4 ms·

^^^ Summary of /r/btc, for those wondering Sigh > 10 000 lines of code highly controversial because they require... A soft fork, and will change bitcoin in a

^^^ Summary of /r/btc, for those wondering Sigh > 10 000 lines of code highly controversial because they require... A soft fork, and will change bitcoin in a fundamental ways Most of those lines of code are tests. It would be nice for you to say why SegWit is controversial, beyond being proposed around the same time that fees got high. Bitcoin has had soft forks before. This one will do great many great things for transaction throughput and privacy. > "Blockstream" have paid almost every developers of bitcoin core to push Segwit without a clear consensus from the community Blockstream employed 5(?) Core devs, some of them part-time. > Worse, this company actually support the huge censorship happening in bitcointalk and r/bitcoin Censorship is horrible, but do you have proof that Blockstream supports it? > 75 millions from AXA Yes, they received funds from a bank. But what matters about code is what the code does, not who paid for it. Bitcoin is open source, so you can inspect what's going on. If you have legitimate economic or technical objections to SegWit, I'd love to hear them. If you're spouting FUD, then go back to /r/btc.

lawn 10y ago
^^^ Summary of /r/bitcoin, for those wondering. Sigh > Bitcoin has had soft forks before. This one will do great many great things for transaction throughput and privacy. It's an inefficient hack. For example: https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-fork-too-far-87d6e57a4179 https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-... > Censorship is horrible, but do you have proof that Blockstream supports it? All signs points towards it. Do the Blockstream people even speak out against the censorship on /r/bitcoin? No. Do they prefer to use channels censoring opposing opinions? Yes. > If you're spouting FUD, then go back to /r/btc. Exactly the narrative Core supporters push.
- clarkmoody 10y ago
  > It's an inefficient hack Sure. The creator of SegWit (Sipa) said in one of his first talks on the subject that if you could re-architect Bitcoin from scratch, then you would segregate the witness data. Nodes could potentially throw it away after witnesses were verified, to save disk space. The problem is that it would require a hard fork, which Core wants to avoid if at all possible. SegWit hacks the coinbase and transaction structure in order to be implemented as a soft fork. I'm not sure if it's inefficient or not, but it is a hack. Does the fact that it's a hack mean that it's bad for Bitcoin? That article talks about all sorts of developer troubles and losing coins without ever mentioning the testnet, which exists to allow you to lose worthless coins. If a company is pushing major updates to wallet software without conducting proper testing, then bad on them. Plenty of bitcoin has been lost to the current complexities of the transaction format. Remember those 100 BTC fee transactions? The article's conclusion bemoans the plight of the miners without mentioning the actual users of Bitcoin, other than a hand-wave at "community consensus." I'm not convinced. > Do the Blockstream people even speak out against the censorship on /r/bitcoin? No. Do they prefer to use channels censoring opposing opinions? Yes. Ok, so let's assume the whole lot is rotten and loves censorship. Does that change the nature of the code that exists in the Bitcoin codebase? Censorship sucks, but Bitcoin is what really matters. >> If you're spouting FUD, then go back to /r/btc. >Exactly the narrative Core supporters push. Anyone who tries the path of moderation and reason within /r/btc is downvoted into oblivion, resulting in de facto censorship of that sub. Edit: > Summary of /r/bitcoin, for those wondering. You forgot the roller coaster price gifs :-)
- midmagico 10y ago
  > Do the Blockstream people even speak out against the censorship on /r/bitcoin? Yes, gmax has, literally every time he is asked about it. His complaint is that r\btc as an organizational/policy difference is a worse place. That's by comparison. -- Which it is, since e.g. users like /u/pagex still haven't been banned after direct physical threats.
doctorfoo 10y ago
SegWit is controversial because it is a key part of Core's off-chain scaling roadmap, as opposed to alternative, on chain scaling. It's pure politics: If SegWit "wins", we go down a certain route of scaling and cement Core as being the only group that has control over Bitcoin's future. There are some technical arguments against SegWit but they are largely unrelated to what makes it so controversial. > Blockstream employed 5(?) Core devs, some of them part-time. If you omit the arguable "blockstream have paid", the rest of the sentence is correct: almost every developer of bitcoin core pushes Segwit without clear consensus from the community. They define "consensus" as a consensus between those who reside in (and who have not been ejected from) their tightly controlled forums. > Censorship is horrible, but do you have proof that Blockstream supports it? Adam Back and Greg Maxwell (CEO and CTO) regularly participate in the forums that support the censorship, i.e. /r/bitcoin, and rarely post on /r/btc (for a starting overview of the censorship, see here: https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-in-r-bitcoin-c85a290fe43 https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-histor... ) Is the CEO and CTO choosing to participate often and primarily in a heavily censored community not "support"?
- ShellGh0st 10y ago
  Yep, it basically looks like core devs have this plan to: -Keep bitcoin broken so fees go sky-high -Push people towards their sketchy off-chain transactions Bitcoin then becomes "bank coin", where large providers handle all the micro transactions and "settle up" with huge 1000+ btc chunks. It's a scam and while I have my own reservations about bitcoin unlimited and making miners "too powerful" at least their plan is 100% on-chain. Core dev's plan is suicide for bitcoin, major investors have been jumping ship to etherium driven by their insanity.
  - kylebenzle 10y ago
    It is nothing sinister though. It is just when Mr. Maxwell and Dr. Back started Blockstream they expected the 1 mb blocksize to stay 1 mb. On this assumption they built their company and sold their services as "Core" maintainers. The Fork to a chain that does scale on its own seems inevitable and was fully expected by the original developer. It seems like an uphill battle for Core to convince people to NOT upgrade the network. The "sketchy" off chain stuff is not sketchy either, it is just off chain. If you mean that they may be able to profit from it, I don't see why that is evil or even wrong, it is just their business plan.
nomailing 10y ago
> Censorship is horrible, but do you have proof that Blockstream supports it? Here is some very strong evidence for it: http://telegra.ph/Inside-the-Dragons-Den-Bitcoin-Cores-Troll-Army-04-07 http://telegra.ph/Inside-the-Dragons-Den-Bitcoin-Cores-Troll... Obviously, people could always say that there is no proof, because "supporting" is such a vague term. It is hard to come up with a mathematical proof. But I would say, it is already a proof that they participate mostly in /r/bitcoin and not in /r/btc. Reddit depends on participation. Therefore with their participation in censored forums in contrast to uncensored forums they at least indirectly support the censorship.

lawn 10y ago

^^^ Summary of /r/bitcoin, for those wondering. Sigh > Bitcoin has had soft forks before. This one will do great many great things for transaction throughput and privacy. It's an inefficient hack. For example: https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-fork-too-far-87d6e57a4179 https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-... > Censorship is horrible, but do you have proof that Blockstream supports it? All signs points towards it. Do the Blockstream people even speak out against the censorship on /r/bitcoin? No. Do they prefer to use channels censoring opposing opinions? Yes. > If you're spouting FUD, then go back to /r/btc. Exactly the narrative Core supporters push.

clarkmoody 10y ago
> It's an inefficient hack Sure. The creator of SegWit (Sipa) said in one of his first talks on the subject that if you could re-architect Bitcoin from scratch, then you would segregate the witness data. Nodes could potentially throw it away after witnesses were verified, to save disk space. The problem is that it would require a hard fork, which Core wants to avoid if at all possible. SegWit hacks the coinbase and transaction structure in order to be implemented as a soft fork. I'm not sure if it's inefficient or not, but it is a hack. Does the fact that it's a hack mean that it's bad for Bitcoin? That article talks about all sorts of developer troubles and losing coins without ever mentioning the testnet, which exists to allow you to lose worthless coins. If a company is pushing major updates to wallet software without conducting proper testing, then bad on them. Plenty of bitcoin has been lost to the current complexities of the transaction format. Remember those 100 BTC fee transactions? The article's conclusion bemoans the plight of the miners without mentioning the actual users of Bitcoin, other than a hand-wave at "community consensus." I'm not convinced. > Do the Blockstream people even speak out against the censorship on /r/bitcoin? No. Do they prefer to use channels censoring opposing opinions? Yes. Ok, so let's assume the whole lot is rotten and loves censorship. Does that change the nature of the code that exists in the Bitcoin codebase? Censorship sucks, but Bitcoin is what really matters. >> If you're spouting FUD, then go back to /r/btc. >Exactly the narrative Core supporters push. Anyone who tries the path of moderation and reason within /r/btc is downvoted into oblivion, resulting in de facto censorship of that sub. Edit: > Summary of /r/bitcoin, for those wondering. You forgot the roller coaster price gifs :-)
midmagico 10y ago
> Do the Blockstream people even speak out against the censorship on /r/bitcoin? Yes, gmax has, literally every time he is asked about it. His complaint is that r\btc as an organizational/policy difference is a worse place. That's by comparison. -- Which it is, since e.g. users like /u/pagex still haven't been banned after direct physical threats.

doctorfoo 10y ago

SegWit is controversial because it is a key part of Core's off-chain scaling roadmap, as opposed to alternative, on chain scaling. It's pure politics: If SegWit "wins", we go down a certain route of scaling and cement Core as being the only group that has control over Bitcoin's future. There are some technical arguments against SegWit but they are largely unrelated to what makes it so controversial. > Blockstream employed 5(?) Core devs, some of them part-time. If you omit the arguable "blockstream have paid", the rest of the sentence is correct: almost every developer of bitcoin core pushes Segwit without clear consensus from the community. They define "consensus" as a consensus between those who reside in (and who have not been ejected from) their tightly controlled forums. > Censorship is horrible, but do you have proof that Blockstream supports it? Adam Back and Greg Maxwell (CEO and CTO) regularly participate in the forums that support the censorship, i.e. /r/bitcoin, and rarely post on /r/btc (for a starting overview of the censorship, see here: https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-in-r-bitcoin-c85a290fe43 https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-histor... ) Is the CEO and CTO choosing to participate often and primarily in a heavily censored community not "support"?

ShellGh0st 10y ago
Yep, it basically looks like core devs have this plan to: -Keep bitcoin broken so fees go sky-high -Push people towards their sketchy off-chain transactions Bitcoin then becomes "bank coin", where large providers handle all the micro transactions and "settle up" with huge 1000+ btc chunks. It's a scam and while I have my own reservations about bitcoin unlimited and making miners "too powerful" at least their plan is 100% on-chain. Core dev's plan is suicide for bitcoin, major investors have been jumping ship to etherium driven by their insanity.
- kylebenzle 10y ago
  It is nothing sinister though. It is just when Mr. Maxwell and Dr. Back started Blockstream they expected the 1 mb blocksize to stay 1 mb. On this assumption they built their company and sold their services as "Core" maintainers. The Fork to a chain that does scale on its own seems inevitable and was fully expected by the original developer. It seems like an uphill battle for Core to convince people to NOT upgrade the network. The "sketchy" off chain stuff is not sketchy either, it is just off chain. If you mean that they may be able to profit from it, I don't see why that is evil or even wrong, it is just their business plan.

nomailing 10y ago

> Censorship is horrible, but do you have proof that Blockstream supports it? Here is some very strong evidence for it: http://telegra.ph/Inside-the-Dragons-Den-Bitcoin-Cores-Troll-Army-04-07 http://telegra.ph/Inside-the-Dragons-Den-Bitcoin-Cores-Troll... Obviously, people could always say that there is no proof, because "supporting" is such a vague term. It is hard to come up with a mathematical proof. But I would say, it is already a proof that they participate mostly in /r/bitcoin and not in /r/btc. Reddit depends on participation. Therefore with their participation in censored forums in contrast to uncensored forums they at least indirectly support the censorship.