Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 83. (Read 157162 times)

I think Bitcoin depends on this presumption. The miners absolutely could pull in features like two megabytes blocks, I think they are choosing not to, just to be more diplomatic for now, which is not unwise. I think we will see two megabyte blocks, it is just a matter of time.

i hope this actually reflects the reality, one day.

I believe it's half true today, today miners only seem to be able to say what won't get added, they can't pull in features they would like to see ( ex 2MB blocks ) any new feather seem to have been exclusively made by Core in order for it to be considered.

Agreed, the miners have the final say in what gets added, not Core!

Fine. You may like other network, Paypal maybe, or Doge? Where charismatic leaders or users respectively decide what gets added.

In a cryptocurrency, miners always have the final say in what gets added and what not.

I entirely agree. I think that the success of the decentralized governance of Bitcoin depends on us having multiple implementations for us to choose from. All open source projects are essentially types of dictatorships, the only way for this to become free is to distribute and decentralized development. The client people choose to run should reflect the peoples freedom of choice, this is how the governance of Bitcoin should work. This idea of having a monopoly on development which only a few people are in charge off and even have veto power over is completely antithetical to the very ethos of Bitcoin itself.

Core seems to have rejected this idea of the miners voting, therefore Core defines consensus instead of proof of work. I do fundamentally disagree with this of course. The miners should be the ones with the vote, it was even described this way within the Bitcoin whitepaper.

wasn't there a BIP made to allow this kind of thing to happen?

miners would be allowed to express their willingness to accept whatever new features are on the table? once >90% of minners had flaged a feature as acceptable it would get activated.

if we could get 3 highly qualified teams all competing to get there new features pulled into "Bitcoin" without anyone of them having the power to actually pull in the new features themselves, that would be ideal.
I don't like the idea of a monopoly on what gets added to bitcoin and what doesn't.
it was necessary at the beginning ( there was only one team )
but if we can break away from that, that would be great.

As far as I understand Core presently lacks the support they said they needed from the miners in order to implement segwit. I believe Core said they needed ninety five percent consensus for segwit, they have no where near that amount, especially considering that F2pool recently withdrew their support from the Core roadmap. For now segwit is dead in the water throwing the entire roadmap of Core into question.

Here is the Bitcoin Classic roadmap by the way, which I consider a much more sensible roadmap for Bitcoin:

https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/documentation/blob/master/roadmap/roadmap2016.md

This classic rebellion is completely pointless. The core team haven't failed at all. They are delivering and will deliver.

It's time to engineer and deploy SegWit. I'm confident it can be developed and deployed correctly. If that fails, and developers mismanage this, then it's turn for the haters to express their concerns and assemble their own team.

I've described what I'd consider dishonest tactics of 'achieving this'. Let's see if BU will do this in the future.

Where?

This team is not very experienced (nothing special there). I'm not implying dishonesty, I want a 3rd party review. It's as simple as that.

---

---

However, this is all off-topic here. This thread is about Classic, not BU.

It does not matter who did the most work, what matters is what is in the client itself, that determines which implementation should be considered the "best" at any one time. What matters is what is in the code, not the people that are behind it.

What do you mean with not giving adequate credit? That also does not make any sense, it is clear who wrote what code, nothing is being obfuscated and all of the code is properly accredited.

The testing has already been done, you can check the results for yourself, you could even compile the code yourself and test it, it is relatively easy to do. It almost seems like you are implying intellectual dishonesty on the side of the Bitcoin Unlimited team. Which I could say even borders on being disrespectful, since it does seem like you do not apply these same standards to Core. It is good to be skeptical though, the code is out there for everyone to critique. I am sure that if it was flawed the small blockists camp would not hesitate in letting everyone know that was the case.

Core has bandwidth throttling.  IDK if the other two ideas are in BIPs.

You claim implementation superiority without giving adequate amount of credit to the people who did most of the work. This might be just a subjective opinion, you're free to disagree.

No, we shouldn't. If you claim that they're breakthroughs, that doesn't make them such. I'd like to see analysis from a 3rd party first before giving any credit to anyone.

Explain to me, how is Bitcoin Unlimited being disrespectful by using the open source code developed by Core while at the same time developing new open source solutions to scaling Bitcoin directly? That makes absolutely no sense to me at all, open source code should be free and open for everyone to use regardless of their reasons. I do not see how this is supposably disrespectful in any way. If anything the entire Bitcoin community should thank Bitcoin Unlimited for these breakthroughs in the same way that I can thank Core for the work they have done.

No. That's not what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that acting this way is disrespectful towards the people who did most of the work. If the code is good and useful somebody will present it to Core. You've quoted an earlier version of my post, I re-wrote it several times.

Core hasn't done such a thing. It is the 'forkers' that point fingers whenever something happens (e.g. DDoS).

---

---

Update: Corrections.

core can do the same.
If these features really are pointless and not noteworthy then just ignore it
Its feels like an awful waste to dismiss all code from anyone else simply because they're not your friend.
IDK, but i get the feeling Core is very... how do i put it... Hostile? Close minded? fuck idk , this is just the feeling i get when i read these comments from the Core supports...


i see gavin going around helping all, and core hoarding code and pointing fingers at everyone..

I know how the development process goes. However, they can withhold merging these features. They could wait for Core to release an upgrade each time and then merge those changes in addition to their features. Technically they could claim that their implementation is better after each release because of their features (which they think are useful). Very respectful indeed.

Welcome to open source software dev. no it's not a joke.

Not really, no.

---

---

So is the relay network, it is a protocol. However, I'll let Maxwell answer the other parts if he notices this thread again.

It is another type of censorship. Your opinion is biased if you only see the tactics deployed by one side.

First you proceed to copy paste everything from Core, then you apply a few features of your own and call your implementation 'more beneficial'? What a joke.

Traffic shaping was first implemented by XT not Core. Furthermore the traffic shaping feature in Core just cuts off upload at N bytes for those who have metered plans. This is no where near as useful as proper throttling controls which Bitcoin Unlimited has even implemented within a new GUI.

I do no understand how this could be worse then the relay network, since Xthin is a decentralized solution. Furthermore it speeds up block propagation by a factor of at least fifteen. Block propagation times being the main restricting factor for an increased blocksize by small block proponents, you should be able to see how this is a huge breakthrough.

It is very revealing that you can not tell the difference between downvoting and real censorship, which has recently gone into full overdrive. Even censoring any mention of Xthin in the r/Bitcoin reddit.

Bitcoin Unlimited has all of the features that the latest Core release has. Except for RBF which the Bitcoin Unlimited community voted not to include in the latest release. Bitcoin Unlimited now has more beneficial features compared to Core. While Core is focusing on building off chain solutions, Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin Classic are focusing on scaling the Bitcoin blockchain directly.

Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin Classic are friends, our implementations are compatible with each other unlike Core. An example of how competing implementations can cooperate.