Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? - page 19.

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: CIYAM on January 29, 2016, 11:58:03 AM

So what is exactly the percentage of Core Devs that work for Blockstream?

(I guess this should be the key issue here)

Correct.

Proceeding with developer list. Please note the metric used (number of commits) is far from perfect:
#1 laanwj1, 205 commits
#2 sipa 640 commits
#3 gavinandresen 484 commits
#4 theuni 330 commits
#5 TheBlueMatt 288 commits
#6 jonasschnelli 223 commits
#7 luke-jr 199 commits
#8 gmaxwell 133 commits
#9 fanquake 117 commits
#10 MarcoFalke 112 commits
#11 jtimon 106 commits
#12 petertodd 91 commits
#13 cozz 70 commits
#14 sdaftuar 65 commits
#15 morcos 55 commits

EDIT:
This is a better one, tought not done by me:

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

If you just can't understand the basic things and think that Bitcoin will somehow compete with VISA if it is increased to 2MB or 20MB then I think you need to either get some extra education or just stop posting nonsense.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: tAP on January 29, 2016, 12:00:50 PM

Whether or not we should adopt a 2MB block size increase ASAP, or not - and good, logical reasons to support each side.

I see zero logical reason to do that.

No-one is using Bitcoin for normal txs and that isn't going to change this year or next year.

A small group of people are trying to "take over the project" by pushing about this need for everyone to be able to use Bitcoin to buy "coffee".

The fact is that even if you increased the block size to 1GB it won't compete with VISA (it would still be 100x times slower).

oakpacific

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

Quote from: tAP on January 29, 2016, 12:00:50 PM

Quote from: CIYAM on January 29, 2016, 11:58:03 AM

So what is exactly the percentage of Core Devs that work for Blockstream?

(I guess this should be the key issue here)

While I agree that it certainly is an issue (and a HUGE issue - conflict of interest), the real issue here, in my opinion, is at it's most basic:

Whether or not we should adopt a 2MB block size increase ASAP, or not - and good, logical reasons to support each side.

I think what would be the correct thing to do is: let the network decides. I.e., you put out you 2MB-supporting client, wait for everyone to convert, and if you have almost everyone on board before you deadline, activate it, otherwise, call off the plan, as of now, Wang Chun's proposal in bitcoin-core-dev channel, which seems to be liked by Matt Corallo, is closest to that.

One of my biggest problems with Bitcoin Classic is they want to go full throttle ahead as long as they have 75% of miners support, no matter what.

tAP

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: CIYAM on January 29, 2016, 11:58:03 AM

So what is exactly the percentage of Core Devs that work for Blockstream?

(I guess this should be the key issue here)

While I agree that it certainly is an issue (and a HUGE issue - conflict of interest), the real issue here, in my opinion, is at it's most basic:

Whether or not we should adopt a 2MB block size increase ASAP, or not - and good, logical reasons to support each side.

I suppose I'll start. I support a 2MB block size increase because first, the 1MB limit was simply a temporary measure put in to stop spam attacks.

Gavin addresses this issue (increasing block size while keeping spam attacks down) by retaining the SAME amount of signatures allowed per block, but expanding the block size itself.

Also, keeping it at a 1MB limit is consistently creating a backlog of transactions that are not processed in a timely manner. Multiple times I have included recommended CORE CLIENT fees (even higher) and found myself waiting multiple hours. This is not good for adoption as, if you can't use the service, you won't use the service.

Just a few to start us off.

johnyj

legendary

Activity: 1988

Merit: 1012

Beyond Imagination

Quote from: Eric Mu on January 29, 2016, 10:03:22 AM

Quote from: Norway on January 29, 2016, 09:25:00 AM

Quote from: Eric Mu on January 29, 2016, 06:12:06 AM

Overall, there seems to be a sense of helplessness. Some reflected on why the Chinese had so little say in the matter and some urge that the Chinese should form their own core development team and create their own fork.

Hi Eric,

What do you think about the Classic implementation? What does chinese miners think about it?

Many Chinese Bitcoiners - not only miners, but also exchanges and wallet services, originally supported Classic for its support of 2MB block size, but after meeting Jeff Garzik in Beijing, many backtracked because they didn't believe that the team behind is capable or there is a roadmap.

This is true, because there should not be a road map at all without first have widely reached consensus, and you should not blindly accept proposals without your own judgement, and you should also participate in making a road map

I think the communication between all the participants is very important, especially the core devs, they must constantly broadcast their proposed change with human understandable bulletin to increase understanding. They should not start to implement any change without a design specification which is approved by major consensus, otherwise it will be wasted time and resource working on a solution that no miners will use

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

So what is exactly the percentage of Core Devs that work for Blockstream?

(I guess this should be the key issue here)

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: CIYAM on January 29, 2016, 11:56:14 AM

Okay - can we just hit "reset" then?

All my aggression towards you has been deactivated.

Please proceed with the topic.

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

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

Quote from: oakpacific on January 29, 2016, 10:40:34 AM

While I cannot eliminate the possibility that certain Core devs working for Blockstream may indeed share a vision with their employer as to what Bitcoin's future would be

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:

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Okay - can we just hit "reset" then?

(attacking other forum members is not really what I am interested in doing)

tAP

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on January 29, 2016, 11:46:53 AM

Quote from: tAP on January 29, 2016, 11:43:03 AM

In that regard I'm with you. There is nothing truly democratic occurring on either side of this debate. Unfortunately, I don't think it is possible (and many will argue that democracy is bad for BTC anyway).
We can only hope that when the dust settles the 'correct' side won, whichever that is, as we all have our biases.

The lying, manipulating & physically attacking (DDoS) side is never the right side.

What i learned over the years is that you can easily find out who is honest and who is right only by watching the actions of the opponents, not the words.

The side which is manipulating, lying, censoring and attacking verbally & physically is the dishonest & evil one with ulterior agenda 99% of the time.

"By their fruit you will recognize them" - it said in an ancient wise book.

EDIT:

Quote from: CIYAM on January 29, 2016, 11:44:03 AM

As you see - it is only you making such disrespectful links.

It is not my link.

Also: RESPECT MUST BE EARNED. Especially on the internet. I will not respect you only because you are (probably) older than me.

Same team bro lol

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: CIYAM on January 29, 2016, 11:51:33 AM

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on January 29, 2016, 11:46:53 AM

Also: RESPECT MUST BE EARNED. Especially on the internet.

And you have done absolutely zero to earn my respect (all you have done so far is to attack me and call me old).
I see you are still ranting (now going on about the number of posts, etc.)
Do you see me doing that?

OK, I now assume with 85% probability that you are straying off-topic in order to avoid serious discussion about the issue.

I will not respond to these kind of posts anymore.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on January 29, 2016, 11:46:53 AM

Also: RESPECT MUST BE EARNED. Especially on the internet.

And you have done absolutely zero to earn my respect (all you have done so far is to attack me and call me old).

I see you are still ranting (now going on about the number of posts, etc.)

Do you see me doing that?

If you want to be taken seriously then why not stop with the personal attacks for a start?

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: CIYAM on January 29, 2016, 11:44:03 AM

Good luck with finding anyone to support you

I don't care if I am being supported. I am not the one needing support.

Quote from: CIYAMI

have already shown

You have shown nothing and you have said nothing. Not according to my calculations.

0 arguments.

15 (or so) rants about respect.

That is not a discussion on your side. This is a farce.

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: tAP on January 29, 2016, 11:43:03 AM

In that regard I'm with you. There is nothing truly democratic occurring on either side of this debate. Unfortunately, I don't think it is possible (and many will argue that democracy is bad for BTC anyway).
We can only hope that when the dust settles the 'correct' side won, whichever that is, as we all have our biases.

The lying, manipulating & physically attacking (DDoS) side is never the right side.

What i learned over the years is that you can easily find out who is honest and who is right only by watching the actions of the opponents, not the words.

The side which is manipulating, lying, censoring and attacking verbally & physically is the dishonest & evil one with ulterior agenda 99% of the time.

"By their fruit you will recognize them" - it said in an ancient wise book.

EDIT:

Quote from: CIYAM on January 29, 2016, 11:44:03 AM

As you see - it is only you making such disrespectful links.

It is not my link.

Also: RESPECT MUST BE EARNED. Especially on the internet. I will not respect you only because you are (probably) older than me.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on January 29, 2016, 11:41:49 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
I don't really think he will get it.

He only gets what his old mind wants him to get. And he thinks he is absolutely right, just like Adam Back.

As you see - it is only you making such disrespectful links.

Good luck with finding anyone to support you - I have already shown that you are a disrespectful asshole (so unlike you I am not going to reply with some stupid Wikipedia link about your psychological disorder).

tAP

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: oakpacific on January 29, 2016, 11:39:53 AM

Quote from: tAP on January 29, 2016, 11:38:17 AM

Quote from: oakpacific on January 29, 2016, 11:36:09 AM

Then, I guess, perhaps we could agree that, hard fork the network with the support of just 6 pool operators, and one month "grace period", while completely disregarding the response of the network of full nodes at the time, like what the Bitcoin Classic people are very clear about what they are trying to do, is very undemocratic?

I thought Core/Blockstream devs have spoken out about how Bitcoin is NOT a democracy? And to make it one would ruin it?

I am not in agreement/disagreement with Core devs on everything/anything. But I was trying to ask your opinion, to see if we can find any agreement.

In that regard I'm with you. There is nothing truly democratic occurring on either side of this debate. Unfortunately, I don't think it is possible (and many will argue that democracy is bad for BTC anyway).

We can only hope that when the dust settles the 'correct' side won, whichever that is, as we all have our biases.

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: knight22 on January 29, 2016, 11:39:49 AM

Quote from: CIYAM on January 29, 2016, 11:33:50 AM

Quote from: tAP on January 29, 2016, 11:30:00 AM

Most everyone will agree that RBF is "controversial" regardless of what side you are on. Just like the block size is "controversial."

That is for a start an incorrect statement - how can you say that "most everyone" without a survey that everyone will accept as being evident of such a thing as even having been made?

I don't know what is wrong with you people.

You just don't care for reason or for anything other than "to be right" (when I keep proving that you are wrong).

My guess is that your group are just trying to become popular (as idiots) and think that that might work. Well you can keep trying that path but I am always going to call you out as idiots.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

I don't really think he will get it.

He only gets what his old mind wants him to get. And he thinks he is absolutely right, just like Adam Back.

oakpacific

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

Quote from: tAP on January 29, 2016, 11:38:17 AM

Quote from: oakpacific on January 29, 2016, 11:36:09 AM

Then, I guess, perhaps we could agree that, hard fork the network with the support of just 6 pool operators, and one month "grace period", while completely disregarding the response of the network of full nodes at the time, like what the Bitcoin Classic people are very clear about what they are trying to do, is very undemocratic?

I thought Core/Blockstream devs have spoken out about how Bitcoin is NOT a democracy? And to make it one would ruin it?

I am not in agreement/disagreement with Core devs on everything/anything. But I was trying to ask your opinion, to see if we can find any agreement.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: CIYAM on January 29, 2016, 11:33:50 AM

Quote from: tAP on January 29, 2016, 11:30:00 AM

Most everyone will agree that RBF is "controversial" regardless of what side you are on. Just like the block size is "controversial."

That is for a start an incorrect statement - how can you say that "most everyone" without a survey that everyone will accept as being evident of such a thing as even having been made?

I don't know what is wrong with you people.

You just don't care for reason or for anything other than "to be right" (when I keep proving that you are wrong).

My guess is that your group are just trying to become popular (as idiots) and think that that might work. Well you can keep trying that path but I am always going to call you out as idiots.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Topic: Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? - page 19. (Read 38062 times)