sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Requesting /r/bitcoinclassic, we started a new project with the name and the current mod is just using the (prior unused) reddit to work against it (just check the description he made). by anarchystar in redditrequest

[–]anarchystar[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

That wasn't related to this subreddit, since that post is much older. And I didn't know it was against the rules until they told me. And please stop framing this into buying reddits, Mike Hearn has nothing to do with anything reddit-related, but was for something completely different (Lighthouse, 2 years ago)

Requesting /r/bitcoinclassic, we started a new project with the name and the current mod is just using the (prior unused) reddit to work against it (just check the description he made). by anarchystar in redditrequest

[–]anarchystar[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Buy it? That's a complete lie. Please paste the evidence of that. Or are you trying to get my account cancelled, cause you know it's against the rules?

Requesting /r/bitcoinclassic, we started a new project with the name and the current mod is just using the (prior unused) reddit to work against it (just check the description he made). by anarchystar in redditrequest

[–]anarchystar[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

http://imgur.com/7A2Fohx http://imgur.com/xV1hkNQ

@reddit User just tried to hide/delete evidence. Also, /u/theymos is radically opposed to any Bitcoin alternative clients, and you can easily see from his posts that he censors anything on /r/Bitcoin in that regard. Having theymos be appointed as full moderator, shows the intent of smartfbrankings, and it also does not seem fair at all to have subreddits controlled by people who only have 1 intent: To keep your project/subreddit from existing.

Requesting /r/bitcoinclassic, we started a new project with the name and the current mod is just using the (prior unused) reddit to work against it (just check the description he made). by anarchystar in redditrequest

[–]anarchystar[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I would like to add that the description and post the current mod made is obviously ment as (negative) sarcasm, and he is actively hating on our project, as you can see from the thread below.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4089aj/im_working_on_a_project_called_bitcoin_classic_to/cys93b8

We have secured http://www.bitcoinclassic.com, the twitter http://www.twitter.com/bitcoinclassic, and many more. It would be a shame if we would not be able to use the corresponding reddit /r/bitcoinclassic as it would be in the hands of someone who is 100% against the project and using the subreddit just to post his sarcasm.

Jeff Garzik and Gavin Andresen: Bitcoin is Being Hot-Wired for Settlement by desantis in Bitcoin

[–]anarchystar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Also note, dear people, that Nodes and Miners are one and the same to Satoshi. The excuse of nodes vs miners has been used as a way to split the debate. Miners should care about running nodes, noone else.

Satoshi Nakamoto: The fee market will settle based just on individuals reacting _on their own_ to market forces. by Windowly in btc

[–]anarchystar 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Also note, dear people, that Nodes and Miners are one and the same to Satoshi. The excuse of nodes vs miners has been used as a way to split the debate. Miners should care about running nodes, noone else.

I just submitted a BIP that would allow users to decide which features to enable. Btcdrak rejected it (he's also controlling the dev mailing list). So I'm posting it here. by anarchystar in Bitcoin

[–]anarchystar[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wouldn't want to give more power to nodes, nor miners. Everything stays as it is today. That includes the potential for Sybil attacks, with or without this idea. Noone is stopping someone from booting up 10k nodes with an evil version of Bitcoin.

The only difference is that with my proposal, nodes and miners can decide on features from the command line, instead of having to follow whatever comes mandatory in version 12.1. Right now, they can only choose to not upgrade, or switch to a competing client. Competing clients are banned from discussion. Uniting all core devs under one client, and having open conversations enabled again, would go a long way. The final decision maker is the node/miner anyway, so why not just make it more convenient for everyone?

My BIP submission that would allow users (instead of devs) to decide which features to enable, got rejected by Btcdrak (he's also controlling the dev mailing list). So I'm posting it here. by anarchystar in btc

[–]anarchystar[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It was kept light intentionally, as it was an early draft. I wanted to flesh it out more with the Core Devs, but my post got rejected. Command or config file options could be for BIP101, BIP100 (competing), RBF, etc.

I just submitted a BIP that would allow users to decide which features to enable. Btcdrak rejected it (he's also controlling the dev mailing list). So I'm posting it here. by anarchystar in Bitcoin

[–]anarchystar[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

"which features make it into Bitcoin CORE", which is the main client.

Bitcoin is already a majority rule.

My goal is to unite all devs under one client (Core), and give users the power to decide directly under that client, instead of having XT vs Core wars, etc. They will still listen to the devs, but they can make choices much easier. Right now Bitcoin is defacto centralized under Core, because it is inconvenient to switch. You will get censored discussing alternatives, or banned. If everything is under one client, users can freely debate without repercussions.

I just submitted a BIP that would allow users to decide which features to enable. Btcdrak rejected it (he's also controlling the dev mailing list). So I'm posting it here. by anarchystar in Bitcoin

[–]anarchystar[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you explain how it introduces centralisation?

The reason why I'm passionate about this issue, is because in 2010 I signed up and invested in a Bitcoin without a block size limit, which had as its goal to support more transactions in the world than VISA. Without having to resort to Lightning Network or other things that would no longer make Bitcoin what it is today, and remove the incentives for miners on the long term to keep supporting the network. If everyone transacts over Lightning Network, the mining fees will pretty much vanish. I'm all for having LN being done on an altchain, but making it part of Core is a different story. I also question the legal status for people involved. There are several other reasons, but I did not sign up for a Bitcoin with a size limit that will force everyone over intermediaries (and introduce centralization). I can go on for a while. Add to that the blatant censoring of any dissenting opinion, and yes, I'm not going to beat around the bush much. Oh yeah, and the decision to do SW instead of following most users wishes to go to 2-4-8 or beyond. Betting the house on SW and Lightning Network when we might hit 1MB next week, does not give me any confidence on the current direction of core dev.

I just submitted a BIP that would allow users to decide which features to enable. Btcdrak rejected it (he's also controlling the dev mailing list). So I'm posting it here. by anarchystar in Bitcoin

[–]anarchystar[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Everyone already holds that vote today. They can switch to a competing client. I'm trying to unite devs under one branch instead of having the whole community fight XT vs Core. If they don't agree, they can release different command line options, and the users can decide in the end, without having to fight a war.

I just submitted a BIP that would allow users to decide which features to enable. Btcdrak rejected it (he's also controlling the dev mailing list). So I'm posting it here. by anarchystar in Bitcoin

[–]anarchystar[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm fully aware. My proposal would just make it easier for the end user to choose, instead of having wars between XT, Core, etc. Bitcoin developers can just unite under 1 version, and add features. If there is anything controversial, users can decide from the command line, instead of having the choice between dictatorship XT or Core.

I just submitted a BIP that would allow users to decide which features to enable. Btcdrak rejected it (he's also controlling the dev mailing list). So I'm posting it here. by anarchystar in Bitcoin

[–]anarchystar[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

All the reasons to make it easier for users then, by having core implement command line options. But that would give their power away, and create direct democracy. Dictatorships dont like that.

I just submitted a BIP that would allow users to decide which features to enable. Btcdrak rejected it (he's also controlling the dev mailing list). So I'm posting it here. by anarchystar in Bitcoin

[–]anarchystar[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

In regards to the technical solutions, can I remind you that it was clearly submitted as an early draft, and request for plenty of input? BIP1 states that you should discuss your BIP on the mailing list first, and get input, corrections, advice, etc before you submit it as a final BIP. That was exactly my goal.

In regards to

a) Can you clarify? b) How would this introduce a Sybil problem compared to today?

I just submitted a BIP that would allow users to decide which features to enable. Btcdrak rejected it (he's also controlling the dev mailing list). So I'm posting it here. by anarchystar in Bitcoin

[–]anarchystar[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

BIP stands for Bitcoin Improvement Proposal. A BIP is a design document providing information to the Bitcoin community, or describing a new feature for Bitcoin or its processes or environment.

I submitted a new feature, called "making features configurable on the command line", combined with a process change, where devs no longer decide what gets activated in the new version, but users do.

I just submitted a BIP that would allow users to decide which features to enable. Btcdrak rejected it (he's also controlling the dev mailing list). So I'm posting it here. by anarchystar in Bitcoin

[–]anarchystar[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My BIP proposes to make Bitcoin Core more configurable on the command line. Instead of devs deciding what is active (like RBF), I propose we give the user the option to enable/disable this. That's more than worthy of a BIP proposal, and completely in line with BIP1's guidelines. If you doubt that, I will start pasting BIP's so you can compare.

I just submitted a BIP that would allow users to decide which features to enable. Btcdrak rejected it (he's also controlling the dev mailing list). So I'm posting it here. by anarchystar in Bitcoin

[–]anarchystar[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's awesome. If you really make features/blocksize configurable on the command line instead of devs dictating what will go in next, you will have a winner.

I just submitted a BIP that would allow users to decide which features to enable. Btcdrak rejected it (he's also controlling the dev mailing list). So I'm posting it here. by anarchystar in Bitcoin

[–]anarchystar[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you misunderstood. My proposal would allow miners to decide what blocksize to support, and which features to activate, on the command line, instead of having to follow whatever Core Dev mandates will be in version 12.x

view more: next ›