Topic: Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? - page 9. (Read 38090 times)

Emotively charged language like 'fanboy' and 'poisonous' seems to be your stock in trade. But it isn't helpful.

This is a very possible outcome and one that I hope doesn't happen. The evidence that invites a bit of hope is the fact that I still see Gavin and Garzik communicating and contributing (a bit) towards Core development. It would be sad to see these valuable members of the community leave.


It doesn't have to fall within this dichotomy. People can be well intentioned and misguided(75% threshold).

There is poison in all of us, and most of us have flaws and have misspoken or misinterpreted each other at times. I understand some of Gavin's thoughts on the importance of decentralized development and speed of mainstreaming bitcoin. There is a lot we can learn from him.
This hard fork mess has both severely damaged our ecosystem and simultaneously brought forth a ton of fantastic ideas and development.

Well - he is the one trying to destroy Bitcoin (and this is his second attempt).

Has Luke-Jr done this?

But seeing you are such a Gavin fanboy you must agree with him that Luke-Jr is "poisonous" or maybe you realise that Gavin isn't always right?

Yes, you're important. We know. 

There's nothing poisonous about Gavin.

Here is what I predict will happen with Bitcoin Classic - Gavin will move on to another such take-over attempt and Garzik will do a Mike Hearn (slowly people are starting to see that Gavin is actually a "poisonous" person when it comes to open source projects - the very thing he had accused Luke-Jr of about BIP 16 vs. BIP 17).

(and I do have some inside knowledge about what is going on)

Personally I think it is a pity that Garzik has done this to himself but it seems that Gavin can be quite convincing (something that I'm sure that Mike Hearn now regrets in hindsight and if he really did sell all of his BTC he'll regret that too when this forking threat nonsense is over).

I think this would be an excellent idea and really should extend to the exchanges and payment processors as well. I understand that Bitpay temporarily supported Core Development with Garzik, but there needs to be much more involvement from other processors and miners in Core's development.

Here is another good article on why Core and many Mining pools are right in requesting a higher consensus thresh-hold.

http://bitledger.info/hard-fork-risks-and-why-95-should-be-the-standard/?utm_content=buffer394c6&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

I see no good evidence that Garzik, Janssens, Ver, Toomim, or Andresen are attempting to intentionally harm our ecosystem.(Unlike Hearn who has contributed a lot but there is good evidence he either didn't understand Bitcoin's ethos or was deliberately attempting to sabotage it). Many Classic supporters appear to be valuable members of our ecosystem and we should be more understanding and empathetic to these disagreements rather than assuming ill will and ostracizing these wonderful people.

For technical reasons, I principally agree with Core's roadmap but there are some very important points to take away from this-
1) Gavin makes some fair points on the importance of growing quickly as a blitzkrieg strategy to insure Bitcoin leads and cannot be undermined.

2) Garzik makes a fair point that a transaction fee event occurring will fundamentally change the economics and something we should study more.

3) While Core's lack of communication has been exaggerated, what hasn't is the fact that we need more technical journalists simplifying complex ideas and BIP's for the rest of the Bitcoin ecosystem to remove a lot of misunderstandings and confusion. Whether there is genuine misunderstandings or outside actors from states and banks trying to create contention as agent provocateurs matters not , adding clarity to bitcoin will address both.

4)  There is a tremendous amount we can gain from this "hard fork" crisis and learn from. It is our duty to sublimate these base contentions and grow from them. Character assassination and taking individuals comments out of context and merely focusing on the flaws is not the path forward. Remember bitcoin is attempting to undermine some of the most powerful states and banking systems. While it is critical we stay true to our first principles we also must not allow our community to be divided and weakened and remain focused on strengthening our ecosystem.

Thanks for the reconnaissance about the predictable, yet still hilarious, internal division at Classic HQ.

I suspect the optimally bad 75% is being enforced for reasons which are not yet public.  Perhaps like XT, Classic is only a probing attack, not intended to succeed but only for gathering info on the Core Defense Network and small block militia.

Garzik, as you note, has a brain, so he seems like a bad fit over there.

Who is this Olivier Janssens assclown, and why would he have "final call" authority above Garzik's?

Oh I see, he's some toxic, bigoted, ratfucking VC schmuck that plays sugar daddy to the anti-Core insurgency.

I look forward to seeing his head mounted in Mircea's trophy case, right next to Hearn's.

Oops, it seems the Gavinista brainwashing missed a few of your neurons.

Report to The Blockchain Alliance immediately for additional reeducation!   

Very good post; it helped me finalize a previously incomplete thought.

It's entirely technically possible for Bitcoin and GavinCoin to have an amicable "velvet divorce."  That would obviously be best for both projects, and the general crypto community.  They could still be friends, and avoid traumatizing their dependents.

But that's not happening, despite Core's peace offerings, olive branches, and other entreaties to stop the escalation and rancor.

So why are the Gavinistas insisting on a long, ugly, drawn-out, fractious divorce, complete with accusations and counter-accusations of conflicting interests, infidelity, and 'the other side' being terrible human beings?

Cui bono?

Thanks to your post, it is now clear the Gavinistas insist on this extended, messy divorce proceeding because they want to take as much of Core's 'stuff' as possible.  Like a greedy wife, who anticipates the court (of public opinion) favoring her, the Gavinistas want not only the common law property of the code, but also the kids and everything else, leaving Core destitute but still obligated to work on development.

So what we have here is a nasty custody battle.  The cheating wife initiating the divorce demands to be awarded the kids, the house, the car, the cash, the IRA, and the dog, plus expansive spousal/child support (expecting Core to continue working just to support them), etc.

The Gavinista sense of unlimited entitlement is appalling.  They don't care about what's best for stakeholders, only about getting even with (ie, having their revenge on) Core.

They won't be satisfied unless they get the sha256 PoW, the ASICs, the pools, the users, the port numbers, the brand, the economy, the ecosystem, the forum, the subreddit, the alert key, etc. 

For them it is not enough that GavinCoin live; they need Core to die miserable and alone, because Hell hath no fury...

Luckily, Honey Badger signed the ultimate prenuptial.  Let the screeching Gavinista harpies bitch all they want, they can't touch his assets!

The Chinese community is realizing they have been approaching Bitcoin mostly as a business opportunity, and missing the vital deep background of its raison d'être.

It won't be fast or easy, but evangelizing for the values expressed in the Hacker/Cyberpunk/Cypherpunk Manifestos will help non-westerners understand why Bitcoin is the way it is.

I'm willing to do anything I can to assist our Asian Bitcoin brothers in grokking the ethos.

Perhaps a gentle introduction to radical individualism (emphasizing it is, ironically, the best way to structure a civilization) is a good place to start.  The PLA/CCP ruling class a big fan of authoritarian Confucianism, but the people have never forgotten their libertarian/anarchist Taoist and Buddhist heritage.

It's a good idea. Though perhaps it might be even better to hire someone whose job it would be just to effect communication between the Core devs and the Chinese miners. wangchun has been doing this to some extent, but I still feel like there is a severe lack of communication. I especially feel like the overall philosophy of Bitcoin which motivates everything Core does has not been adequately communicated to the Chinese Bitcoin community. In the Chinese->English translations I've read, I see a ton of misunderstandings.

Communication has become a problem in general, as well, though the language barrier makes it even worse. I really miss the days when all of the major miners, CEOs, etc. were quite often on IRC, directly talking with the Bitcoin experts and Core devs, and in the process becoming experts themselves.

You sure seem to be hip to what's happening. What are your thoughts on OP's suggestion to sponsor a Core dev?

I disagree. There's nothing fun about this.

It's a disgrace.

Thanks for the link and a salient reminder as to the importance of extremely high consensus during a hard fork in order to avoid confusion, double spends , and certain attacks ...

https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/randomwalker/analyzing-the-2013-bitcoin-fork-centralized-decision-making-saved-the-day/?utm_content=buffer4f46c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

This really puts into perspective how important it is to plan and coordinate a hard fork.

Ever since reading this I've been convinced of the vital importance of social consensus before a hard fork. Some of my fellow bigger block enthusiasts have assured me that a contentious hard fork is a myth. But I don't think it is.

All chainforks are not hardforks.  Short chainforks happens every day.  Usually because miners can't distribute their newfound blocks fast enough.  This one was caused by a malicious miner not validating blocks, and mining on top of an invalid one.  It disappeared as soon as the correctly validated chain overtook it.  This only show the dangers of one miner controlling too much hashrate.  All nodes, new and old, accepted the correctly validated chain as soon as it overtook the bad chain, and nobody were forced to upgrade anything.  (Those who hadn't upgraded were potentially vulnerable to double spends however, as with all chainforks when you don't require enough confirmations.  This is a good reason for merchants to stay up to date.)

The August 2010 fork was much longer, btw.  That fork was caused by a bug which had to be fixed for the nodes to reject the faulty chain.

A hard fork is different.  In a hard fork where the fork has a miner majority, the two chains will live on in parallel.  Correctly validating nodes will never switch to the fork.  The so-called "Classic", "XT", "Unlimited", etc forks are especially dangerous, since upgrading won't help either.  There will just be different coins, and you have to make a choice of one of them.  Due to incompetent fork developers, you can't even run one of the other coins on the same computer at the same time as Bitcoin Core, since they demand to bind to the same ports.  Constantly keeping up with which fork to use this week is too much for most users, and since their SPV wallets will be rendered useless, they will probably just try to get rid of their coins ASAP.  It would be sad end for Bitcoin, I think.

If some competent developer should think about forking bitcoin, he should start here and get 100% consensus first.  There are many good reasons for a fork.  Forking for a simple block size change is just dumb, and most people see that.

Peter Todd explains how one can deploy hardforks more safely by setting the bar to 99+% and than if the threshold is not met in a month of stagnation below that threshold one can use a method to softfork the code down to 96%

To give Garzik a little bit of credit , he attempted to raise the the threshold to a slightly better number of 80% but was shutdown by Olivier Janssens in a couple minutes with support of the lead classic dev

https://twitter.com/_jonasschnelli_/status/693461617296678912
https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/pull/60#issuecomment-177162092

It doesn't appear that Classic will budge to the concerns to the miners wanting at least 90%.


This exemplifies one of the key political differences between many Core Devs and the Classic Supporters. Classic supporters are ok with democracy determining hard forks, while most Core Devs believe that near complete consensus should be met for a change in the consensus mechanism that could fork/force off old versions of the code.

IDK. I don't usually participate in technical discussions.

Can we do this here?

There'll be a lot of cat herding for 90%. And I cannot think of anyone in the Bitcoin community who doesn't cause offense consistently.

I'm a notorious big blocks shill (it seems) and even I think 75% is too low.