Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? - page 20.

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: CIYAM on January 29, 2016, 11:19:42 AM

Quote from: tAP on January 29, 2016, 11:16:06 AM

Also, RBF was certainly not consensus... maybe consensus of the devs but... most people's comments I read are quite against it.

RBF is "optional" so it doesn't affect anyone that doesn't want to use it (it is not the slightest bit controversial really).

Again, incorrect.

RBF is optional for sender (opt-in), but not optional for receiver. Educate youself, granny:
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 (self.btc).

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

Bitcoin Core is a disaster waiting to happen.

tAP

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

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?

All I know is I am sick of paying the recommended fee from the Core client (and even extra at times) and having to wait a couple hours at times to get included in a block, since the mempool is so backlogged. That was never the idea behind Bitcoin - paying for a 'fast lane.'

Edit: I gotta head out for now. Whatever happens, I just hope all of our investments (time and monetary) stay intact. No one on either side wants to see Bitcoin fail. Good luck to everyone.

oakpacific

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

Quote from: tAP on January 29, 2016, 11:27:52 AM

Quote from: oakpacific on January 29, 2016, 11:21:58 AM

Quote from: tAP on January 29, 2016, 11:16:06 AM

Quote from: uvwvj on January 29, 2016, 11:13:14 AM

We can fork many times in the future when consensus does not like when a development team does something we disagree with, this is open source.

This is part of the reason I am very anti-Core dev team at the moment, though. They are on record saying these kinds of forks are harmful. I got involved in Bitcoin because it is open-source, and because the idea was that the majority finally have some power over the minority (i.e. us regular folks over banks).

You do understand an alt-client is completely different from a fork, and to change the network consensus is not Core dev's job?

Quote

Bitcoin NEEDS to be forkable when the community decides they don't like where something is going.

FWIW I am still waiting for a referendum to organize around this issue, if you really want to be democratic certainly somebody should get us all to vote?

Quote

Also, RBF was certainly not consensus... maybe consensus of the devs but... most people's comments I read are quite against it.

No disagreement here, it's almost like they want to be hated on this.

Yeah, I understand how alt-clients work and what not. Unfortunately there is no real way to get most people to vote on this (other than running a node supporting your side). I know Classic devs opened up consider.it, but that's not really useful because the people there voting obviously are biased (speaking from my own perspective even as I support them).

Block size all aside, the RBF thing was rolled out pretty poorly, I agree. Even small/large block size supporters are somewhat meeting in the middle on this (not everyone of course).

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 and should not be supported?

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

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.

tAP

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: CIYAM on January 29, 2016, 11:25:33 AM

Quote from: tAP on January 29, 2016, 11:21:54 AM

It's opt-in by default, and so for the regular user of bitcoin who may not be up to snuff on all the technical stuff, that means it's on.

It is not "used by default" so you are trying to make something controversial that actually isn't (is this all that you guys can do?).

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

I've been nothing but respectful to you the entire time. Since it's not being reciprocated, I won't bother you anymore by engaging you in future posts.

tAP

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: oakpacific on January 29, 2016, 11:21:58 AM

Quote from: tAP on January 29, 2016, 11:16:06 AM

Quote from: uvwvj on January 29, 2016, 11:13:14 AM

We can fork many times in the future when consensus does not like when a development team does something we disagree with, this is open source.

This is part of the reason I am very anti-Core dev team at the moment, though. They are on record saying these kinds of forks are harmful. I got involved in Bitcoin because it is open-source, and because the idea was that the majority finally have some power over the minority (i.e. us regular folks over banks).

You do understand an alt-client is completely different from a fork, and to change the network consensus is not Core dev's job?

Quote

Bitcoin NEEDS to be forkable when the community decides they don't like where something is going.

FWIW I am still waiting for a referendum to organize around this issue, if you really want to be democratic certainly somebody should get us all to vote?

Quote

Also, RBF was certainly not consensus... maybe consensus of the devs but... most people's comments I read are quite against it.

No disagreement here, it's almost like they want to be hated on this.

Yeah, I understand how alt-clients work and what not. Unfortunately there is no real way to get most people to vote on this (other than running a node supporting your side). I know Classic devs opened up consider.it, but that's not really useful because the people there voting obviously are biased (speaking from my own perspective even as I support them).

Block size all aside, the RBF thing was rolled out pretty poorly, I agree. Even small/large block size supporters are somewhat meeting in the middle on this (not everyone of course).

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Evidence no. 1. Luke-Jr working on Blockstream's project:
https://github.com/ElementsProject/elementsproject.github.io/graphs/contributors
There is more, of course, but do we really need it ?

About Peter Todd: seems I was indeed wrong, there is no direct evidence linking him to blockstream. Correcting this now.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: tAP on January 29, 2016, 11:21:54 AM

It's opt-in by default, and so for the regular user of bitcoin who may not be up to snuff on all the technical stuff, that means it's on.

It is not "used by default" so you are trying to make something controversial that actually isn't (is this all that you guys can do?).

oakpacific

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

Quote from: tAP on January 29, 2016, 11:16:06 AM

Quote from: uvwvj on January 29, 2016, 11:13:14 AM

We can fork many times in the future when consensus does not like when a development team does something we disagree with, this is open source.

This is part of the reason I am very anti-Core dev team at the moment, though. They are on record saying these kinds of forks are harmful. I got involved in Bitcoin because it is open-source, and because the idea was that the majority finally have some power over the minority (i.e. us regular folks over banks).

You do understand an alt-client is completely different from a fork, and to change the network consensus is not Core dev's job?

Quote

Bitcoin NEEDS to be forkable when the community decides they don't like where something is going.

FWIW I am still waiting for a referendum to organize around this issue, if you really want to be democratic certainly somebody should get us all to vote?

Quote

Also, RBF was certainly not consensus... maybe consensus of the devs but... most people's comments I read are quite against it.

No disagreement here, it's almost like they want to be hated on this.

tAP

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: CIYAM on January 29, 2016, 11:19:42 AM

Quote from: tAP on January 29, 2016, 11:16:06 AM

Also, RBF was certainly not consensus... maybe consensus of the devs but... most people's comments I read are quite against it.

RBF is "optional" so it doesn't affect anyone that doesn't want to use it (it is not the slightest bit controversial really).

It's opt-in by default, and so for the regular user of bitcoin who may not be up to snuff on all the technical stuff, that means it's on.

Let's be honest, though - it certainly is controversial.

con·tro·ver·sial
ˌkäntrəˈvərSHəl,ˌkäntrəˈvərsēəl/
adjective
adjective: controversial

giving rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement.

People disagree on RBF, thus it is controversial.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: tAP on January 29, 2016, 11:16:06 AM

Also, RBF was certainly not consensus... maybe consensus of the devs but... most people's comments I read are quite against it.

RBF is "optional" so it doesn't affect anyone that doesn't want to use it (it is not the slightest bit controversial really).

tAP

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: uvwvj on January 29, 2016, 11:13:14 AM

We can fork many times in the future when consensus does not like when a development team does something we disagree with, this is open source.

This is part of the reason I am very anti-Core dev team at the moment, though. They are on record saying these kinds of forks are harmful. I got involved in Bitcoin because it is open-source, and because the idea was that the majority finally have some power over the minority (i.e. us regular folks over banks). Bitcoin NEEDS to be forkable when the community decides they don't like where something is going.

Adam Back has insinuated through his tweets that the majority support a 2MB increase.

Also, RBF was certainly not consensus... maybe consensus of the devs but... most people's comments I read are quite against it.

uvwvj

full member

Activity: 145

Merit: 100

Quote from: tomothy on January 29, 2016, 10:59:09 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.

If you were to form a mining developer team, do you have an idea as to what your goals would be? It seems like you there had been miner suggestion of a third alternative, neither classic nor core, but intead mining code with 95% consensus HF for a 2mb increase, remove RBF, and segwit testing possibly a year down the road?

IMO the more coders with different views writing code the better Bitcoin becomes. Competition brings innovation.

Also the above bold proposal is something I would support and hope once Bitcoin Classic code comes out is what it is or something close to it IF NOT and a chinese group came out with it I would go BitcoinChina

We can fork many times in the future when consensus does not like when a development team does something we disagree with, this is part of the Bitcoin Satoshi came up with using open source.

tAP

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on January 29, 2016, 11:11:25 AM

Quote from: oakpacific on January 29, 2016, 11:08:21 AM

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on January 29, 2016, 11:01:02 AM

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
Peter Todd

Misattributing one dev as a Blockstream employee is understandable, but two at the same time, is probably too coincidental. Roll Eyes

Sorry, my mistake.

These two are only strongly affiliated with blockstream. Not employees.

I will have proof in a minute, working really hard here.

Don't respond to the other guy anymore man (and likewise him you). Just lay out the facts. That's the best way for this to go (and I support 2MB hard fork immediately).

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

I am just sick of the "nonsense".

(which is all @ShadowOfHarbringer has been showing)

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: CIYAM on January 29, 2016, 11:10:38 AM

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on January 29, 2016, 11:09:48 AM

Sorry. No arguments, not answering this.

Yup - "weak punk" as I thought.
If you want to "grow a pair" then challenge me.

Can you stop already ?

I only respond to logic. You cannot scare me or manipulate my ego with this shitty tactic.

ShadowOfHarbringer

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1006

Bringing Legendary Har® to you since 1952

Quote from: oakpacific on January 29, 2016, 11:08:21 AM

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on January 29, 2016, 11:01:02 AM

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
Peter Todd

Misattributing one dev as a Blockstream employee is understandable, but two at the same time, is probably too coincidental. Roll Eyes

Sorry, my mistake.

These two are only strongly affiliated with blockstream. Not employees.

I will have proof in a minute, working really hard here.

tAP

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: CIYAM on January 29, 2016, 11:05:29 AM

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on January 29, 2016, 11:01:45 AM

This day just gets better and better.

Let's see - how many people support @ShadowOfHarbringer?

How about we set up two BTC addresses to work this out - either support or reject?

(you are just an annoying troll)

You guys need to stop feeding each other, lol.

It's obvious which side I support (2MB increase) but all I care about are logical arguments, and there is a lot of mudslinging going on that certainly is not addressing the topic of this post - which side should miners support.

Unrelated, but it's pretty well-known this forum is very Pro-Core. As far as setting addresses goes we know which way that would go, just as we know which way it would go if we posted it on /r/btc.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on January 29, 2016, 11:06:47 AM

At the time of the cap's creation, the proportion of avg. block size to block size limit was over 1 MILLION. So today to keep the proportions, the proper block size limit should be around 1 GB.

lol, the gigabyte man. Is this your scaling proposal? You could code that up yourself, you should do it.

CIYAM

legendary

Activity: 1890

Merit: 1086

Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer

Quote from: ShadowOfHarbringer on January 29, 2016, 11:09:48 AM

Sorry. No arguments, not answering this.

Yup - "weak punk" as I thought.

If you want to "grow a pair" then challenge me.

Topic: Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? - page 20. (Read 38062 times)