Topic: Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? - page 14. (Read 38050 times)

Current thread backup in case of censorship,
https://archive.is/fbSQt

So basically, Bitcoin Core is clearly under direct strong influence by blockstream.




WHY bitcoin Devs are paid by an Company who wanna make PRofit

i thought its open source


Of course they doing what the best for Blockstream who pay them and not for Bitcoin Satoshi !!!



Dont Argue here everybody knows that People have Conflict of interesst $$$$$$$

I am sorry, my brain really cannot process what you are saying.

Incorrect.
Not vaporware, code is available, source:
https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/693136607659069441

Also there are already 48 nodes running, source:
http://xtnodes.com/

There is no proof whatsoever about what you are saying.

The "weak chain" will quickly die, but you will able to move your coins to the "stronger chain" any time. No problem with that.

I don't think the words you are saying mean what you think they mean, please elaborate.

We don't need such proposal currently. Bitcoin does not need to scale to VISA levels tomorrow. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Now, this is some kind of hardcore extreme bullshit.
Explain in detail what you mean by "spam cannot be detected" and "stress test never ends" and what does it have to do with Bitcoin Classic or hard fork.

0 confirmation transactions were never ever safe.
So what is your point ?

1MB is no kind of satoshi nakamoto "rule".
1MB is simply a temporary anti-spam measure.
Everybody knows this and Core developers also know this. Some of them are just too deep in shit with their heads to admit it.

Is $50 a "proper fee" ?

Once the network starts congesting, not only will the fees go up significantly, but Bitcoin transactions will become unreliable. This is why RBF was created by Peter Todd for Bitcoin Core. The only way you can make transactions fast & reliable with 1MB blocks is using RBF.

But RBF is fatally flawed itself, check this out:
RBF is optional for sender (opt-in), but not optional for receiver.
1. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/42m4po/its_a_sad_day_when_core_devs_appear_to_understand/
2. especially: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/42lhe7/usability_nightmare_rbf_is_sort_of_like_writing_a/
3. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3zju81/rbf_optin_a_man_walk_in_a_bar_order_a_coffe_drink/

In short: You can choose whether to send RBF, you can choose whether to mine RBF, but you cannot choose whether you receive it or not.
"RBF is sort of like writing a paper check, but filling in the recipient's name and the amount in pencil so you can erase it later and change it." - /u/rowdy_beaver (on reddit.com/r/btc).

RBF could have the potential to completely destroy 0-conf transactions widely & successfully used today.

RBF / Bitcoin Core is a disaster waiting to happen.

Guys just ask yourself Cui bono?

We in Germany ask us that at the moment all the time ABout Angela Merkel who is Destroying our countries with mass muslime immigrations ...Who controll her and whats the plan ?


So the Core devs gots shithole of money to do this...they are not stupid people....just Money rulezz


If Blockstream give me 5000 btc i will code whatever they want i would not much care also if the BTC miner get the fees
or Blockstream gets the money.....

They are like our Goverment bought by too much Money....



Thats my personal opinion and not an attack on anybody !

He has perfect understanding of how things would work after the fork,
do you ?
He is actually right, I can understand it (I am a technical person, though not Bitcoin developer).

Hell, even Bitcoin Core/Blockstream developers can also surely understand it, but I am not sure if any of them is
willing to admit that.
They may be too deep with their heads in the bullshit, propaganda & manipulation web they have created.


I don't think you understand how things work in Bitcoin network function at all.
Once Bitcoin Classic wins, Bitcoin Classic becomes Bitcoin, Bitcoin Core stops being
Bitcoin. Bitcoin Core will be *THE* altcoin you are talking about.

No, this is not what I was asking.
Let me rephrase the question: "how do you think consensus looks in Bitcoin world" ?

Oh, it is extremely relevant.

- Adam Back is the president of Blockstream.
- Adam Back lies and manipulates, as clearly proven above
- Adam Back condones censorship.
- Adam Back has clear conflict of Interest as previously proved in this thread.
- Adam Back wants to cripple the Bitcoin network for his personal (his company) gain.

So yeah, it has everything to do with what is happening here, because anything that man says can be now treated as
bullshit and/or manipulation of the topic for his gain.

Let's sum it up.
- Consensus is NOT what majority wants
- Consensus is NOT what minority wants

Loigically, the only thing left is that Consensus, according to Adam Back, is what a
strictly selected group of people wants. And that is exactly what I have stated.

So for Adam Back, consensus is what Blockstream wants. Which is clearly visible in his posts.
- He thinks he is smarter than everybody
- He thinks he always knows better
- He actually thinks he invented Bitcoin and it is his to do as he pleases.

This is completely unacceptable for me and should be unacceptable for any Bitcoin user.

Soe logically by what you are saying is:
- Majority cannot override "consensus"
- Users cannot override "consensus" (they are the majority !)

So everything checks out. Blockstream / Bitcoin Core are the ones who define consensus. That is exactly the same I have
said.


This is incorrect, and this is not how Bitcoin network work.

You are actually talking about how soft-fork would work.
With hard fork, you can quickly & easily split 2 incompatibile parts of the network, so the one majority chooses
becomes "the Bitcoin", and the other one is abandoned and dies.

The separate chains coould obviously work as separate coins, but that is very difficult to maintain and therefore
highly unlikely.

- Gavin knows this
- Jeff knows this
- All Core devs know this

The problem is whether they are willing to honestly admit this, because - as clearly proven above - some of them are
lying bastards completely full of shit.

Stop this offtopic now.

I have proven that you are incorrect. That is all here.

Oh, now I get it.

You and me are talking about 2 different things.

You are all the time talking about a soft-fork "consensus".
I am talking about what happens when hard fork, not soft fork is performed.

Hard fork is a clean cut. Soft fork is messy, because - as you say - it requires everybody to migrate to the new
system, otherwise there may be problems.

By the way, this is reason why what Core devs are trying to do is dangerous. They are trying to upgrade the
network using soft-fork which requires much greater "consensus" than hard forks do.

- To do hard fork, actually 60% "consensus" is enough. (but 75% is of course better) The other 40%/25% will
quickly migrate to the winning side of the fork.
- To do soft fork (which Core wants to do), 90% may not be enough.

Keep fighting Knight im admire you how you fight against the Blockstream trolls...

Just a quick thread refresh, so we all know what are we dealing with here...
Proceeding with the discussion soon...
----

This is what this topic is about. Stop watering it down:

Hahahaha.

That's a nice downplaying manipulation right there.

Actually most of prominent Bitcoin Core devs also work for Blockstream:
Adam Back
Gregory Maxwell
Luke-Jr
Matt Corallo
Pieter Wuille

That's not all - people above are actually the founders of Blockstream & whole lightning concept.

Just a reminder, Adam Back, president of blockstream openly condones censorship:
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hbpg0/adam_back_openly_shows_his_agreeableness_to/
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hbpg0/adam_back_openly_shows_his_agreeableness_to/

Gregory Maxwell also condones censorship:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/42vqyq/blockstream_core_dev_greg_maxwell_still_doesnt/

And he is a manipulative lying bastard, proof:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/438udm/greg_maxwell_caught_red_handed_playing_dirty_to/

And he openly supports attacking competing projects:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/41c1h6/greg_maxwell_unullc_just_drove_the_final_nail/

...which Adam Back also does. He really likes sabotage, that one:
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3hc4nu/adam_back_openly_shows_his_agreeableness_to/

The arguments provided above should be enough for anybody to abolish Bitcoin Core forever. But there is of course much, much, much more from last year.

I will repeat this once more, for posterity:

Saying that "bitcoin is hashcash extended with inflation control" is exactly like saying that "car is just horse carriage extended with combustion engine"

A person who said such thing must have HUGE ego problems.

The source of the quote:
https://twitter.com/adam3us

Mirror in case he changes it:



Correct.

Proceeding with developer list. Please note the metric used (number of commits) is far from perfect (Not done by me - found on reddit):


So basically, Bitcoin Core is clearly under direct strong influence by blockstream.

-------------------------------------------------

Here you are:

1. https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3id1al/moderators_of_rbitcoin_changed_the_stylesheets/
2. https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3h51e0/we_did_it_reddit_a_500_upvoted_post_with_hundreds/
3. https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3ruq0a/coinbase_ceo_brian_armstrong_proposes_rbtc_for/
4. https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/40qrc6/theymos_is_intentionally_bugging_threads_that_he/
5. https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3h8vkv/rbitcoin_is_now_banning_people_for_mentioning_xt/
6. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3woemv/gregory_maxwell_biggest_mistake_is_a_bit_too_much/cxy4fpx?context=3
7. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3woemv/gregory_maxwell_biggest_mistake_is_a_bit_too_much/cxxvep4?context=3
8. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3z0pkq/theymos_caught_redhanded_why_he_censors_all_the/

EDIT:
Oh, almost forgot these. These are golden:
9. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/418r0l/lukejr_is_already_trying_to_sabotage_bitcoin/
10. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/40qvwd/bitcoin_classic_hard_fork_causes_chaos_on/

All done by small blockists & blockstream employees & blockstream supporters.

If you genuinely want what is good for others, you don't use evil tactics to achieve it.

-------------------------------------------------

Please remember that even if you don't understand Bitcoin technically, you can still vote correctly in the blocksize debate:

How ? The only thing that you actually need to consider is the actions taken by both sides of the debate.

There is only one side of the debate here that repeatedly tries to stifle discussion by resorting to censorship, DDoSing, outright lying while simultaneously pretending that nothing is actually happening. Check out yourself.

If they wanted the best for Bitcoin users, they wouldn't have to lie, censor and directly attack their opponents. Such actions clearly show their evil intentions and their ulterior hidden agenda. Words are often meaningless. Words are cheap. These days you can actually detect bullshit and real intentions of evil people only by watching their actions.

This is at least a 2000-year old truth. "You will recognize them by their fruits" it said in some ancient book.

So basically, the side of the debate that resorts to censorship, lying, manipulation and attacks, is 99,99% of the time the dishonest side which is trying to do something evil while pretending to do something good.

That is users vs nodes, not nodes vs miners.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6306

And indeed, needed rules are added in that way. It's another thing entirely when you speak of removing current rules, however. On that, Satoshi said (emphasis mine):


Also keep in mind that back when Satoshi was around, the idea was that every node would be a miner among equals. That is no longer the case.

Au contraire, Blackadder...

Reddit poster activity intensifies, these are the major topics:

Classic vaporware - There is no alternative qualified team other than Core.

Hardfork to crash economy - The proposed block size increase hard fork is dangerous for many reasons. Large blocks will be spammed and full from the start.

Hardfork freeze coins - No matter the fork, the weak chain will be destroyed. This means the weak chain coins will become frozen, speculation will be impossible.

Hardfork cause loss of funds - If user pays during a hard fork, the payment can be reorganized and lead to the loss of funds.

Classic cannot VISA Scale - There is no proposal to reach 1000 transactions per second. Currently Bitcoin process 4 tps, Classic offers 8 tps.

Spam and 1MB cap are temporary - Because the "stress test" never ends, so will the blocks be forever full. Spam cannot be detected because wallets are anonymous.

0-confirmations are unsafe - 1% of blocks become orphaned, in this situation even 1-confirmed transaction can be reversed.

All miners mine 1MB now - There is no miner who has the balls to disrespect the Satoshi Nakamoto 1MB rule and mine a large block.

1MB +fee fast confirmation - With proper fees, transactions get confirmed without any delay

Ok but how do you market your service to people?


seconded.

Many people, me too, think he is wrong.  I will stick to Bitcoin, and if people will exchange the bitcoins they bought from me to some altcoin, I don't have any problems with that.  In the past I got many requests to sell litecoin, primecoin, scamcoin and whatevercoin.  My answer has always been the same: I buy and sell bitcoin, and if you want something else, it is very easy to exchange the bitcoins to something else elsewhere.  As you see from the short list of businesses wanting to switch to an altcoin based on different consensus rules, the great majority will stick to Bitcoin.

I think many miners will switch back to Bitcoin as well, since their newly minted coins will only be accepted by a very few merchants.  If an exchange try to sell the altcoin as Bitcoin, they will certainly get sued by people who discover the coin they bought won't be accepted by merchants accepting Bitcoin.  This can lead to severe losses.  I regularly buy lumps of 100 BTC which people send to my autobuy system with no prior notice.  If someone send some altcoin to the same address because the address format is the same, they may have lost a lot of money.  100 classiccoins, unlimitedcoins, bitpaycoins, XTcoins or whatevertheyarecalledthisweekcoins will probably not be worth anyting, but you get my point.  People are going to lose a lot of money on the confusion.  As a bonus to miners coming back to Bitcoin, the difficulty will get significantly lower.

My Websters Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language defines consensus as a "general agreement or concord".  In Bitcoin this agreement is defined in the software.

You misinterpret the general agreement among all bitcoin nodes as a wish from a specific "minority".   Which is actually the opposite of what he actually wrote:  "majority MUST NOT be able to override minority"  I.e. consensus is not what a minority wants, neither what a majority wants.  Consensus is based on the agreement which was there from the beginning.  Neither Bitstream or any short list of merchants, can overrule the general agreement which define Bitcoin and the bitcoin blockchain.  Neither can a majority.

Correct within normal rounding rules.  (If one or two won't change, it probably doesn't matter much.  As long as there is a significant chance of an SPV client contacting those nodes, especially if they have any mining power behind them, the security of SPV wallets will be severely compromised.  But people shouldn't trust SPV clients anyway.)

You don't get it.  Since this would change the general agreement, it would require cooperation from all bitcoin nodes.  Not just a majority.

Are you telling me you don't support this!?  Why do you hate children?  Do you kill babies for a hobby?

Actually the explanation there is just a longer version of mine.  Read it again, and see if you can understand it.

ROFL!  Read it again.  "To implement a hardfork, without a blockchain-fork, all users must switch to the new protocol consensually."

How many bitcoin blockchains do you think is adequate?  At least we will get rid of SPV clients by hard forking into many chains, but unfortunately you would then have to rely on either wallets talking to some central trusted node, or that everyone run full nodes locked to one specific blockchain.  (You don't want to risk another chain to take over if they gain more mining power.)

Old nodes will work just fine after a softfork, but merchants should upgrade.  SPV clients are mostly safe after a softfork as well, but both old nodes and SPV clients may see unconfirmed transactions which aren't valid.  (In a hard fork the invalid transactions would confirm in some chains, and the SPV client will see it differently depending on which node it connects to.)

Why are you guys still talking to this clown? I'm puzzled. 

Hey


Congrats you have an average internet connection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Internet_connection_speeds
So it could be worse, but it is likely to get better with time. A short time ago I was stuck on 1/0.2 Mbps which was shared by 4 people, that was not fun.
Now it is hybrid DSL/LTE, I was very sceptical but it works pretty well

Maybe the values should have been chosen lower with bip101, but something like it which keeps growing makes a lot of sense to me.



I think this kind of thinking is very dangerous, not everyone has access to those payment systems, they also can confiscate funds or let you jump trough hoops like identity verifications.
For me Bitcoin is a currency-commodity so it should be able to flow around nicely. It should not scale to visa levels right now imho, but also not the total opposite, it is something in between.

From the bitfury roundtable it seems Gavin is more worried about the shortterm, while I am more worried about the longterm. Seg-wit will probably work, but it needs a clear plan how
further increases happen. And I read multiple times that a HF need atleast a year runup time etc, so it needs to have a plan right now. (TBH my opinion is that this should have been fixed years ago, I can't imagine this will get easier if userbase keeps growing)

There are thousands of altcoins just waiting to pick up, some of them have bigger or dynamic blocksizes, as a BTC holder it would be sad if (more) value flows into them...