Topic: Who have right and which is the best? (Read 2582 times)

+2

+1, with a few corrections.

Sorry but I disagree all the post and disagree strongly some of your sentences. First I need to tell that I am a sworn enemy of gambling. I think that gambling cause addiction and if not cured, bring disease and distress. So, in my point of view, make a strong connection between bitcoin and an variant of gambling like poker and thinking or "selling" this as an immense good for bitcoin or as an incentive which will bring big spread of it, is totally a wrong and even risky approach of this matter. Gambling and poker cannot be never good for bitcoin because mean first of all lose of money. Statistics tell that in poker lose their money 95% of them who play and win only the remaining 5%. Where is the good here? In losing money? You think that losing money will help people to love bitcoin? I don't want to comment more (to not create polemics out of the aim of this thread) but in the quoted post there are other scandalous expressions which make me think that the author may be an addicted one from poker (and maybe even classic gambling itself). Sorry for my words (may be strong ones) and have any kind of desire or aim to offend you. But your reasoning is totally wrong one, according to me, and I must tell that I want to tell with the needed words to give exactly that what I think and feel.

+1

I play poker for a living....and when I seen the opportunity to promote a legitimate poker site that has adopted Bitcoin, I jumped on board.  I cannot even imagine a better marriage than poker and Bitcoin.  I had my poker accounts frozen in April, 2011 which severely limited my ability to earn a living. I had to jump thru hoops to get my accounts funded on sites that still accepted US customers....Poker introduced me to Bitcoin.  The regulatory intervention of poker by the US government validated the need for a decentralized, unregulated currency.  I've been playing on the network you see see in my signature since well before Bitcoin was formulated.  Poker provides a huge incentive for people to adopt Bitcoin in the US market....Poker benefits the Bitcoin community and bitcoin benefits the poker industry.  If it weren't for poker, I wouldn't care about Bitcoin.

OP you have asked a very difficult question here. The best course of action is no longer questioning the community in general but rather asking specific and reputable members in particular. You might ask yourself why this is. Essentially you will get (you already have) shills posting for their own respective sides. 'shills' as in people who don't make technical arguments but rather make baseless accusations and whatnot. Currently there are two major options:
1. Bitcoin Core
2. Bitcoin Classic (the fork)

---

---

There are two proposals for the short term on increasing the transaction capacity:
1. Core - Segwit
2. Classic - 2 MB blocks.

Now both proposals have some negatives to them (we could discuss this, but you could look up some other threads), but 2 MB blocks have no benefits aside from the increased transaction capacity. Segwit on the other hand fixes other important things such as transaction malleability.

---

---

The main problem here isn't the proposal but it is the fork itself. A successful hard fork needs to have a lot of consensus and a longer time-period for activation because essentially if those that do not upgrade are unable to use Bitcoin. Classic proposes 75% consensus threshold and forking very quickly (4 week grace period IIRC). This is very wrong and harmful to the system. Another thing that one has to consider are the people behind the implementations. Classic doesn't even have half the "developing power" as Core.

---

---

This is written in a fairy objective way and contains no bias. Anything that was written should be correct.

To be fair, he probably shouldn't ask a failed extortionist. There's that.

If you have legit concerns then you could just PM me or someone else (but I don't think you'll do that as you want to have your posts seen - especially as you have a rather big ad sig).

And very lucratively too if I might add. (JOKING)  LOL   No, I am legitimately concerned with the block size stalemate, just like the original poster, and I'm just trying to understand the dilemma better.  I believe in Bitcoin and want it to succeed....I want to have access to a decentralized, non-regulated, pseudo-anonymous currency with small transaction fees that will be accepted globally.  That's all.

This is why we can't have nice things
I do not report posts as a matter of principle; please don't force me to reconsider.

---

The blockchain grows every day, it currently grows by (at most) 1MB every (roughly) 10 minutes. Changing the 1MB max_block_size to 2MB will make it grow by (at most) 2MB every (roughly) 10 minutes. The important bit is "at most." Just like every block isn't 1MB right now, blocks won't suddenly be 2MB, or bigger at all. Though they could be, when the capacity is needed. And if someone decided to "spam" the blockchain.

There are conceptual problems with scaling Bitcoin, and your running a full node is of clear benefit only to yourself, and only if you're handling large sums. That's a tangent tho, & and by thinking that I'm likely in the minority.

Thanks for making it clearer who is actually paying you to post.

No...I do my part to support the network.  I'm just saying that while everybody is pointing fingers and arguing about "degree's" of change rather than focusing on change in general that there are other technologies that have learned from the bitcoin experiment which are posed to fulfill the needs of the consumer, rather than the greed of the miners.  I mean, R3CEV has invested more on research than the entire marketcap of Bitcoin.  And Ethereum has capabilities that far surpass Bitcoin....are we going to let an Alt win, even though we have all the brains on our team?

I see - so you are another paid shill.

How surprising.

Yes...I just edited my post above in anticipation of the response but I'll put it here to keep things in context because you seem to type faster than I can think....LOL

I haven't even opened my Core wallet in weeks because I don't want to have to wait for it to synchronize....I'm just an average user so where is my motivation to maintain a full node to support the network?  I mean why?  Is that a valid question?  The less of an incentive it becomes to maintain a full node, the more control the miners consolidate.  I don't believe that was an intended outcome of the project....so things have changed from the original vision....the math needs to be re-thought in order to put the project back on track with the original vision....that's all.

It isn't really so hard to understand - we are talking about billions of dollars - that tends to make it easy for people to do anything (such as post rubbish at me like has been happening) for money.

This topic is just another excuse for those that are trying to get rid of the core devs to further their cause (and I would be pretty certain that is exactly why this topic was created in the first place).

Right. Bitcoin is [implicitly] dependent on miners' interests coinciding with those of the hodlers. By implicitly I mean the vulgar sense of the word, as in "implied but not directly stated." There are other mechanisms, like nodes, that are somehow meant to mediate this, though, like yourself, I'm at a loss as to how (see my post above).
Assuming that the interests of miners would align with those of the holders is valid only if no "cashing out" -- if miners were forced to keep their money as BTC rather than sell those BTC for USD. If the problem with this is unclear, I could expand, but am slow typer

@CIYAM below: If you have nothing but your paranoiac musings & baseless accusations to contribute, kindly stop shitting up this thread. ty.
VV

Very true...Trying to keep in the spirit of the original posters concern.  The OP was trying to figure out why there is so much debate and conflict between those who hold the keys to the project.  And, much of that conflict is based on ideology....but there's also a miner vs. adopter (consumer/user) aspect to the whole debate.  Right?

EDIT: I haven't even opened my Core wallet in weeks because I don't want to have to wait for it to synchronize....I'm just an average user so where is my motivation to maintain a full node to support the network?  I mean why?  Is that a valid question?

You're confusing how bitcoin protocol works (math) with who decides how it changes over time (politics, or you wouldn't be here).

Edit: What's more, we don't have a clear definition of terms here: what is "consensus"? It's been defined as anything from < 50% to 100%, but of what?
Bitcoin Wiki introduces the term "economic majority," but it's a junk term. People with fiat are the true economic majority.
So consensus of what? Miners [hashpower]? Holders of BTC [no mechanism to vote].
Holders of fiat [they're the ones who actually *BUY* coins]?
Number of nodes [irrelevant because trivially cheap to rig]?

That's my point...Back in the day when everybody had the opportunity to mine it was an even playing field and that was important, but things have evolved.  Now, we have to reconsider things rather than hold on to the original model that has obviously went into a different direction than was originally anticipated.  Right?

Unity becomes exponentially more difficult to achieve as numbers grow. Two coin tosses have a 50% chance to both land on the same side (heads or tails ; agreeing, consensus). Three coins 25%, four coins 12.5% etc., etc.
This, of course, is just an illustration, random tosses, coins have no "enlightened self-interest" to land on heads or tails, and consensus will be more likely to happen if people voted against, let's say, replacing our atmosphere with hydrogen cyanide, for instance. But you know that wouldn't be true consensus either, because nature of crowds, because suicides, because watch the world burn.

So trade-off: higher % majority = more stagnant system {conservative], lower % = more dynamic [revolutionary].