Scaling Conference Notes
http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/2016-july-bitcoin-developers-miners-meeting/cali2016/
So included within the 3day transcript is information from LukeJR with code for the block size increase. I'm unable to evaluate it but would love to hear feedback on it in light of the /btcfork stuff.
I think Nullc is pissed at Lukejr because he followed through with the HK scaling conference requirements and put together this hardfork proposal (with regards to lukejr getting ripped apart on irc)
Also, Core, because they now are an official group called Bitcoin Core and identify themselves as such, don't want a hard fork because a hard fork is always contentious. If it isn't contentious than it isn't a hardfork essentially.
"To offset this trend, it's necessary for us to increase the user base. And if we treat Bitcoin as a reserve currency, then the possibility for it to split is high. But if we treat it as a payment network, then people are unwilling to let it split because you would increase the usability."
This seems to not be bitcoin? I dunno. I mean I understand the theory, if it's a payment rail system people have to use it and the system must be protected and is protected by usage; but that's not really a p2p virtual currency anymore; it's a payment rail.
Also, my understanding is maaku7 got angry and left at some point during the weeeknd. Whatever this issue was or what was said was removed from the notes...
Also in there was an admission that coinbase is a competitor with different goals than blockstream
http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/2016-july-bitcoin-developers-miners-meeting/cali2016/
So included within the 3day transcript is information from LukeJR with code for the block size increase. I'm unable to evaluate it but would love to hear feedback on it in light of the /btcfork stuff.
I think Nullc is pissed at Lukejr because he followed through with the HK scaling conference requirements and put together this hardfork proposal (with regards to lukejr getting ripped apart on irc)
Also, Core, because they now are an official group called Bitcoin Core and identify themselves as such, don't want a hard fork because a hard fork is always contentious. If it isn't contentious than it isn't a hardfork essentially.
"To offset this trend, it's necessary for us to increase the user base. And if we treat Bitcoin as a reserve currency, then the possibility for it to split is high. But if we treat it as a payment network, then people are unwilling to let it split because you would increase the usability."
This seems to not be bitcoin? I dunno. I mean I understand the theory, if it's a payment rail system people have to use it and the system must be protected and is protected by usage; but that's not really a p2p virtual currency anymore; it's a payment rail.
Also, my understanding is maaku7 got angry and left at some point during the weeeknd. Whatever this issue was or what was said was removed from the notes...
Also in there was an admission that coinbase is a competitor with different goals than blockstream
Last edited: