Topic: Why Bitcoin Core needs to die - page 2. (Read 2357 times)
By me core don't need to die. It is really well handled. They will adapt changes slower than other clients, but they will
how can you say : There no urgent need for increasing the block size limit.
and then follow with: The network only has problems
Because:and then follow with: The network only has problems
- 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.
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.-snip-
Around the last halving (Spring 12 - Spring13) the number of transactions increased tenfold.
...snip...
I think we should wait until shit hits the fan.
I disagree of using future growth pattern but i like to use the word "sustainable" purely pulled out of my ass.
I think we should wait until shit hits the fan.
I disagree of using future growth pattern but i like to use the word "sustainable" purely pulled out of my ass.
Quite a display of logic you got there.
how can you say : There no urgent need for increasing the block size limit.
and then follow with: The network only has problems
Because:and then follow with: The network only has problems
- 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.
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.-snip-
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:
Around the last halving (Spring 12 - Spring13) the number of transactions increased tenfold.
You're expecting this to happen again. We shall see. 
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.
...
...
I think it's easy to show that this claim is false. For example, if the average block size continues to grow at its historical rate, then we will bump into the limit right around the earliest activation date for BIP101:
In my opinion, a credible plan to increase the block size limit was urgent several months ago.
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-
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?
how can you say : There no urgent need for increasing the block size limit.
and then follow with: The network only has problems
its not a problem that there are problems because the problems only happen some of the time, of course the problem will become bigger problems in a few months but thats not a problem!
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-
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?
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
we are clearly looking at two completely different things.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This morning we had a broad show of support for BIP101 (Gavin's proposal) from several major Bitcoin companies:
Source: http://blog.blockchain.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Industry-Block-Size-letter-All-Signed.pdf
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. Source: http://blog.blockchain.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Industry-Block-Size-letter-All-Signed.pdf
Quote
I think that once the bitcoin core is forked it should be removed from github. The developers need to make a final change and final version so people can't mess with the bitcoin core and change the path of bitcoin. This way bitcoin will stay more decentralized.
Yeah you know what: the raftsmen were very decentralized too - and due to techical evolution they are long gone.
Beeing "decentralized" does not mean that you can stop to evolve and to become better over time....
I agree needs stability and more centralization. People will be satisfied and only increase the number of users
This morning we had a broad show of support for BIP101 (Gavin's proposal) from several major Bitcoin companies:
Source: http://blog.blockchain.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Industry-Block-Size-letter-All-Signed.pdf
Source: http://blog.blockchain.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Industry-Block-Size-letter-All-Signed.pdf
Quote
So forget the personalities involved. Forget what the names of the clients are. Forget how the development teams are organised. We're placing too much emphasis on that.
I agree with many things you say and i feel that its to much about personalities either. What i totally disagree is that we are placing to much emphasis on how the team is organized. For me that is one of the most underdiscussed topics at all. You can NOT run (sportsteam, company, whatever project) with a 100% consensus- culture. That is a recipe for disaster.
You can certainly try to run with 100% consensus, but clearly all it leads to is a split when someone does eventually disagree. Such a split isn't a disaster (despite how the community seem to be reacting to it). It just means we now get a choice we wouldn't have otherwise had.
- If devteam "A" have a group leader who makes all the decisions, we only get one client.
If devteam "A" have 100% consensus and all the devs agree, we only get one client.
If devteam "A" have 100% consensus but can't all agree, we get devteam "B" and two clients.
So in effect, a split can be a good thing, which is what happened here. Now we have a choice. Choice is good (although apparently controversial). That's why it doesn't matter how development teams are organised. The important thing is that the proposal gets created and we get to choose which code to run. It's possible that the two current proposals we have don't cover the myriad of views expressed on this issue, so we may need a few more options to choose from.
Quote
So forget the personalities involved. Forget what the names of the clients are. Forget how the development teams are organised. We're placing too much emphasis on that.
I agree with many things you say and i feel that its to much about personalities either. What i totally disagree is that we are placing to much emphasis on how the team is organized. For me that is one of the most underdiscussed topics at all. You can NOT run (sportsteam, company, whatever project) with a 100% consensus- culture. That is a recipe for disaster.
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.
Jump to: