Community Directory


Go back

User Activity

Forum Posts

  • Replies: 1,764
  • Topics: 216
  • Likes Received: 1,244
  • Re: Upcoming Bitcoin Hard Fork & /r/bitcoin censorship

    @ademczuk I appreciate the alert but as a casual user I can see that Mike hearn (or whomever he represents) has created a problem to solve. @adam If XT cannot solve scaling then this fork is an attack.

    Isn't block size actually a problem? Both camps seem to disagree about when it will become a problem that must be dealt with but both sides do seem to identify it as a problem. XT wants to solve it by avoiding it, classic wants to solve it by running into it which would force people to pick between a dysfunctional protocol (hit the limit with no solution in play) or building on top while keeping the protocol the same.

    It does not seem like this is a problem only in the minds of Mike Hearn - am I incorrect in the above?

    The apache tribe was defeated by admiting that they could only survive by cenctralising their livestock. You tought me this in your first 20 episodes.

    Centralization and decentralization happens at many levels simultaneously, as an individual you are a decentralized agent of the human race but as an entity you are a centralization of the decentralized molecules that make up YOU.

    Much the same here, you can make the arguement that either side wishes to centralize it just depends on what you're talking about.

    XT thinks non-bitcoin structures built on top is an inferior solution because it makes the bitcoin network unable to function as a decentralized protocol without handing off actual transactions to off-chain processors. Even if the processing is trustless, suddenly we have trusted parties acting as a major part of the enabling layer where in a pure bitcoin system we do not.

    Classic thinks decentralization of nodes and miners is what matters

    And to be clear, both XT and Classic seem to believe in centralization of decisionmaking the question just is how centralized is it.

    XT seems to be "discuss with everybody but two people have more say in decisionmaking and in the event of a tie its just one guy"

    Classic seems to be "discuss with everybody and everybody has equal say and in the event of one person not liking a proposal nothing will happen"

    Either way its centralized, the question is do you bias more towards "improvement" or do you bias more towards "preservation"

    As I said, no right answers but I very much don't think it's a clear cut case of "Mike wants to be a dictator"

  • Re: Upcoming Bitcoin Hard Fork & /r/bitcoin censorship

    @cherapple

    So the question is, is it better to have predictable deadlock rather than predictable victories coming from one particular viewpoint? @Cryptonaut @devon @loon3 any thoughts? Is it good to have benevolent dictator or is deadlock preferable? Are there any other options?

    Another option would be to follow the example of Dash and let those who contribute to the system by running nodes vote on network-impacting decisions. If such a system could work the same for Bitcoin.

    I don't disagree with this as a better feedback mechanism but it doesn't seem to solve our problem now. Also important to note that the against-xt camp will argue that XT will decrease the number of participating nodes which reduces to efficacy of the proposed change.

    Frankly though I dont think either side is anxious to onboard more stakeholders with opinions unless they're supportive of their desired ends. This isn't really about getting consensus it's about two groups of developers thinking fundamentally the others are wrong, and since the proposals are mutually exclusive there can only be one winning side.

  • Re: Upcoming Bitcoin Hard Fork & /r/bitcoin censorship

    @markxmayer

    How are decisions made?

    Bitcoin XT is a patch set on top of Bitcoin Core. It is currently maintained by Mike Hearn in collaboration with Gavin Andresen and Tom Harding. If a patch seems in line with the principles of the project it will be considered for inclusion. If the developer is willing to assist with rebasing work, that also helps build the case for inclusion.

    Decisions are made through agreement between Mike and Gavin, with Mike making the final call if a serious dispute were to arise. In the event that such a dispute cannot be resolved this way and an XT developer were to make a fork, this website would provide a discussion and link to the competing version.

    Welcome Mike as our new bitcoin overlord? This feels wrong.

    So the question is, is it better to have predictable deadlock rather than predictable victories coming from one particular viewpoint? @Cryptonaut @devon @loon3 any thoughts? Is it good to have benevolent dictator or is deadlock preferable? Are there any other options?

  • Re: Upcoming Bitcoin Hard Fork & /r/bitcoin censorship

    @tatianamoroz Hey guys, I would like to know what the hell is this fork thing?

    It's what appears to be a pivot point for the bitcoin network. The question is, on what should the network pivot? The argument from Gavin and Mike is that Bitcoin has effectively been co-opted and the fork is a way to solve it while the other side (we think although I haven't yet found anyone willing to represent that point of view) thinks that Gavin and MIke are co-opting bitcoin for their own purposes by going to "the people" and bypassing the rest of the core developers who are opposed to increasing the block size.

    I keep hearing about it but seeing as I don't have much to contribute to the technical discussion, I haven't paid much attention. What problem were they trying to solve?

    It's a very wonky issue that doesn't appear to have a definitively right answer, really it depends on your perspective of "what is bitcoin" and "what is core to bitcoin"

    The No-Block-Increase team seems to be prioritizing the easy onramp to being a full distributed node, they define how "bitcoiny" bitcoin is by pursuing logic that maximizes the number of nodes and they view the best available way to do that by not increasing the block size which will make it harder and more costly to run a full node thus fewer people will do it thus it's bad for bitcoin.

    The other side thinks that not raising blocks is effectively hamstringing (crippling) the network and the natural course of action that is consistent with good-for-bitcoin is to adapt the network as they suggest Satoshi always intended.**

    There is not a right answer as it all depends on your perspective.

    So how would you explain it to a person new to Bitcoin, or to someone non technical?

    I think we wouldn't, it's like asking how you'd explain monetary policy to someone new to money or to someone non-technical - Sure in theory you could but they really dont care and will probably just get angry when you explain it and they don't understand - As @cryptonaut said in an earlier post, this really doesnt matter to the average user unless whatever choice picked is the wrong one and the whole ecosystem suffers as a result.

    Why is it happening? What are the possible repercussions?

    Because they've been arguing about it for more than 6 months now publicly and the conversation has been going on internally for a long time before and in open source the rule is if you disagree enough you can each have your own version and go your seperate ways. In Bitcoin its a little different, there is no "seperate ways" since nobody wants to split bitcoin into two smaller pies. The BitcoinXT fork will only take place and the change will be made only if 75% of people running full nodes (i.e. you have the blockchain downloaded) upgrade to XT. If 65% upgrade then the switch will not be made.

    Does this mean Bitcoin's price will go down? Seems like a big deal, no?

    It is a big deal, first time something like this has ever happened and Gavin Andresen + Mike Hearn are a potent combination of ability and credibility. Some people are saying this is a sky-falling moment but again i'm not finding so many now that the XT gauntlet has been thrown on the table, got a note from one off the record i'm trying to get permission to post but mostly people are meh to in favor from my informal polling.

  • Re: Interview Request: Rusty of Blockstream - Lightning Protocol

    We're

    @ademczuk Based on the successful interviews with Gavin Andresen, Peter Todd and the team behind the Lightning Network by @epicenterbitcoin there is now an opportunity to capitalise on yet another prominent figure.

    Rusty appears to not yet have been contacted by the LTBcoin network regarding an interview. He was has recently been hired by Blockstream to work on an implementation of a Lightning (micro-payment channel) protocol and has a talent for simplifying complex systems for the layman.

    What do you think, @adam ?

    I reached out, thanks for poking about it again

  • Re: It's mind boggling that LTB has 210 episodes out

    @btcdroid And each episode has been worth listening to as well. Kudos to the LTB team.

    I'm glad my choices continue to resonate with people, tastes definitely change over time and we've been doing this for quite a while. It's still fun most of the time :)

  • Re: SoG - Ethereumcard SwapBot Lottery

    No judgement, just want to know if we need to fix this - Nobody has reported this happening before, was this an easy mistake to make (and thus we should change our design) or did you do something kind of dumb (and thus it's probably not something we need to address)?

    We definitely don't want customers sending funds to other customers by mistake

    @andaloons Somehow I sent 0.09115 to what I thought was the SwapBot address but it turned out to be another person's address that had JUST PURCHASED an Ethereumcard from the SwapBot. If you have a nice new shiny balance of 0.09115 at your address would you be so kind as to return it to me??

    Thanks!!

    -Andaloons

  • Re: Upcoming Bitcoin Hard Fork & /r/bitcoin censorship

    Does anybody want to argue that this attempt at forking over to BitcoinXT is a bad thing?

    It seemed like a lot of people were vocally against raising the block size but I haven't seen much arguing against the fork.

    Right now this seems pretty harmless to me and as a normal user (actually someone running a company that sends lots of bitcoin transactions) it seems like this is a no-brainer in favor of XT. Anybody want to explain the other perspective?

© Copyright 2013–2016 The LTB Network. All rights reserved .