Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[johnyj]

I think something that might very much have a chance to damage this narrative is if segwit gets delayed. Rookie developers delay releasing software, not the veterans. A change as drastic as segwit is bound to get delayed, or worse, being deployed with money-losing bugs. One thing the Classic and +1MB communities must do is hold Core to it's April 2016 segwit release date. April starts in 2 days, and ends in about 32 days.

This is the wrong apporach IMO, the question is how come segwit, a large change that totally alter the architecture of bitcoin, get implemented into bitcoin without full consent by the community? It seems community in seeking for scaling will accept anything throw at them. It is this mindset put us in the current situation. In an enterprise software project, all the changes must be authorized by the stake holders and customers BEFORE programmers can even write a design specification

 

[freetrader]

@johnyj : No-one can approve something sight unseen. Core's BIP process is not bad in itself.
The problem is that it is often followed with arbitrary precision. And it is very much missing a "design" component - a specification is one thing, but the design might itself introduce problems and should be vetted within the project before implementation proceeds.

It's impossible to get everyone on the same page for a change to Bitcoin. That is why the governance of Bitcoin must expand to cover several development teams, who are free within the limits of the software license and their talents to implement what they see as useful additions that will gain support from the community. Beyond that, the rest of the community votes in different ways - by running the code, by sponsoring development, by trading Bitcoin for other currencies etc. All these ways form part of it.

 

[sickpig]

@VeritasSapere

unluckily posting there is a waste of time and energy. Every "contrarian" post is buried in a long series of doublespeak, handwaving and offensive posts.

This is why I find gmax presence on that very thread quite disappointing to say the least. He is the CEO of a company who has received 75(?) millions from various VCs after all.

Every once in a while I try to test participants good faith and every time the result is pretty clear, no good faith at all or a very well executed community brainwashing.

ps accidentally today I made my most recent post on that thread, and if you look at it you could see by yourself how useless it was. I'm human after all...

 

[Norway]

@sickpig
You're human? I always thought you were a pig!

 

[cypherdoc]

I watched this video for 5 minutes and shut it. It is full of error and obviously this Dr. does not understand what he is talking about, so he constantly change numbers based on the question

The real question is, who authorized them to implement such discount (in an effort to benefit LN and centralized wallet service providers)

Well, we should all be worried given that he is one of 3 co-authors of SW next to pwuille and lombrozzo. I'm always amazed how even core devs can differ in their understanding of the more centralized planning concepts of their efforts.

 

[johnyj]

@rocks If Bitcoin has failed and it is fundamentally flawed, I do not think that only changing the mining algorithm is enough to fix the problem, since changing the mining algorithm only delays the same thing from happening again, it does not fundamentally fix the problem. Incentivized full nodes, self funding block chains and more complex and clearly defined voting mechanisms can.

If Bitcoin is not fundamentally flawed it could just be that the community as a whole does want this, that we are not in the economic majority, that in effect the miners are expressing the will of the economic majority. If that is the case then the governance of Bitcoin is functioning and it should not be considered fundamentally flawed. Even if it is in part due to manipulation and censorship.

The people within the Bitcoin community are a unique group of people and we might just represent a small subset of that group of people. It could well be that this particular group of people is simply just make the wrong choice for Bitcoin and that is why it will become, obsolesced, out competed and overtaken. It might even be the perfect coin according to their peculiar small blockist ideologies.

Obviously miners favor on chain scaling, that's the reason BIP100 once had over 60% support last year
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/closer-look-bip100-block-size-proposal-bitcoin-miners-rallying-behind-1440792099

But now this HongKong meeting revealed some problems in current decision making process: You just need to fix those 6 mining pools then you can enforce a soft fork without consent from the full nodes. Since soft fork does not require full nodes consent, it has become a political weapon to suppress the different opinion

The miners are not expressing the will of the economic majority, they just been cheated into a deal that they don't fully understand its implication, and it might be too late when they realized something is wrong

So it is important to get the message out to chinese miners and give them more facts without bias, they would make their own decision based on their own risk management criteria

 

[bluemoon]

This is the wrong apporach IMO, the question is how come segwit, a large change that totally alter the architecture of bitcoin, get implemented into bitcoin without full consent by the community? It seems community in seeking for scaling will accept anything throw at them. It is this mindset put us in the current situation. In an enterprise software project, all the changes must be authorized by the stake holders and customers BEFORE programmers can even write a design specification

And how come segwit gets accepted for implementation when its main purpose is to open the way for off chain scaling using a non-existent, unproven application like Lightning Network, which not only has to work, but also has to be preferred by bitcoin holders to the directness and security of on-chain transactions despite draining value and security from Bitcoin itself?

 

[JohnnyBK]

So the famed Bitcoin democratic/libertarian machine still hasn't been able to boot Adam Back and the rest of the Blockstream assholes from the development team? It's been like 8 months, what's wrong with you people?

 

[johnyj]

@johnyj : No-one can approve something sight unseen. Core's BIP process is not bad in itself.
The problem is that it is often followed with arbitrary precision. And it is very much missing a "design" component - a specification is one thing, but the design might itself introduce problems and should be vetted within the project before implementation proceeds.

It's impossible to get everyone on the same page for a change to Bitcoin. That is why the governance of Bitcoin must expand to cover several development teams, who are free within the limits of the software license and their talents to implement what they see as useful additions that will gain support from the community. Beyond that, the rest of the community votes in different ways - by running the code, by sponsoring development, by trading Bitcoin for other currencies etc. All these ways form part of it.

The reality has shown us that you only need to control the core git, and sign a deal with 6 pool operators, then you can go ahead and implement what you want

Many chinese miners are doing a deal, they think that by allowing segwit, they will get a HF 2MB in exchange, they don't even understand what is segwit. So what if core really give them HF 2MB? They will run segwit in production without the consent of the community! That will totally change the bitcoin network into something else, and all the old nodes essentially become obsolete, and all the old documentations/materials about how bitcoin works will not be valid any more

 

[Norway]

@cypherdoc
So, Bore/Cockstream have 5 developers on SegWit. And I think they have one on LN. My mind is a bit blurry (beer). I think a heard on a podcast that Blockstream had just one dev on LN. And that it wasn't the main focus for Blockstream.
If this is true, what the fuck is Blockstream's scaling plan??? (Are they just paid to stall the crypto currency revolution?)

 

[solex]

@JohnnyBK Ironically, it has to be hard to boot bad actors from the dev team, because if it wasn't then it would be easy for a 3-letter agency, bankster cartel, or other group to boot the good actors from the dev team.

The answer is multiple dev teams with multiple implementations. In terms of this, quite a lot has been achieved in 8 months.

 

[Zarathustra]

Is it me or the mere fact that gmax is partecipating to thread like this one (ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT) is quite telling?

Is he completely out of touch or what?

That's a censored ('self moderated') thread. He prefers those playgrounds, as we all know. There is growing together what fits together.

 

[Norway]

@solex
Exactly! The "Wladimir" leadership approach (I don't decide anything, I just wait for everybody to agree) is unproductive. Teams must have good and strong leaders. The whole point is to have multiple competing teams. The last 8 months have been a great effort to remove the last, centralised point of failiure (one dev team).

 

[freetrader]

Are they just paid to stall the crypto currency revolution?

That is one possibility, however true or not, they have managed to achieve just that, quite effectively.

The reality has shown us that you only need to control the core git, and sign a deal with 6 pool operators, then you can go ahead and implement what you want

SegWit is not implemented yet.
No use in crying over milk which has not yet been spilled.
But we need to watch that pot before it boils over.

Many chinese miners are doing a deal, they think that by allowing segwit, they will get a HF 2MB in exchange, they don't even understand what is segwit. So what if core really give them HF 2MB? They will run segwit in production without the consent of the community! That will totally change the bitcoin network into something else, and all the old nodes essentially become obsolete, and all the old documentations/materials about how bitcoin works will not be valid any more

I totally agree. I have described the SegWit-as-a-softfork plan in very unflattering terms before, involving a guest who comes over to your house for a visit. He is advised well in time where the restroom is but then proceeds to relieve himself on your carpet on purpose. Yes, that is what I feel SegWit as a soft fork will be like - shitting on the elegant Bitcoin design for no good reason.

Transaction malleability can be fixed better than the current SWSF, and the rest is just a steaming pile of crap in all the ways that have already been mentioned by others.

The good news is that we know of the plan in advance, and can give this unwelcome guest the boot ahead of time.

 

[Zarathustra]

Heard it on reddit:

"In a decentralized bitcoin, block space is scarce. It's not set by the core developers or anyone, it's set by reality. If you take away block space scarcity, what you get is no longer a decentralized bitcoin."

We have a new dogma. Block space needs not just to be finite, but scarce, for Bitcoin to be decental. So the good news is, that after years of a centralistic bitcoin our beloved virtual currency finally becomes a bad, but decentralized transaction system.

The group-thinking is so deep that I think we'll never return to sanity. People are literally brainwashed.

That's the question. Is it unbelievable stupidity or an intentional attempt to get Bitcoin destroyed or at least crippled?

 

[Norway]

@freetrader
The most provocative I hear about SegWit, is the bold part of this mantra:
"SegWit increases the effective blocksize limit to almost 2mb, solves the malleability problem and does a lot more great things!"

 

[Bagatell]

http://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-10-new-firms-hyperledger-blockchain-project/

 

[freetrader]

@Norway : Yes, the Hong Kong summit was very effective in making people believe that SWSF is a very special animal:

Photo: An egg-laying woolly milk pig.

https://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovogena_lano-lakto-porko (sorry, it's Esperanto, but that means everyone should be able to understand If not, Google translate actually does quite a good job on that Wikipedia article!

 

[Justus Ranvier]

http://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-10-new-firms-hyperledger-blockchain-project/

While Core is busy blocking the stream, and while Ethereum is serving as a distraction, the bankster-industrial complex gets moving...

 

[Norway]

The bitcoin code doesn't need two-way pegging, SegWit or any other alterations to work with a second layer.

The bottom line is that you have to trust that second layer. Bitcoin is programmable money, and it has been for seven years. You can dump your bitcoins into any computer system for utility.

ChangeTip, Coinbase, a sidechain, LN. It doesn't matter. You have to trust that second layer to work as you expect.

(FUN FACT: Bitcoin itself isn't "trustless". You have to trust the bitcoin system to buy into it.)

RANT COMPLETE