Yes, he understands computers, but he doesn't understand economics and psychology.
Wasn't disagreeing at all. Was just providing additional commentary on how I think Bitcoin aligns with today's financial tools. I think that is important because when people say zero-config is not secure they are really comparing apples to oranges, they are not suppose to be 100% secure, just as good as cash which also isn't 100% secure. Sorry if it came off disagreeing.@rocks - I don't necessarily disagree. Actually, I think we're saying the same thing from our respective knowledge-bases and experiences (which is a great way to confirm/check the general position we seem to share).
If we fork without the mining majority the possibility exists that we are forking without the economic majority as well. After January if increased momentum is not gained and BIP101 does not fork the network. I believe forking in the manner that you describe should be the preferred strategy. Even if this fork does not gain the support of the economic majority, they can always still move between blockchains as the advantageous of bigger blocks prove themselves on the market. While also solving the age old problem of tyranny of the majority.The problem with XT is that it premises on the fact that 75% of the miners are on board. I think we should put out a different version (or maybe BU) that doesn't depend on miner majority but on economic majority.
Perhaps set a certain date in the future when all exchanges, merchants and miners who want to join will accept big blocks and stick to that date regardless.
In this scenario small mining operations aren't mining for profit, they are heating their building and water at a discount. So unless a large farm can collect all waste heat and sell it efficiently they are behind the curve. I'm not saying this is impossible, but a significant downward pressure on mining profits.if commercial miners do decide to utilize waste heat, who wins in the long term, industrial miners or small, individual miners who do the same?
This segregated witness proposal is turning into a complete train wreck. What else have they overlooked?
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/012103.html
The way you'd know that the Blockstream Core developers were approaching this problem in a responsible way is if they started with a robust fraud proof system first before taking on anything else.
It would be very similar to the concept of test-driven development. Build a system of making easily-verifiable proofs that a block is invalid, and all the infrastructure that's needed to propagate the proofs. Require blocks to include the information that's needed for the proofs to operate.
Heavily test that system for 6-12 months to make sure all the corner cases have been exercised.
Then, after we're absolutely sure we have the ability for light clients to reject invalid blocks based on well-documented and well-understood proofs, maybe then it would be time to do something like separate out the cryptographic witnesses from the transaction data to produce storage and malleability gains.
Throwing that into the protocol right away as a last minute faux scalability improvement is unimaginably reckless.
one last thing on this: have you noticed how they've carefully chosen words to use in the FAQ page? You can find the first example in the FAQ title: i.e. "Capacity" rather than "Scalability.Capacity increase FAQ - https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq#ecosystem-ready said:Some ideas are easy to explain but hard to execute. Other ideas are easy to execute but hard to explain. Segregated witness (segwit) seems to be the latter.
So Blockstream being ridiculous/dangerous is starting to become widely known, part of the answer by CyberDildonics:Yes, like precious metals. The history of precious metal economies is pretty bad -- decades-long recessions and wars triggered by fluctuations in the commodity markets. Deflationary currency is not a good thing, and bitcoiners will eventually realize this.
(Note I work on Bitcoin Core and co-founded Blockstream, a prominant bitcoin company. The value of Bitcoin is not the currency, but rather what censorship-resistant, distributed global consensus gives us.)
EDIT: Oh and maaku is mentioning his Altcoin, too:So what you are talking about is a problem with certain systems, not with money that doesn't lose value. Then again it doesn't come as a surprise that a co founder of a company so misguided and desperate doesn't really understand systems, accountability, or even bitcoin/cryptocurrencies.
That is like saying 'the value of the discrete cosine transform isn't JPEG but what it lossy compression gives us'. They are separate things, and denying the impact of one is a simple, easy, and wrong answer.
Or Freicoin, which I co-authored with another Blockstream founder. But neither has the network buy-in and security of Bitcoin.
They wouldn't be changing it if it was.Did they change the policy in r/bitcoin? [...] That policy was an extremely effective disinformation/confusion tactic.
fwiw I've also built and signed BU binaries. (edit: this is the btc pub key I've used 1LwvkQTWmotqTosgBcK8kFPCKzW2BPiE1G)Bitcoin Unlimited is released! Thanks to all who helped and provided inspiration!
@awemany and I (@theZerg) have independently built the source code and verified that the output is the same. You can see our Bitcoin-client signatures and file hashes if you click on the fingerprint.
http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/software
I am shocked to learn that the guys behind freicoin work at Blockstream.@cypherdoc
You like to describe the Blockstreamers as Bitcoin Bears, here's another one, from maaku:
So Blockstream being ridiculous/dangerous is starting to become widely known, part of the answer by CyberDildonics:
EDIT: Oh and maaku is mentioning his Altcoin, too: