Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
I'm not an expert on chinese culture but I have a vague understanding that it is somewhat different to the direct and fairly forthright way of doing things in the west.
I think the letter is possibly legit. However if it is I think it requires careful reading.
There is a pressing need for an inclusive roadmap that takes into account the needs of businesses and all stakeholders.
I think this is alluding to the fact they want segwit *and* blocksize increase.
1. We see the need for a modest block size increase in order to move the Bitcoin project forward, but we would like to do it with minimal risk, taking the safest and most balanced route possible. SegWit is almost ready and we support its deployment as a step in scaling.
Confirmation here that they are ready to accept segwit. Crucially "as a step in scaling" means they do not accept that segwit alone is enough.
2. We think any contentious hard-fork contains additional risks and potentially may result in two incompatible blockchain versions, if improperly implemented. To avoid potential losses for all bitcoin users, we need to minimize the risks. It is our firm belief that a contentious hard-fork right now would be extremely detrimental to the bitcoin ecosystem.
I'm not dealing with potential millions in lost revenue, so I can afford to be a little bit more risk tolerant, so setting that aside and taking this statement on face value it is fair to say that the best solution in terms of mitigating the 'contention' factor would be for core to just cherry pick the 2MB increase from classic and have done with it. I think this is a clear statement of preference. I think the implication is that HF via classic has a higher contention factor, but nowhere does it state that this id off the table.
3. In the next 3 weeks, we need the Bitcoin Core developers to work with us and clarify the roadmap with respect to a future hard-fork which includes an increase of the block size. Currently we are in discussions to determine the next best steps. We are as a matter of principle against unduly rushed or controversial hard-forks irrespective of the team proposing and we will not run such code on production systems nor mine any block from that hard-fork. We urge everyone to act rationally and hold off on making any decision to run a contentious hard-fork (Classic/XT or any other).
This is where shit gets real. This is extremely strong language, they specify not only the timescale (3 weeks) but also explicitly state the subject matter (with respect to a future hard-fork which includes an increase of the block size). This could not be any clearer. They want a blocksize and they want a concrete commitment from core within 3 weeks of when that is going to happen. The implications here are twofold, that the timescale had better be satisfactory, and that failure to provide a satisfactory timescale carries and unwritten 'or else' clause "We need" is the key phrase here. Very strong language from the east imho.
4. We must ensure that future changes to code relating to consensus rules are done in a safe and balanced way. We also believe that hard-forks should only be activated if they have widespread consensus and long enough deployment timelines. The deployment of hard-forks without widespread consensus is dangerous and has the potential to cause trust and monetary losses.
Reiteration of point 2, speaking directly to core using language that they want to here as a means of demonstrating a desire to remain aligned with them and giving them every opportunity to deliver.
5. We strongly encourage all bitcoin contributors to come together and resolve their differences to collaborate on the scaling roadmap. Divisions in the bitcoin community can only be mended if the developers and contributors can take the first step and cooperate with each other.
I think this is aimed at both core and classic devs. The miners basically do not need all this drama and want it to end. They want core to accept classic's blocksize increase, and classic to accept core's segwit and roadmap (as revised per the demands in 3 to contain a concrete BSHF timeline)
Thats my interpretation, provided its legit. I think if it was fake there would be more on point 2 and 4, and certainly nothing so strong as point 3.
Despite questions about authenticity I'm happy to take it on good faith. As much as has been said about core's motive, block stream's motive's and even classic's motives. I think mostly its come down to dick waving. I think core needs to man up and pull 2MB and I think classic needs to accept that core is probably going to remain relevant.
I do think this whole experience, whilst it will leave a bad taste in people's mouths for a while, is ultimately going to prove to be have been a worthwhile experience through what has been learned. I think *if* the allegations about block stream and core are correct, this has been a wake up call to them that any attempting to control bitcoin is not perhaps as easy as one might think. I think the way its made people behave (on either side( has been quite revealing, and I think it has also furthered some ideas about decentralisation of aspects of bitcoin other than mining (dev in particular). Which if they are not concretely addressed this time around, may end up being addressed as a matter of course. (i.e. once the contention factor has died down and all the clients are equal in terms of block validation, there will be a kind of brownian redistribution of users amongst the various bitcoin clients, due to some esoteric feature or other - as has previously been the case in the past. In a similar wayto how miners spread themselves between the various pools)
I think Peter R's pie chart gif of clients could potentially be right on the money (chart 3)
As ever I think the truth will be the mundane middle ground of reconciliation and uneventfulness. Rather then the hyperbolic extremes spawned from the imagination of netizens that have had too much exposer drama OTI
I think the letter is possibly legit. However if it is I think it requires careful reading.
There is a pressing need for an inclusive roadmap that takes into account the needs of businesses and all stakeholders.
I think this is alluding to the fact they want segwit *and* blocksize increase.
1. We see the need for a modest block size increase in order to move the Bitcoin project forward, but we would like to do it with minimal risk, taking the safest and most balanced route possible. SegWit is almost ready and we support its deployment as a step in scaling.
Confirmation here that they are ready to accept segwit. Crucially "as a step in scaling" means they do not accept that segwit alone is enough.
2. We think any contentious hard-fork contains additional risks and potentially may result in two incompatible blockchain versions, if improperly implemented. To avoid potential losses for all bitcoin users, we need to minimize the risks. It is our firm belief that a contentious hard-fork right now would be extremely detrimental to the bitcoin ecosystem.
I'm not dealing with potential millions in lost revenue, so I can afford to be a little bit more risk tolerant, so setting that aside and taking this statement on face value it is fair to say that the best solution in terms of mitigating the 'contention' factor would be for core to just cherry pick the 2MB increase from classic and have done with it. I think this is a clear statement of preference. I think the implication is that HF via classic has a higher contention factor, but nowhere does it state that this id off the table.
3. In the next 3 weeks, we need the Bitcoin Core developers to work with us and clarify the roadmap with respect to a future hard-fork which includes an increase of the block size. Currently we are in discussions to determine the next best steps. We are as a matter of principle against unduly rushed or controversial hard-forks irrespective of the team proposing and we will not run such code on production systems nor mine any block from that hard-fork. We urge everyone to act rationally and hold off on making any decision to run a contentious hard-fork (Classic/XT or any other).
This is where shit gets real. This is extremely strong language, they specify not only the timescale (3 weeks) but also explicitly state the subject matter (with respect to a future hard-fork which includes an increase of the block size). This could not be any clearer. They want a blocksize and they want a concrete commitment from core within 3 weeks of when that is going to happen. The implications here are twofold, that the timescale had better be satisfactory, and that failure to provide a satisfactory timescale carries and unwritten 'or else' clause "We need" is the key phrase here. Very strong language from the east imho.
4. We must ensure that future changes to code relating to consensus rules are done in a safe and balanced way. We also believe that hard-forks should only be activated if they have widespread consensus and long enough deployment timelines. The deployment of hard-forks without widespread consensus is dangerous and has the potential to cause trust and monetary losses.
Reiteration of point 2, speaking directly to core using language that they want to here as a means of demonstrating a desire to remain aligned with them and giving them every opportunity to deliver.
5. We strongly encourage all bitcoin contributors to come together and resolve their differences to collaborate on the scaling roadmap. Divisions in the bitcoin community can only be mended if the developers and contributors can take the first step and cooperate with each other.
I think this is aimed at both core and classic devs. The miners basically do not need all this drama and want it to end. They want core to accept classic's blocksize increase, and classic to accept core's segwit and roadmap (as revised per the demands in 3 to contain a concrete BSHF timeline)
Thats my interpretation, provided its legit. I think if it was fake there would be more on point 2 and 4, and certainly nothing so strong as point 3.
Despite questions about authenticity I'm happy to take it on good faith. As much as has been said about core's motive, block stream's motive's and even classic's motives. I think mostly its come down to dick waving. I think core needs to man up and pull 2MB and I think classic needs to accept that core is probably going to remain relevant.
I do think this whole experience, whilst it will leave a bad taste in people's mouths for a while, is ultimately going to prove to be have been a worthwhile experience through what has been learned. I think *if* the allegations about block stream and core are correct, this has been a wake up call to them that any attempting to control bitcoin is not perhaps as easy as one might think. I think the way its made people behave (on either side( has been quite revealing, and I think it has also furthered some ideas about decentralisation of aspects of bitcoin other than mining (dev in particular). Which if they are not concretely addressed this time around, may end up being addressed as a matter of course. (i.e. once the contention factor has died down and all the clients are equal in terms of block validation, there will be a kind of brownian redistribution of users amongst the various bitcoin clients, due to some esoteric feature or other - as has previously been the case in the past. In a similar wayto how miners spread themselves between the various pools)
I think Peter R's pie chart gif of clients could potentially be right on the money (chart 3)
As ever I think the truth will be the mundane middle ground of reconciliation and uneventfulness. Rather then the hyperbolic extremes spawned from the imagination of netizens that have had too much exposer drama OTI
Thanks a lot for the detailed explanation. I looked at DarkCoin quite a bit a couple years ago when it was still in beta and changing a lot from each version. It sounds that the project has come a long way since then, many of the details you listed are different from just a couple years ago. For one the funding for master nodes is much lower (I remember it being 10K but could be wrong). The 10% automatic funding mechanism is new also. I really like that idea of a certain percentage of funds going towards development. Has the mixing improved? I played with it but thought it needed more work.That is a good observation. I personally think Dash is the cryptocurrency that is best positioned to replace Bitcoin in a worse case scenario. So I will explain briefly what some of its main features are, at the risk of being called out evangelizing an alt coin.
First of all the incentivized full nodes, called master nodes, are essentially paid full nodes. That get 45% of the block reward, the miners also get 45%, the other 10% is used for funding. I will get back to that soon since that is what makes it very interesting.
To run a masternode requires collateral, in the case of Dash it requires a thousand dash. This prevents any type of sybile or spoofing attacks, or that anyone can take over the network for that matter, it also helps to ensure that the masternodes incentives align well with the network. The block reward is shared among the masternodes in a similar way to how mining works in Bitcoin, meaning that master nodes are actually self balancing in regards to incentive just like mining.
The masternodes actually govern development, or more accurately, they decide where this 10% of the block reward goes. Any masternode can actually make a proposal which is then voted on by the entire network of masternodes, essentially sending Dash to any address in order to fund their proposal. This is done in a completely decentralized and distributed fashion. This means that Dash is essentially a self funding blockchain or a Decentralized Autonomous Organization.
I think this is very exiting, I think these types of organizations are a good path for the future.
One of the things Bitcoin has going for it is its simplicity in its design, if its governance mechanism does work well enough then you can argue for its superiority and its dominant position is justified. If its governance mechanism proves itself to be flawed then you can see how something like Dash might have solved these problems and could be the way forward.
In regards to some of its other features, compared to solving the scaling and governance issues, it does not seem as important in regards to our discussion here, however it is worth mentioning that Dash is capable of doing "instant" (few seconds) confirmed transactions. So you get close to the equivalent level of security of a single confirmation instantly, which can be very useful in retail situations for example. Dash has the option anonymize the links between transactions, this is a option however unlike Monero. Transparency is still possible, and it is obvious if coins are being purposely anonymized. I think this is important for certain social and ethical reasons, when corporations and governments get more involved for example, I think it would be good if we can keep a very close eye on them.
Dash had no pre-mine, pre-sale or anything like that, there is some controversy about when it was first launched, to much was mined in the first two days then should have been, the emission schedule was changed when that happened to fix the problem. Some people still shout scam or pre-mine because of this event, personally I do not think much off it since those coins have since been redistributed and everyone has had a chance to buy in when the price was much lower. The history is still out there, Dash used to be called XCoin, before it was called DarkCoin. It would have been wrong for me not to mention this.
Dash block time is obviously faster as well which leads to a much higher TPS, when the block size issue arises masternodes will simply vote to increase the blocksize, it seems like that is the position of the Dash community presently to support this as well. To be honest some of these altcoin communities are like a breath of fresh air compared to Bitcoin right now, especially before I discovered this great community in this Bitcoin forum. It is also good to consider that almost all of the masternodes are run in datacentres, so increasing the blocksize will not be as big of an issue for those reasons as well. There are already three and half thousand masternodes on the Dash network, approaching the amount of nodes Bitcoin has with a market cap of less then twenty five million I think is impressive.
There we go a short explanation of Dash, and why I think it is one of the best P2P money alternatives to Bitcoin, if requested I can start another thread in this forum to discuss this some more as well.
I will not get into explaining Bitshares, it is far more centralized by design and has a much more complex governance mechanism. I favor simplicity, so if Bitcoins governance mechanism does not work then its best alternative would be something like Dash and only after that maybe something like Bitshares. Increasing the complexity I suppose as we try to discover how to implement decentralized governance. I am hoping that Bitcoins incentive mechanisms through proof of work will work well enough, elegant in its simplicity of design most likely madly complex when applied to the real world, in terms of how the game theory and balance of power actually works.
Even if Bitcoin does remain the dominant cryptocurrency in the world, I am sure it can happily co exists with these alternatives as well as it already does today. I think the altcoins represent the very ethos of Bitcoin itself by representing the very principles of decentralization and freedom.
I still am concerned that if Bitcoin fails that it will be difficult for another crypto to take over and grow. Right now Bitcoin is new so there is nothing specific people can point to for why it will fail. If it does fail then when people look at better versions such as Dash the common view will be "oh that is another Bitcoin, which was shown to not work". That is a problem for the whole alt space.
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
Today the CVO (Chef Vandalism Officer) once more gets what he deserved in all the years.
Last time the President himself tried to defend him, but that did not turn out well for him. After that experience he seems to prefer staying quiet this time.
Last time the President himself tried to defend him, but that did not turn out well for him. After that experience he seems to prefer staying quiet this time.
Agree on all points. I spent several years in Asia and understand the hesitation on their part, consensus based decision making is very strong in Confucian cultures. That said it is not absolute (otherwise we wouldn't have had Mao), when things reach a breaking point, they break. That is why in China everything always seems so stable, and then one day there is a massive revolution.I'm not an expert on chinese culture but I have a vague understanding that it is somewhat different to the direct and fairly forthright way of doing things in the west.
I think the letter is possibly legit. However if it is I think it requires careful reading.
There is a pressing need for an inclusive roadmap that takes into account the needs of businesses and all stakeholders.
I think this is alluding to the fact they want segwit *and* blocksize increase.
1. We see the need for a modest block size increase in order to move the Bitcoin project forward, but we would like to do it with minimal risk, taking the safest and most balanced route possible. SegWit is almost ready and we support its deployment as a step in scaling.
Confirmation here that they are ready to accept segwit. Crucially "as a step in scaling" means they do not accept that segwit alone is enough.
2. We think any contentious hard-fork contains additional risks and potentially may result in two incompatible blockchain versions, if improperly implemented. To avoid potential losses for all bitcoin users, we need to minimize the risks. It is our firm belief that a contentious hard-fork right now would be extremely detrimental to the bitcoin ecosystem.
I'm not dealing with potential millions in lost revenue, so I can afford to be a little bit more risk tolerant, so setting that aside and taking this statement on face value it is fair to say that the best solution in terms of mitigating the 'contention' factor would be for core to just cherry pick the 2MB increase from classic and have done with it. I think this is a clear statement of preference. I think the implication is that HF via classic has a higher contention factor, but nowhere does it state that this id off the table.
3. In the next 3 weeks, we need the Bitcoin Core developers to work with us and clarify the roadmap with respect to a future hard-fork which includes an increase of the block size. Currently we are in discussions to determine the next best steps. We are as a matter of principle against unduly rushed or controversial hard-forks irrespective of the team proposing and we will not run such code on production systems nor mine any block from that hard-fork. We urge everyone to act rationally and hold off on making any decision to run a contentious hard-fork (Classic/XT or any other).
This is where shit gets real. This is extremely strong language, they specify not only the timescale (3 weeks) but also explicitly state the subject matter (with respect to a future hard-fork which includes an increase of the block size). This could not be any clearer. They want a blocksize and they want a concrete commitment from core within 3 weeks of when that is going to happen. The implications here are twofold, that the timescale had better be satisfactory, and that failure to provide a satisfactory timescale carries and unwritten 'or else' clause "We need" is the key phrase here. Very strong language from the east imho.
4. We must ensure that future changes to code relating to consensus rules are done in a safe and balanced way. We also believe that hard-forks should only be activated if they have widespread consensus and long enough deployment timelines. The deployment of hard-forks without widespread consensus is dangerous and has the potential to cause trust and monetary losses.
Reiteration of point 2, speaking directly to core using language that they want to here as a means of demonstrating a desire to remain aligned with them and giving them every opportunity to deliver.
5. We strongly encourage all bitcoin contributors to come together and resolve their differences to collaborate on the scaling roadmap. Divisions in the bitcoin community can only be mended if the developers and contributors can take the first step and cooperate with each other.
I think this is aimed at both core and classic devs. The miners basically do not need all this drama and want it to end. They want core to accept classic's blocksize increase, and classic to accept core's segwit and roadmap (as revised per the demands in 3 to contain a concrete BSHF timeline)
Thats my interpretation, provided its legit. I think if it was fake there would be more on point 2 and 4, and certainly nothing so strong as point 3.
Despite questions about authenticity I'm happy to take it on good faith. As much as has been said about core's motive, block stream's motive's and even classic's motives. I think mostly its come down to dick waving. I think core needs to man up and pull 2MB and I think classic needs to accept that core is probably going to remain relevant.
I do think this whole experience, whilst it will leave a bad taste in people's mouths for a while, is ultimately going to prove to be have been a worthwhile experience through what has been learned. I think *if* the allegations about block stream and core are correct, this has been a wake up call to them that any attempting to control bitcoin is not perhaps as easy as one might think. I think the way its made people behave (on either side( has been quite revealing, and I think it has also furthered some ideas about decentralisation of aspects of bitcoin other than mining (dev in particular). Which if they are not concretely addressed this time around, may end up being addressed as a matter of course. (i.e. once the contention factor has died down and all the clients are equal in terms of block validation, there will be a kind of brownian redistribution of users amongst the various bitcoin clients, due to some esoteric feature or other - as has previously been the case in the past. In a similar wayto how miners spread themselves between the various pools)
I think Peter R's pie chart gif of clients could potentially be right on the money (chart 3)
As ever I think the truth will be the mundane middle ground of reconciliation and uneventfulness. Rather then the hyperbolic extremes spawned from the imagination of netizens that have had too much exposer drama OTI
I think that is what we are seeing here, a desire to play nice and keep consensus with the "government" (core), but a clear preference on direction and indication that they will revolt if needed.
All that said, I sold 10% of my stake for the first time ever today. Partially it is because of this nonsense, but also because there are massive buying opportunities in the energy sector now. I figured I'm getting more stock selling BTC at $375 today than I would have gotten selling BTC at $1000 last year.
Out of curiosity I google translated the chinese version back to english, there were a couple of phrases that seemed interesting:
Consensus appeal
Over the past few months, the Bitcoin ecosystem, the block on Capacity issues caused great attention, and some have even beyond the question itself. Therefore, we urgently need a comprehensive roadmap to consider the common interests of business and the entire community.
As Bitcoin community commercial, exchange, mineral pool, miners and wallet software leaders, we have united together to plan an effective roadmap to address this challenge. We present five common desire to promote the community as a whole to be able to move forward together.
We now reach a consensus on the following points.
We believe that to promote the development of Bitcoin project requires an appropriate block expansion. But we must be very careful to do it, to take into account all aspects, to choose the safest and most balanced route. Separation witness ready, so we support it as the first step of expansion.
We believe that any disputed bifurcation hard all contain unpredictable risks, if not being properly implemented, may cause struggle between the two mutually incompatible block chain. In order to prevent economic losses Bitcoin holders, we must take this risk to a minimum. We believe that hard right now to start a bifurcation of the entire Bitcoin ecosystem has enormous Destructive.
We ask Bitcoin core development team to work together within the next three weeks with us to clearly articulate about including the expansion of hard bifurcated roadmap. We are now being negotiated next plan. In principle, we are opposed to any hasty and controversial hard bifurcation, regardless of which team raised. In the meantime, we will not mining or run as a node on our production system on that node bifurcation hard. We also call upon all community members to maintain your sanity and not to follow a controversial hard bifurcation (Classic / XT and others).
We want to protect the future mechanism for consensus on any code changes must be through a secure and equitable mechanism to complete. We believe that only after a hard bifurcation accounted for most of consensus and there is the case of a sufficiently long period in order to deploy secure boot. A depth test has not been accepted and widely diverging public opinion is hard also cause dangerous loss of integrity and interests.
We therefore strongly appeal to all Bitcoin contributors together to resolve disputes between then work together on a new road map. Under differences Bitcoin community only in co-operation between researchers and contributors to get healed.
In the end, our common goal is to make Bitcoin success. As long as we unite, bitcoin future is bright and strong.
Consensus appeal
Over the past few months, the Bitcoin ecosystem, the block on Capacity issues caused great attention, and some have even beyond the question itself. Therefore, we urgently need a comprehensive roadmap to consider the common interests of business and the entire community.
As Bitcoin community commercial, exchange, mineral pool, miners and wallet software leaders, we have united together to plan an effective roadmap to address this challenge. We present five common desire to promote the community as a whole to be able to move forward together.
We now reach a consensus on the following points.
We believe that to promote the development of Bitcoin project requires an appropriate block expansion. But we must be very careful to do it, to take into account all aspects, to choose the safest and most balanced route. Separation witness ready, so we support it as the first step of expansion.
We believe that any disputed bifurcation hard all contain unpredictable risks, if not being properly implemented, may cause struggle between the two mutually incompatible block chain. In order to prevent economic losses Bitcoin holders, we must take this risk to a minimum. We believe that hard right now to start a bifurcation of the entire Bitcoin ecosystem has enormous Destructive.
We ask Bitcoin core development team to work together within the next three weeks with us to clearly articulate about including the expansion of hard bifurcated roadmap. We are now being negotiated next plan. In principle, we are opposed to any hasty and controversial hard bifurcation, regardless of which team raised. In the meantime, we will not mining or run as a node on our production system on that node bifurcation hard. We also call upon all community members to maintain your sanity and not to follow a controversial hard bifurcation (Classic / XT and others).
We want to protect the future mechanism for consensus on any code changes must be through a secure and equitable mechanism to complete. We believe that only after a hard bifurcation accounted for most of consensus and there is the case of a sufficiently long period in order to deploy secure boot. A depth test has not been accepted and widely diverging public opinion is hard also cause dangerous loss of integrity and interests.
We therefore strongly appeal to all Bitcoin contributors together to resolve disputes between then work together on a new road map. Under differences Bitcoin community only in co-operation between researchers and contributors to get healed.
In the end, our common goal is to make Bitcoin success. As long as we unite, bitcoin future is bright and strong.
VeritasSapere
Active Member
- Nov 16, 2015
- 511
- 1,266
I believe the mixing has been improved a lot since then, but I am far from the right type technical expert to evaluate that myself, though as an investor I am confident in its improved utility, there are several bounties out there that reward anyone to deanonymize Dash transactions, I have always found such bounties pretty convincing.
It is true masternode income has increased since then as well, it was actually the first vote the masternodes did, which also initiated the 10% funding mechanism, this funding can go anywhere the masternodes choose, some of it is being used to promote Dash so it is not all going towards development, who knows maybe one day it will be used to fund standing armies, what a strange world that would be.
interesting, Charlie Lee supports the 2MB HF first then SW but not thru Classic just yet:
I don't even think they are conflicted. I would go so far as to say they are measured. They are explicitly stating the "or else" clause in item 3 of the letter they signed.
Nowhere in that letter does it say anyone is categorically *not* going to run classic, or hard fork th blocksize by whatever other means they deem appropriate. What Bitfury have signed is a letter saying we would prefer 'X' (core), but what Valery has tweeted is a clear message to core that they are quite prepared to go with 'Y' (Classic). I think its important to note that he has not said categorically they *will* go with Y, but that if push comes to shove they are prepared to abandon X for some other solution.
In fact it would not surprise me if the miners themselves got together to set the blocksize *and* the activation threshold themselves! Using classic's own logic, lets say they decided on a 90 day schedule, thats plenty of time for everyone else (exchanges, wallets, nodes) to get in line.... That would call the blood of the alleged 'economic majority' of non mining nodes!
[doublepost=1455227508][/doublepost]
Is it me or could the message being sent to core not be any clearer!?
Think McFly, think!
VeritasSapere
Active Member
- Nov 16, 2015
- 511
- 1,266
I think one of the things that will hold back adoption of an increased blocksize is peoples egos. There are so many people that have said that two megabyte blocks are disastrous or that Classic is a take over of Bitcoin just like XT (completely false of course).
I think that many of these people will not be able to admit that they where wrong. They might even need to reject Classic so that they could have been right all along, even if their client of choice supports a two megabyte blocksize limit. I recognize that this is completely hypocritical, however it might be necessary for these people to move forward. Give them their victory so that they can continue to bask in their foolish pride. At least the world can have Bitcoin then as well and benefit from its greatness.
@sgbett thanks for the insight regarding that letter, that definitely does put a more positive spin on it from our perspective
I think that many of these people will not be able to admit that they where wrong. They might even need to reject Classic so that they could have been right all along, even if their client of choice supports a two megabyte blocksize limit. I recognize that this is completely hypocritical, however it might be necessary for these people to move forward. Give them their victory so that they can continue to bask in their foolish pride. At least the world can have Bitcoin then as well and benefit from its greatness.
@sgbett thanks for the insight regarding that letter, that definitely does put a more positive spin on it from our perspective
Last edited:
Forgive me if this was already posted, but I didn't see it as I read the recent posts in this thread.
Apparently Greg has had much practice at being a toxic and supernaturally obtuse personality. ydtm on reddit did a bunch of digging into Greg's history at Wikipedia:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/45ail1/wikipedians_on_greg_maxwell_in_2006_now_cto_of/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/459iyw/gmaxwell_in_2006_during_his_wikipedia_vandalism/
Apparently Greg has had much practice at being a toxic and supernaturally obtuse personality. ydtm on reddit did a bunch of digging into Greg's history at Wikipedia:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/45ail1/wikipedians_on_greg_maxwell_in_2006_now_cto_of/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/459iyw/gmaxwell_in_2006_during_his_wikipedia_vandalism/
man, i swear to god, this maxwell is like a nightmare come true.
Bagatell
Active Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 728
- 1,191
Armstrong identifies a critical weakness in the Bitfury outlook. i agree with him:
[doublepost=1455229961][/doublepost]he's banging away. agree with him again:
[doublepost=1455229961][/doublepost]he's banging away. agree with him again:
Thanks for the maybe more accurate translation. Overall I like it except for this
"Separation witness ready, so we support it as the first step of expansion."
SW is both not ready and should not be done first. I really cannot believe a miner would prefer a complicated SW transition over a simple 2MB block transition. I do like their references to IBLT and other improvements, improvements that core has rejected so far BTW.
Overall this sounds to me to be a centralized cabal of miners getting together and dictating direction. That in itself is bad, but the direction to scale is good.
Ah if only Satoshi put the limit in as an overage of the previous X blocks, then none of this would have happened.
Regarding all that confusion about commit misattribution, did it ever turn out that Maxwell really did get patches merged prior to the switch to GitHub?
http://www.coindesk.com/gregory-maxwell-went-bitcoin-skeptic-core-developer/
http://www.coindesk.com/gregory-maxwell-went-bitcoin-skeptic-core-developer/
@VeritasSapere
By saying "LEGIT" in the altcoin list I meant no moral judgment, just a shorthand for "mined in the normal way" as an indication of how inflated the market cap can be expected to look. I don't think a presale (even if it could be proven not to be gamed) counts as a non-premine for this purpose, since the inflated market cap comes from tight holding by a tiny group of people (see NXT and Ripple). As for Dash, it has always looked mighty shady to me (see the link in my comment above to a post by @smooth), and I don't think I've ever seen shadiness and innovation go together, though I could be surprised.
[doublepost=1455235024][/doublepost]@Zarathustra
That was a truly epic comment there by /u/ydtm. Nothing new to us here, but he hit a bunch of the right buttons. It's like the extended version of @cypherdoc's "The geeks fail to understand that which they hath created," with musical score by John Williams.
By saying "LEGIT" in the altcoin list I meant no moral judgment, just a shorthand for "mined in the normal way" as an indication of how inflated the market cap can be expected to look. I don't think a presale (even if it could be proven not to be gamed) counts as a non-premine for this purpose, since the inflated market cap comes from tight holding by a tiny group of people (see NXT and Ripple). As for Dash, it has always looked mighty shady to me (see the link in my comment above to a post by @smooth), and I don't think I've ever seen shadiness and innovation go together, though I could be surprised.
[doublepost=1455235024][/doublepost]@Zarathustra
That was a truly epic comment there by /u/ydtm. Nothing new to us here, but he hit a bunch of the right buttons. It's like the extended version of @cypherdoc's "The geeks fail to understand that which they hath created," with musical score by John Williams.