Topic: Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? - page 21. (Read 38062 times)

Sorry. No arguments, not answering this.

So - such a coward you won't agree to a BTC challenge.

(seriously you are the kind of weak punk I eat for breakfast)

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

Much worse.

I am an annoying troll with logic & arguments.

Can't stand it, can you ?

Who the fuck put *you in charge*?

(that's right - no-one so stop trying to tell everyone what the rules should be)

The 1MB cap is a completely irrelevant temporary thing, which Satoshi clearly stated.

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.

The development is open, everyone with a github account can contribute.  Actually, you can get pretty far even without a github account.  The rest have to choose between options, or not even that.  The miners are free to hardfork if they want to.  A hardfork will just create a new altcoin. which some users may be interested in.  As long as there are some users mining and using standard Bitcoin, standard Bitcoin will live on in parallel.

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)

I don't care what's best for China, I care what is the best for Bitcoin.

And what is the best for Bitcoin is also best for China.

BTW,
Notice it - the guy changed topic again. This may be a manipulative tactic used in order to water down the discussion.

The consensus is to respect the Satoshi's 1MB cap for now. Maybe in 2018 or 2019 we can discuss the hard fork.

The point (that you can clearly see) is that China doesn't need a "new payment network".

It won't offer anything better than is already available (and has been for years).

This day just gets better and better.

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 - EDIT: incorrect, my mistake

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.

And Wechat payment, geez, these days people just throw red envelopes back and forth as a way of messaging, try to beat that tps.  Albeit tencent can't even achieve internal database consistency IIRC.

https://github.com/gavinandresen/bips/blob/92e1efd0493c1cbde47304c9711f13f413cc9099/bip-bump2mb.mediawiki
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4342u3/bip_block_size_increase_to_2mb_gavinandresenbips/


Hi Eric,

I recognize that a conservative approach is important and from your viewpoint, neither Classic nor Core is respecting this need. That being said, sometimes it helps frame and shape a discussion if you can elaborate as to what is meant by a conservative approach. Specifically, it seems like there may be, generally speaking, miner consensus for a block size increase sooner rather than later and with a hard fork. It seems additionally, that this method may be more acceptable due to the unknown effects of segwit. Is this a correct assessment? Assuming that is so, is your concern then specifically relating to the activation mechanism? What do you mean by a conservative approach?

I think you are asking the right questions; questions that many members also share and wonder about. It is difficult to tell who is telling the truth, there version of the truth, and what interests that viewpoint represents. As miners have their own interests, I think it is imperative, if not a necessity, for miners to have developers representing their interest. It would be very sensible to partner with either known western developers or for the creation of your own team.

Additionally, I think it can help examine the bitcoin project when you look at it as an outsider or if you look at it from the view of a university group student project. Some people, in such a project, may have the goal of getting things done as soon as possible to go home and watch tv, others just want to impress the pretty object of their affection in the group(a cute girl/guy/dog/cat), and others may want a solid grade, and some will accept nothing but the best grade. Sometimes you have groups split up to handle different portions of the project and maybe the work is not up to your own personal standards but could be satisfactory to other members of the group. These projects require the ability to collaborate, to work together, to negotiate, and to most importantly, compromise to create a finished project. I think when choosing who you want to work with and whether the project will ultimately be successful, I think you need people who are will to compromise. Otherwise the project turns into US politics where nothing ever happens because no one will work with each other.

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?

Thank you for your time concerning this matter.

-Tomothy

When you learn to grow up and be more polite then I might bother to give a fuck about anything more that you post but for now I am putting you on "ignore" as you come across as just a stupid troll to me.

According to the his twitter profile, Adam Back actually thinks that he invented Hashcash (and Bitcoin built upon the previous work).

This is almost certainly true, given that Hashcash is one of only eight references provided by Satoshi in Bitcoin's whitepaper.

https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

As long as we're revisiting Bitcoin's Golden Age, let's consider the implications of Gavin having never been sold on the 'digital gold' narrative and preferring the 'fancy Visa' meme instead.

Eric, Segwit is crucial to the development of Bitcoin for many important reasons, other than the size benefit, two of them(both cannot be resolved without Segwit) being fixing malleability issue and much faster signature verification(which is also vital to future block size increase), I am sure you understand the importance of both as a wallet provider.


Frankly that's why I believe the Chinese should not buy into the rhetoric of Bitcoin Classic developers, who clearly have a political agenda(in addition to the absymal record in development of many among them), and supported by people with questionable motives, as Toomim openly acknowledged in the Chinese miners Wechat group.

You might think that choosing Classic over Core is the best option to get a short-term block size expansion, but Classic's plan doesn't stop here, they also intend to decide changes to the code by popular vote: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...bitcoinclassic:master , within an environment clearly to the disadvantage of users and businesses in China and many other nations, it's not hard to imagine what most of the outcomes of such votes would be-representing only the opinion of English speaking Bitcoiners, even if we neglect all the technical reasons why it's an amusingly bad idea.

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, the consciousness they have thus far displayed, I believe, is in alignment with the general interest of Chinese Bitcoiners, e.g., one of the most important reasons why Core devs oppose to a rash block size increase is the network connectivity problem of people living in China, and Blockstream is, as far as I know, the only company with both the technical expertise and willingness to work on some of the best solutions to the problem: weak blocks and IBLT, and they are working on it. In contrast with this is Classic devs' clear lack of long term sustainable plan to the block size problem, what if 2 MB blocks are filled up again, do we just double it every year, ad infinitum? I am sure you understand that this is unsustainable.

Also, if it's possible for such a political fork to take place, it would set a very bad precedent, as any interest group can possibly pay some developers to create a campaign to further split the network, by tweaking with some block parameters, for example, imagine some developers try to appeal to the interest of gamers with high-end GPUs by promising them a change of PoW function, under the banner of "re-decentralizing" the network, in which case the miners' opinion would not even matter to them. After all, it never costs much to pay for an army of shills to flood the online discussion forums to create a superficial "economic majority", like what we are seeing now, and economically heavy Western Bitcoin exchanges and payment processors certainly have never liked Chinese miners and would, probably never try to stop such a motion if it's indeed put forth.


I am not a Core dev and I could not speak for them, my personal suggestion would be: wait for Segwit to roll out, and if anything goes wrong with it, or the blocks are filling up again, we can push them harder for a block size raise, while wait for weak blocks and IBLT to be implemented, at which time they would have no further excuse, and it would be the moment of truth when we understand if they are truly sincere or not.  

Hahahaha, that was actually a funny one.

Still, not on topic.

Anyway, I don't really care about your opinion.

Core is now producing code that fails to reach broad consensus. They want to keep the blockchain small so more nodes can be easily run on the network but more and more people DON'T want you use their code anymore. The very reason why alternate implementation are pumping up. Ironic isn't it?

Core devs refuse ANY compromise to achieve consensus. They don't care to drive people and businesses away as long as bitcoin still fit in their business model. All this must be good for adoption and miners future revenue no?

I still don't get why miners don't see blockstream trying to offload transactions on their systems as a threat to their profits when the subsidy will dry out.

Somehow, Blockstream thinks that driving transactions up to a point that the blockchain becomes uneconomical (high fees not driven by competition) and unreliable  to use (not sure if your transactions will make it through) is a good idea for anyone to build businesses on top of it. The bitcoin blockchain is not the only one in town.