Why Bitcoin Core needs to die | Bitcointalksearch.org

SebastianJu

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 1083

Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile

Quote from: Lauda on August 24, 2015, 03:58:44 PM

Quote from: adamstgBit on August 24, 2015, 03:50:34 PM

how can you say : There no urgent need for increasing the block size limit.
and then follow with: The network only has problems

Because:

8 MB blocks might not be enough during future peak times
8 MB blocks are not enough to handle a stress test either

Essentially, almost nothing will be resolved. Learn the definition of the word urgent. Having a problem constantly would result in this being a urgent change, which it is not.

Quote from: Peter R on August 24, 2015, 03:52:55 PM

I think it's easy to show that this claim is false.
-snip-

By using a estimate of the future growth pattern? This is not evidence and will most likely be wrong.

Quote from: Peter R on August 24, 2015, 03:52:55 PM

In my opinion, a credible plan to increase the block size limit was urgent several months ago.

Yes, a sustainable one was. A doubling every two years is not sustainable.

Update:

Quote from: Zarathustra on August 24, 2015, 04:23:50 PM

Around the last halving (Spring 12 - Spring13) the number of transactions increased tenfold.

You're expecting this to happen again. We shall see.

It surely would be way harder to fill 8 megabyte blocks.

Though i agree with you that the limit is not very bitcoinish. It should be removed completely and spam attacks should be handled with an intelligent fee system. Though i don't see someone spamming 8MB locks now that they are not even at 1MB. It would be way too expensive and would make no sense in any way.

SebastianJu

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 1083

Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile

Quote from: Peter R on August 24, 2015, 01:40:11 PM

Quote from: achow101 on August 24, 2015, 01:29:05 PM

I'm inclined to believe that they support XT and BIP101 simply because it is the only production code available that implements big blocks, which they all support. If someone creates different code that also implements big blocks (such as BIP 100) then we would have both more choice and that these companies would not stick to XT.

Agreed! I'd like to see the Core Team create a branch that includes BIP101; let their user base decide which to run.

Exactly. Even Gavin could have done this instead merging with hearn and his dangerous ideas.

It would be a lot more democratic that way. Though you never know how many people would still use the old version out of laziness. And at the end miners decide, not the community. :/

SebastianJu

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 1083

Legendary Escrow Service - Tip Jar in Profile

Quote from: BitcoinNewsMagazine on August 24, 2015, 11:06:54 AM

Bitcoin Core is not a democracy thank God.

I would prefer it being a democracy. Unfortunately there is no way to really make it democratic. I mean at the moment the mining corporations have some kind of "Vote" though those would only be a couple of (rich) individuals who would have the right to vote. That's nothing near a demo-cracy which translates to "ruling of the citizens" or so.

I can not imagine how you could make a voting system that can not be exploited. It would even be easier to create a real world voting system for political parties since there you would know the people that have voting rights.

Though bitcoin can't solve all problems. One step at a time. Tongue

Muhammed Zakir

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 509

I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!

Quote from: ashour on August 25, 2015, 01:31:35 PM

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on August 25, 2015, 01:11:36 PM

Quote from: ashour on August 25, 2015, 12:45:23 PM

-snip-

The Bitcoin Core developer are already getting paid by the bitcoin foundation and MIT, the developers receive a competitive salary. But some of them chose to do certain things in order to get a "fat" paycheck by BlockStream.

Except speculations, do you have valid proofs to say so?

Yes I have various sources that bring links between the core developers and BlockStream

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hksre/blockstream_employee_asking_to_remove_gavin_from/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2moq3o/theres_been_a_lot_of_talk_lately_of_blockstream/?ref=search_posts
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hh0qg/blockstream_working_on_making_bitcoin_more/?ref=search_posts

I could do the same by searching. Easier is to just go to their website and look at team members. This only prove they are working in Blockstream and not the FUD, "Blockstream is controlling them."

ashour

sr. member

Activity: 490

Merit: 250

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on August 25, 2015, 01:11:36 PM

Quote from: ashour on August 25, 2015, 12:45:23 PM

-snip-

The Bitcoin Core developer are already getting paid by the bitcoin foundation and MIT, the developers receive a competitive salary. But some of them chose to do certain things in order to get a "fat" paycheck by BlockStream.

Except speculations, do you have valid proofs to say so?

Yes I have various sources that bring links between the core developers and BlockStream

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hksre/blockstream_employee_asking_to_remove_gavin_from/?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2moq3o/theres_been_a_lot_of_talk_lately_of_blockstream/?ref=search_posts
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hh0qg/blockstream_working_on_making_bitcoin_more/?ref=search_posts

Muhammed Zakir

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 509

I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!

Quote from: ashour on August 25, 2015, 12:45:23 PM

-snip-

The Bitcoin Core developer are already getting paid by the bitcoin foundation and MIT, the developers receive a competitive salary. But some of them chose to do certain things in order to get a "fat" paycheck by BlockStream.

Except speculations, do you have valid proofs to say so?

dothebeats

legendary

Activity: 3542

Merit: 1352

Cashback 15%

Well I don't agree on BIP 101 becoming the main client. There are other good implementations from other BIPs, so why not get a mixture of them?

Quote from: LiteCoinGuy on August 25, 2015, 10:43:49 AM

There is a silver lining on the horizon - BIP 100 from Mr Garzik. Looks like a good compromise to me.

BIP 100:

Protocol changes proposed: http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf

   -Hard fork, to
   -Remove static 1MB block size limit.
   -Simultaneously, add a new floating block size limit, set to 1MB.
   -The historical 32MB limit remains.
   -Schedule the hard fork on testnet for September 1, 2015.
   -Schedule the hard fork on bitcoin main chain for January 11, 2016.
   -Changing the 1MB limit is accomplished in a manner similar to BIP 34, a oneway lockin upgrade with a 12,000 block (3 month) threshold by 90% of the blocks.
   -Limit increase or decrease may not exceed 2x in any one step.
   -Miners vote by encoding ‘BV’+BlockSizeRequestValue into coinbase scriptSig, e.g. “/BV8000000/” to vote for 8M. Votes are evaluated by dropping bottom 20% and top 20%, and then the most common floor (minimum) is chosen.

i would be happy if such thing would be adopted...and after that - Bitcoin to da Space Wink

!

Reference: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bip-100-and-bip-101-i-like-both-1161622

ashour

sr. member

Activity: 490

Merit: 250

Quote from: Muhammed Zakir on August 25, 2015, 12:07:05 PM

Quote from: ashour on August 25, 2015, 11:40:21 AM

Quote from: achow101 on August 24, 2015, 01:58:43 PM

Quote from: knight22 on August 24, 2015, 01:51:16 PM

Quote from: slaveforanunnak1 on August 24, 2015, 01:39:37 PM

I will run core even if i'm the only one running the node and I'll mine my own blocks and would rather use fiat over xt.
You might say.. " oh come on bro.. you're being irrational!!"

No,..no.. I am not. The reason I got into bitcoin, was not so i can buy coffee with my phone! It was so i can be a part of "new money", one which is not controlled by anyone.
It seems like TPTB have managed to take over some of the figure heads and are using them to gain control over bitcoin. You can't shut down TCP/IP, but you can bribe/threaten, Gavin.

Have fun with your GOV... Gavcoin.

Not controlled by anyone but a bunch of Core devs? Bitcoin is not controlled by anyone indeed and XT is demonstrating just that.

XT is controlled by Hearn and Gavin and them only. Core is controlled by the core devs, which includes a lot more than two people, so I would say that Core is more decentralized than XT right?

Talking about Bitcoin itself though, then yes it is not controlled by anyone and the multiple forks of Bitcoin (including xt) and alternative clients all demonstrate that.

Yes but you have to know that those core developers who control the bitcoin core are on the BlockStream paycheck list. I doubt that they are working for the good of the bitcoin community, BlockStream is trying to sell us their product with the help of these core developers.

A Bitcoin Core developer should not work for anybody else. Will you pay for their livelihood? I doubt you could get a person who agrees to work only for Bitcoin Core without any pay assurance.

The Bitcoin Core developer are already getting paid by the bitcoin foundation and MIT, the developers receive a competitive salary. But some of them chose to do certain things in order to get a "fat" paycheck by BlockStream.

Muhammed Zakir

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 509

I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!

Quote from: ashour on August 25, 2015, 11:40:21 AM

Quote from: achow101 on August 24, 2015, 01:58:43 PM

Quote from: knight22 on August 24, 2015, 01:51:16 PM

Quote from: slaveforanunnak1 on August 24, 2015, 01:39:37 PM

I will run core even if i'm the only one running the node and I'll mine my own blocks and would rather use fiat over xt.
You might say.. " oh come on bro.. you're being irrational!!"

No,..no.. I am not. The reason I got into bitcoin, was not so i can buy coffee with my phone! It was so i can be a part of "new money", one which is not controlled by anyone.
It seems like TPTB have managed to take over some of the figure heads and are using them to gain control over bitcoin. You can't shut down TCP/IP, but you can bribe/threaten, Gavin.

Have fun with your GOV... Gavcoin.

Not controlled by anyone but a bunch of Core devs? Bitcoin is not controlled by anyone indeed and XT is demonstrating just that.

XT is controlled by Hearn and Gavin and them only. Core is controlled by the core devs, which includes a lot more than two people, so I would say that Core is more decentralized than XT right?

Talking about Bitcoin itself though, then yes it is not controlled by anyone and the multiple forks of Bitcoin (including xt) and alternative clients all demonstrate that.

Yes but you have to know that those core developers who control the bitcoin core are on the BlockStream paycheck list. I doubt that they are working for the good of the bitcoin community, BlockStream is trying to sell us their product with the help of these core developers.

A Bitcoin Core developer should not work for anybody else. Will you pay for their livelihood? I doubt you could get a person who agrees to work only for Bitcoin Core without any pay assurance.

ashour

sr. member

Activity: 490

Merit: 250

Quote from: achow101 on August 24, 2015, 01:58:43 PM

Quote from: knight22 on August 24, 2015, 01:51:16 PM

Quote from: slaveforanunnak1 on August 24, 2015, 01:39:37 PM

I will run core even if i'm the only one running the node and I'll mine my own blocks and would rather use fiat over xt.
You might say.. " oh come on bro.. you're being irrational!!"

No,..no.. I am not. The reason I got into bitcoin, was not so i can buy coffee with my phone! It was so i can be a part of "new money", one which is not controlled by anyone.
It seems like TPTB have managed to take over some of the figure heads and are using them to gain control over bitcoin. You can't shut down TCP/IP, but you can bribe/threaten, Gavin.

Have fun with your GOV... Gavcoin.

Not controlled by anyone but a bunch of Core devs? Bitcoin is not controlled by anyone indeed and XT is demonstrating just that.

XT is controlled by Hearn and Gavin and them only. Core is controlled by the core devs, which includes a lot more than two people, so I would say that Core is more decentralized than XT right?

Talking about Bitcoin itself though, then yes it is not controlled by anyone and the multiple forks of Bitcoin (including xt) and alternative clients all demonstrate that.

Yes but you have to know that those core developers who control the bitcoin core are on the BlockStream paycheck list. I doubt that they are working for the good of the bitcoin community, BlockStream is trying to sell us their product with the help of these core developers.

Muhammed Zakir

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 509

I prefer Zakir over Muhammed when mentioning me!

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 24, 2015, 06:13:46 PM

Quote from: Lauda on August 24, 2015, 03:47:42 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 24, 2015, 02:06:26 PM

Quote from: AtheistAKASaneBrain on August 24, 2015, 11:57:34 AM

People would be pro-XT if they delivered a better solution, but they don't and they want to put all those dodgy "features" against privacy, thats why XT must die and not Core. Core is not perfect but with time Bitcoin will improve. We don't need to rush bigger blocks at all.

Yes we do.
-snip-

I'm going to ask you nicely to stop spreading misinformation and deceiving the people around us. There is no urgent need for increasing the block size limit.
The network only has problems:

during some peak times
during a spam attack/stress test

The average block size is not even 0.5 MB.

Bitcoin Core does not need to die. People are very weird when it comes to this debate. They talk about centralized control, but how is taking the power from a group of people and giving it to 2 individuals progress?

I just posted the current front page of Blockchain. How's that misinformation?

If the average blocks are already half full thats too much already,
since we are fast growing plus there will always be peaks. In addition,
it takes a long time to roll out the block increase. Thankfully its already
started and pools are voting to increase rather than listening to people
who are brainwashed by the BS (blockstream) monopoly.

Furthermore, the argument of "8mb might not be enough" is
an all-or-nothing fallacy that makes no sense in reality.

You seem to have been spreading "size is not increasing because of BlockStream." Why? What about Gavin's & Mike's XT development and implementing BIP 101 way before it got consensus? This is very biased or is misinformed or is disinformation/FUD. By comparing your previous posts and behavior, this seems lot like your are misinformed or you are spreading misinformation. No offence.

VirosaGITS

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1068

Bitcoin Core just need easier modification path with a miner vote system. Switching to XT is definitely not the answer.

Core need to develop an interface with suggested modification, open a debate and then vote Y/N with a signed script from miners/pool with their hashrate. If the vote% is over a certain amount for 1 month then everyone jump.

Maybe in a way that take power away from the minority but.. meh. Just a way to go at it i guess.

tadakaluri

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 500

If Bitcoin Core is dead, All remaining coins are Altcoins including Bitcoin XT and there is no value for them (because all altcoins valued with BTC Price).

silkylove

newbie

Activity: 40

Merit: 0

I don't think core should be dissolved. All the members have a ton of experience. I do think there needs to be a massive overhaul though. Their current model of leadership is broken IMO.

Sourgummies

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Never ending parties are what Im into.

Besides bigger blocks that we can debate are needed, what is XT on about?
I trust core more than I will ever trust a group that has already attempte shady tactics. Or keeps spreading gospel that few are interested in.
Why follow a team that has already manipulated its follwers with a backdoor?

Ingatqhvq

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: slaveforanunnak1 on August 24, 2015, 01:39:37 PM

I will run core even if i'm the only one running the node and I'll mine my own blocks and would rather use fiat over xt.
You might say.. " oh come on bro.. you're being irrational!!"

No,..no.. I am not. The reason I got into bitcoin, was not so i can buy coffee with my phone! It was so i can be a part of "new money", one which is not controlled by anyone.
It seems like TPTB have managed to take over some of the figure heads and are using them to gain control over bitcoin. You can't shut down TCP/IP, but you can bribe/threaten, Gavin.

Have fun with your GOV... Gavcoin.

Sure you can enjoy your own block.
If the XT really gain more than 75% support, then it is the really bitcoin.
You just run an altercoin.
bitcoin is not control by anyone. people have the freedom to support XT or against it.
100% consensus is ridiculous.

guddu raj

newbie

Activity: 28

Merit: 0

The so-called “Lightning network”
that is being pushed as an
alternative to Satoshi’s design does
not exist. The paper describing it
was only published earlier this year.
If implemented, it would represent a
vast departure from the Bitcoin we
all know and love. To pick just one
difference amongst many, Bitcoin
addresses wouldn’t work. What
they’d be replaced with has not been
worked out (because nobody knows).
There are many other surprising
gotchas, which I published an article
about. It’s deeply unclear that
whatever is finally produced would
be better than the Bitcoin we have
now.

DooMAD

legendary

Activity: 3724

Merit: 3063

Leave no FUD unchallenged

Quote from: Snorek on August 24, 2015, 06:27:32 PM

If this is the way every bitcoin changes in the future will be held and 'proposed' with major war between everyone. I don't know if bitcoin has bright future ahead.
In the beginning of bitcoin there was only one person who shaped everything, gave it form. Now we have many people screaming different things and we CAN'T decide anything.
Imagine the future when much more serious change will be needed. Bitcoin does not need any external enemies - it will kill itself.

Doubtful. It doesn't matter what drama is going on in the community, the network itself doesn't care. It will continue to spit out new blocks roughly every 10 minutes. This will be the case whether the fork happens or not. As usual, people just need to chill out and have a little faith. One way or another, we'll have an answer to this little quarrel at some point and the network will keep churning out blocks regardless.

Snorek

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1001

If this is the way every bitcoin changes in the future will be held and 'proposed' with major war between everyone. I don't know if bitcoin has bright future ahead.
In the beginning of bitcoin there was only one person who shaped everything, gave it form. Now we have many people screaming different things and we CAN'T decide anything.
Imagine the future when much more serious change will be needed. Bitcoin does not need any external enemies - it will kill itself.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: Lauda on August 24, 2015, 03:47:42 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on August 24, 2015, 02:06:26 PM

Quote from: AtheistAKASaneBrain on August 24, 2015, 11:57:34 AM

People would be pro-XT if they delivered a better solution, but they don't and they want to put all those dodgy "features" against privacy, thats why XT must die and not Core. Core is not perfect but with time Bitcoin will improve. We don't need to rush bigger blocks at all.

Yes we do.
-snip-

I'm going to ask you nicely to stop spreading misinformation and deceiving the people around us. There is no urgent need for increasing the block size limit.
The network only has problems:

during some peak times
during a spam attack/stress test

The average block size is not even 0.5 MB.

Bitcoin Core does not need to die. People are very weird when it comes to this debate. They talk about centralized control, but how is taking the power from a group of people and giving it to 2 individuals progress?

I just posted the current front page of Blockchain. How's that misinformation?

If the average blocks are already half full thats too much already,
since we are fast growing plus there will always be peaks. In addition,
it takes a long time to roll out the block increase. Thankfully its already
started and pools are voting to increase rather than listening to people
who are brainwashed by the BS (blockstream) monopoly.

Furthermore, the argument of "8mb might not be enough" is
an all-or-nothing fallacy that makes no sense in reality.

Topic: Why Bitcoin Core needs to die (Read 2334 times)