The real sad thing is that their secondary vision is wrong too. It's about their need to tinker and create alternate profit opportunities.
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
The problem as I see it is it creates lockin for core by making it difficult to switch to a non-core client. While non-core clients can still easily switch to core. The reason is the on disk change is one way.
i.e. You can go from classic or BU to core, without re-downloading the entire block chain.
But to go from core 0.12 to classic, you have to re-download the block chain.
That type of one way format conversion tends to lock in users.
@sickpig
Looks like you got Patrick Strateman to see the light regarding the round-trips for Xthin. Hopefully this spreads to the other confused Blockstreamers.
BTW--@theZerg's submission was reinstated at /r/bitcoin.
Looks like you got Patrick Strateman to see the light regarding the round-trips for Xthin. Hopefully this spreads to the other confused Blockstreamers.
And yes, Patrick, it's not plain vanilla thin blocks, it's a new technology called Extreme Thin Blocks (Xthin) by @Peter Tschipper. That's why people are excited!phantomcircuit said:
BTW--@theZerg's submission was reinstated at /r/bitcoin.
Just looked at a few slides Blockstream just presented to miners to FUD them into supporting Core.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/46obtl/core_selling_lies_in_china/
I never in my wildest dreams thought such ignorance would flow from the core of Bitcoin developers.
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/46obtl/core_selling_lies_in_china/
I never in my wildest dreams thought such ignorance would flow from the core of Bitcoin developers.
- Aug 22, 2015
- 1,558
- 4,693
@AdrianX They are treating the Chinese audience like children who need to be told what to think. That has to be a serious error.
Could that be Adam Back's great-great-grandfather?
Could that be Adam Back's great-great-grandfather?
Last edited:
Why listen to them anymore?
[doublepost=1455941621][/doublepost]Here's a good Chinese twitter feed to follow. Hmm, a blow to f2pool? They're a major core supporter:
[doublepost=1455941843][/doublepost]F2pool down:
https://blockchain.info/pools
[doublepost=1455942334,1455941384][/doublepost]This has got to be one of the worst core made up slides:
[doublepost=1455941621][/doublepost]Here's a good Chinese twitter feed to follow. Hmm, a blow to f2pool? They're a major core supporter:
[doublepost=1455941843][/doublepost]F2pool down:
https://blockchain.info/pools
[doublepost=1455942334,1455941384][/doublepost]This has got to be one of the worst core made up slides:
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
Going into a room and making crackpot attributions of price movements to cherry-picked news surely is going to go over great in a room filled with producers of a speculative asset traded by tons of folks on technical grounds.
Yeah, you'd hope the crowd will be sophisticated enough to laugh at that.
I when I see that slide "change must have nearly universal agreement."
First off how is RBF considered to have nearly universal agreement among the then 90% of the network nodes that runs Core.
And if one was to try and prevent change what qualifies and what doesn't.
Well according to to central control no change to the founding rules but anyone can hack Bitcoin so long as Core, our version is dominant, and all hacks are fine because they are just soft forks and it's not important if they don't have universal agreement because they're just soft hacks.
Oh yes and that change to the total hashing rate that wasn't OK'ed by GMax, the three of you had better get back in line and run the new Core. We are changing Bitcoin with a soft fork to allow our LN to process a higher volume of transactions. Don't worry it's going to be much cheaper for us to run a server than it is for you to run a mining farm. So we'll share the fees with you so long as you run Core and the SW.
And don't get any funny ideas of competing with LN, you can't, Bitcoin has a limit and you can't change that without nearly universal agreement. (Basically our digital influencers us and theymos have to OK anything before it could be tested for nearly universal agreement.
when I see that slide "change must have nearly universal agreement."First off how is RBF considered to have nearly universal agreement among the then 90% of the network nodes that runs Core.
And if one was to try and prevent change what qualifies and what doesn't.
Well according to to central control no change to the founding rules but anyone can hack Bitcoin so long as Core, our version is dominant, and all hacks are fine because they are just soft forks and it's not important if they don't have universal agreement because they're just soft hacks.
Oh yes and that change to the total hashing rate that wasn't OK'ed by GMax, the three of you had better get back in line and run the new Core. We are changing Bitcoin with a soft fork to allow our LN to process a higher volume of transactions. Don't worry it's going to be much cheaper for us to run a server than it is for you to run a mining farm. So we'll share the fees with you so long as you run Core and the SW.
And don't get any funny ideas of competing with LN, you can't, Bitcoin has a limit and you can't change that without nearly universal agreement. (Basically our digital influencers us and theymos have to OK anything before it could be tested for nearly universal agreement.
Melbustus
Active Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 237
- 884
Why listen to them anymore?
On the "Bitcoin is not a democracy" point (leaving aside the other misleading manipulative BS in that slide)... Actually, like it or not, it is precisely a majoritarian democracy due to the longest-chain rule. Bitcoin *is* the longest chain. To make one chain longer than another requires the proverbial 51% of hashpower. Not 75%. Not 95%. Not 99%. 51%...
Therefore, bitcoin cannot, on a technical level, escape the reality that it is a democracy governed by a simple majority.
Maybe this really will turn out to be bitcoin's Achilles heel longrun (see US Constitution for how majoritarian rule can degrade supposedly inviolate principles), but we should not think Bitcoin is something it's not. We have only one choice: to trust that the free-market of users understands that bitcoin's value comes from it's fixed supply, censorship resistance, and properties as ideal money.
Then why is he using this graph to criticize Antpool's 0-1 TX blocks while praising Bitfury's efforts at producing full blocks? Something doesn't add up.
Hopefully the audience will react to core's positions the same way most people here did several months ago.
If there is dissent in China I wonder how core will censor it.
- Aug 22, 2015
- 1,558
- 4,693
@cypherdoc
It probably means that they are in favor of utilizing existing block-space, thinking that mining an empty block is not being a good mining citizen. Because: users waiting longer for confirmation.
A different way of looking at it is that all miners are being forced to be bad citizens (including BitFury) when they cannot include the available txns which have a reasonable fee.
It probably means that they are in favor of utilizing existing block-space, thinking that mining an empty block is not being a good mining citizen. Because: users waiting longer for confirmation.
A different way of looking at it is that all miners are being forced to be bad citizens (including BitFury) when they cannot include the available txns which have a reasonable fee.
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
Hey guys, I wanted to post this directly here and then it got too large and I did not want to distract from this great discussion.
However, I would love to hear people's thoughts on this idea below as sort of a "high road" attempt at debate/discussion with the leaders of Bitcoin Core for all to see including the miners as we approach this potential hard fork.
To me it would be a shame for the public in general not to get a real and fair dialog/debate before decision time comes closer.
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-core-open-letter-request-for-comments.900/
Respectfully,
Dlareg
However, I would love to hear people's thoughts on this idea below as sort of a "high road" attempt at debate/discussion with the leaders of Bitcoin Core for all to see including the miners as we approach this potential hard fork.
To me it would be a shame for the public in general not to get a real and fair dialog/debate before decision time comes closer.
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/bitcoin-core-open-letter-request-for-comments.900/
Respectfully,
Dlareg
I'm glad that Patrick stand corrected, still he said it was our fault because we misnamed the concept/tech? how funny, isn't it?
I'm going to reply pointing to BUIP xthin proposal where the name of the functionality is properly spelled
petrov should know better seriously.
butfury does not mine empty blocks, nevertheless on avg it gathers less fees per block compared to antpool that mine 10% of coinbase only blocks?
Alex, is bitfury not even able to sort mempool txs by fee/KB in descending order? /sarcasm