Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19380. (Read 26610024 times)

Bitcoin is neither a democracy nor a meritocracy.

Every "-cracy" has its strength and weakness. It's human. It's bipolar.

Bitcoin is (stupid) software enforcing rules (1 ASIC - 1 VOTE) you are free to (dis-)agree with.

What makes Bitcoin so powerful is its independence from any form of government or "..."-cracy. Like freedom of speech it is freedom of choice!

The bitcoin (price) just reflects the acceptance of a certain group of people who freely agreed to transact value with each other.

Thank you for reinforcing my point. Most individuals are raised to believe in false dichotomies. No, I am not a communist, or collectivist, far from it.... I am advocating for the rights of the individual over the group. An individual classic supporter should have the right to voluntarily fork off, advocate for, or rejoin any other implementation, free from coercion. I am advocating for greater decentralization and more implementations. I have been consistent upon this. Regardless, of being clear and consistent, the moment I suggest anything negative about "democracies" one assumes the false narrative that I support centralization of governance or development. This is the same problem when core reminds the community that they don't have the authority to perform the hard fork as this is a decision for the economic majority to be made through a consensus process. I believe many are genuine in their belief that Core is saying this to stonewall, not because its true, but because they literally cannot think outside of their paradigm.

This is not to suggest that all aspects and use cases of democratic governance models of consensus are flawed or worthless. Let me remind you that some of the central principles and the raison d'être of bitcoin in the first place is in overcoming some of the limitations with republic or democratic governance within currencies.

Ok correct me if I'm wrong but centralization of nodes could get some power to the one running them no? Hence decentralization seems a good thing, but if anyone wants to centralize the nodes of the LN, he will only need to put his nodes for free! Then nobody else will use the paying nodes no?

I was not aware of that!
It means you could get rewarded for running a node?
That would help decentralization of nodes no doubt. But I don't think I get it right, does it cost anything to run a node? i mean you do that on an average normal computer no?

Sounds like you're planning a good old fashioned purge there. Sure good you're not a collectivist, comrade. Where's Yezhov?

Yes, this is an often ignored point drowned out by the critics, conspiracy theorists, and trolls of blockstream. LN is open source, was invented and primarily being developed outside of Blockstream, and is going to offer a viable solution to the dilemma of node centralization by incentivizing node operators.

I look forward to Lightning Network if it works as we all hope it does. Hopefully it only requires soft forks to implement.

I'd love to run a lightning node and charge a few bit cents for running it to have a small income from my holdings.

Coin



Explanation

Unfortunately, I believe this drama will only temporarily go away. There were indeed many genuine XT/UL/Classic supporters but there were also many shills/trolls/  agent provocateurs supporting a contentious HF. Bitcoin is competing/undermining against some of the most powerful states and corporations and we should prepare for a vicious and difficult fight ahead.

Part of this is educating people towards the true principles of bitcoin, as many are still advocating code be written under the governance of democracy which would be tragic and goes against our current meritocracy consensus based development framework. As we grow our ecosystem this will remain a constant challenge we must overcome as most humans have been programmed to believe democracy is the best form of governance available.

What I see (and understand) is that it seems to be a good thing that BTC community reaches a consensus.

I don't really care about the finality simply because I don't understand it. I don't know why btc classic or anything else should be implemented, and as far as I'm trying I still don't see an obvious solution.

But I'm glad to see the community will back one same solution, and not just go in 3 opposites directions.

Have you been following LN Development ? Rusty, Joseph Poon, and Thaddeus Dryja have been making some real progress.
Most Code is already ready and being tested as we speak:

https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning
https://github.com/hashplex/Lightning
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/


To be clear, 3rd quarter 2016 is when LN will begin to roll out on the live network.


This has always been the case and continues to be the case . Core supports multiple implementations ... that is why they spend so much time fixing(lack of extensive modularity) Satoshi's code with libbitcoinconsensus.

More insight into Satoshi's code for the layman-
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3di6zc/nick_szabos_hidden_work/ct5j4wu

Indeed. Time for some reconciliation, and maybe a truth commission too.

I think part of the problem is people involved in bitcoin have gotten addicted to the non-stop drama surrounding it, that has existed since early on (late 2010 at least). So when everything is ticking over peacefully, price is flat, they get bored and start looking around for the next drama fix ... "hey what's this, we can bash the devs? cool" ... "look at this, a simple programming constant we can get upset about and create some drama, awesome" ... "let's jerk the Fed's chain about blockchain, should be neat" ... "hey, did you hear the latest Satoshi rumour?!"

That's an awfully ambitious timetable for something that isn't even beta testing yet. Something this new will require years of testing to be done in a safe manner. Meanwhile the villagers gather to push forward the populist solution of larger and larger blocks.

No, you are right, if this is what the consensus is, then thats what it is.

I'm worried that it seems the impetus is to cut it off before it can be established by the means with which it was originally intended to be reached - by running the software of your choice.

To be fair ... The reality distortion field was high within their community because outside trolls and agent provocateurs where actively supporting Bitcoin Classic to create division in our community and because adopting that implementation would lead to centralization and dis-empower all the "evil" crypt-anarchists and cipher-punks.

Take for example this well known troll/Buttcoiner actively supporting Classic-

https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/44nc78/gavin_andresen_stubbornly_refuses_to_call_it/czrdrvy

https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/446hth/americanbanker_blockchain_will_make_banks_more/czpcz7b

https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/446hth/americanbanker_blockchain_will_make_banks_more/czo6kmf


We shouldn't hold any grudges against most Classic supporters and welcome them back in as our temporarily lost brothers in an act of solidarity.


I welcome other payment channel options and will happily run multiple versions of payment channels. The only cat fight should be in market competition with deploying more payment channel nodes instead of politics. Thankfully with Segwit, Circle/Bitpay/Coinbase can create their own payment channels as well instead of foolishly believing their mempool algo makes 0conf txs secure.

Such class, such intellect.


LN is scheduled to start rolling out 3rd quarter 2016 for more capacity layered ontop of segwit. We all want more capacity, we just want to insure it is done in a safe manner.