize and there is a significant increase in adoption then transacting on the main chain would become prohibitively expensive. At this point the only alternative which would provide sufficient scale is using third parties on top of Bitcoin, or you could just use another cryptocurrency.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/permanently-keeping-the-1mb-anti-spam-restriction-is-a-great-idea-946236

I am banned from /r/bitcoin for this very reason so yeah give me a break and STFU.

I'm pretty sure that anyone calling out for censorship has no idea what that is. You are not free to talk about it? Name me a single person who got punished for talking about XT? Because this is what censorship is.
You get killed (hello North Korea) for doing things that are not allowed. XT discussions are allowed in this forum, in the altcoin section. This was never, and is never going to be censorship.

Enough with this hyprocrisy. You are free to choose but not to talk about it on the main forums right?

Give us a break.

Then why do they fight so hard against them? Why do you fight so hard against them?

You are now entering the Orwellian phase of your argument. You go from chanting "4 legs good, 2 legs bad" to "4 legs good, 2 legs Better!!"

Fact remains that the core desire towards a fee market is to facilitate the use of off-chain solutions such as sidechains/LN or whatever your having yourself.

I will not go deep into blockstream because I don't know exactly how that will be managed, but what i know for a fact, if you think XT was the solution to this you have no idea what you are talking about. With XT the nodes would become centralized which is an huge tradegy for Bitcoin. So keep looking for solutions.

Here we go again. Another round of false information, FUD, ad hominem and whatnot. Blockstream is not cancer. What if someone told you that you were cancer for calling them cancer? (for the record, I'm not stating this; some might try to abuse this). This is not how you discuss. This is not how you move forward.

Just because some people started a company, we should ignore both sidechains and the lightning network? This is not how everything works. As people have told me (when discussing XT) that nobody can force you to run Hearn's changes, then nobody can force you to use any solution from Blockstream.

---

---

There is no censorship. This is a privately owned forum. If you do not like the rules, start a new one and convince people to join it. Nobody can force you to be here either, can they?

I try to keep it simple and to the point because
you keep circling back around and dancing around the issue, which is why I previously
said you seem to be twisting facts and in denial, which you just confirmed.

1. Again:  This was debated for 3 years.   Gavin was forced to release something with Mike Hearn
because Greg and the kids on the blockstream wouldn't play ball.   If they really wanted to
release something, they would have worked with Gavin so the solution is more to their preferences.  Either
their interests in Blockstream prevented that, or they lack leadership/communication/team
skills.  Either way is a problem.  I think when you boil it down, they just don't see the urgency
as Gavin does.  Maybe that's because of their other solutions like the lightening network.
Maybe they are willing to stall Bitcoin and take bigger risks.  They don't want to take technical
risks purportedly, but they are willing to risk slowing down adoption.  There is a risk/reward.
and part of their reward is blockstream business activities.  This is what you seem to deny.

2.  This leads to the next point.  Gavin says a fix is urgently needed.
I say an imperfect fix IS better than no solution.  Gavin
essentially said "Core devs won't agree, but we need bigger blocks,
so I'm going to do the best thing I can and release Bip 101 on Mike's fork."
No one ever said Bip 101 was perfect, but who are you to say its "broken"
and its worse than no solution?  I guess you know more about bitcoin than
Gavin so we should listen to you.  
---

The only way your position even makes sense is if you truly believe its not
important to have bigger blocks asap.  It must mean you agree with the devs
who aren't ready to raise the limit. Somehow it doesn't scare you.  You're not
worried about scalability.  Again, risk/reward.  But you won't be getting the
rewards that blockstream and its investors get by taking their side.    

@ MZ: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability_FAQ

I am asking one thing to Jonald, knight22 and whoever else who is saying Core developers hired by Blockstream is only for 1 MB block size limit. Did all these Core developers actually say it?

Show me the receipts. Until then keep your paranoia to yourself, it's really making you look desperate.

One last time:

Does bigger blocks benefit Lightning? Yes
Does bigger blocks benefit Sidechains? Yes

Does bigger blocks benefit Blockstream? Yes!

FTFY

You are really simple heh 

Anyone could've patched core with an block size increase picked out of a chinese fortune cookie. There's a reason no one did: it's stupid. A broken solution is no better than no solution at all.

No one's arguing who's to blame. If one had to point fingers I'd start with you and your disappointing tendency to spread falsehoods and ignorance when you had previously be shown truth and facts.

You can argue who is to blame, Gavin or Greg Maxwell.
But consider this:  One of them ultimately made a scalability solution available,
the other didn't.





 

Absolutely not what happened. You can read about it here.

In short, Blockstream developers (and others by the way) blocked Gavin's implementation of bigger blocks considering its lack of safe and sound technical backing. As far as I know they have never unequivocally shut the down on a block size increase. Unless you can point me to proofs of your assertions?

For someone who accuses me of "not grasping" things you sound quite ignorant and misinformed..

Blockstream's business plan is of course not out in the open as is the case for a majority of early-stage companies, that would be a little misguided  . Still, a little knowledge about what they plan to offer and the various business model in the open-source world should give you a clear hint of what their venture is about. To put it quite simply it seems apparent they would like to follow the long lineage of very successful businesses such as Red Hat, SUSE, the Mozilla Corporation by leveraging their expertise in Bitcoin development and sidechains to become these companies' equivalent for the Bitcoin ecosystem.


I won't comment on the censorship issues other than to mention it is the product of only a couple of reddit & bitcointalk mods and that so far I have yet to see any developer sponsor or condone it.

Maybe "everyone agrees block size should be increased" although some people will raise their hands and claim the opposite. What is not clear amongst the proponents of a block size increase is what model of block "growth" should be adopted and under what parameters should this increase proceed.

You should understand that Lightning actually scales better with larger block and that the appeal of it is not only volume but efficiency. Lightning, unlike the Bitcoin blockchain (whatever size the blocks are) can accomodate micro or instant transactions in a safe and reliable manner.

Hope that helps!