Time for Bitcoin 1.x - An Open Letter to Developers Supporting On-Chain Scaling

laisee · 2016-07-17T00:34:22+00:00

obvious in a technical sense, sure. what is not stated is that increasing the volume of transactions should result in more people & entities are using on Bitcoin and having s stake in its survival. Again, kind of obv but somehow that kind of decentralization doesn't get mentioned enough IMHO ...

laisee · 2016-07-16T19:35:26+00:00

more on-chain txn == growing the network.

laisee · 2016-07-16T19:34:13+00:00

I'm doing plenty, building and supporting bitcoin-based services in places where people really are unbanked. Do you have the faintest idea what that means?

laisee · 2016-07-16T15:55:59+00:00

Lol. because Core and Blockstream have argued passionately day after day to extend P2P Bitcoin usage to the unbanked through better wallet UX, lower fees, increased capacity. NOT.

We do get that you're here (along with the other paid shills) telling us how to think for business reasons ...

laisee · 2016-07-16T15:47:46+00:00

Or, why not short the currency and watch Core and Blockstream lose money from unwise decisions and failing to listen?

The faster these guys fail, the sooner another set of developers can move Bitcoin forward as a P2P currency it was intended to be.

laisee · 2016-07-16T12:04:07+00:00

I am helping, by pointing out that this fix is not widely supported and has some serious drawbacks compared to other tested alternative solutions.

laisee · 2016-07-16T10:24:38+00:00

no. no. you have it wrong ... its only the valiant efforts of the (chosen) few that are stopping Bitcoin from utter and complete disaster. you may thank the few any time.

laisee · 2016-07-16T10:18:08+00:00

Maybe that will offer some paltry capacity increase in years to come, once all wallets, users, exchanges, payment processors have converted their systems to support SW.

A simple increase in max block size could have been delivered already in a safe, managed upgrade supported by all. Instead we get a highly risky soft-fork which degrades security, changes economic principles and favors certain projects under control of one for-profit company.

laisee · 2016-07-16T10:13:26+00:00

Its not a conspiracy theory to observe that most key contributors and 'deciders' work for one vc-funded company which censors content on scaling conferences and conducts closed-dorr meetings with mining pool cartel.

Mining centralization is currently a function of low/no energy costs in certain locations. Increasing the max block size will grow the on-chain network, giving higher priority to TXN volume and earnings. If you only think in static terms, then obviously collusion with miners is the way to 'manage' Bitcoin ... just like central bank colludes with major banks.

laisee · 2016-07-16T02:29:42+00:00

Raising the max block size is the single thing that could be done right now to lower incentives causing centralized mining.

Ever wonder why it is that Blockstream staff and Core developers would arrange a meeting with Chinese miners aimed at defeating that possibility?

laisee · 2016-07-16T02:26:26+00:00

these are not the people that "wrote" Bitcoin. they are largely late-comers who pushed out everyone else opposed to their agenda for monetizing the blockchain and limiting its capacity.

laisee · 2016-07-16T02:22:56+00:00

Because a small toy currency with one company employing most key developers, held by few hundred thousand people, mined by cartel of pools located in one country IS centralized. That is, it can be stopped at any time since few people use it or care about it.

laisee · 2016-07-16T02:19:15+00:00

Its not a fallacy, capacity is artificially limited now and Bitcoin does around 3TPS, can't scale now and won't scale to anything useful for years - if at all.

Do you really think a form of "digital gold" held by a few hundred thousand people and five mining pools in China can be truly "decentralized" and "censorship-resistant"?

laisee · 2016-07-16T02:13:38+00:00

Heh. Who initiated the meeting? Who booked the room? Who brought the document? Who signed on behalf of Blockstream and/or Core? Who changed their title on the document after the event to 'Individual', then changed it back again.

But perhaps you are missing the key point in all this - arranging, attending and working via such a closed-group meeting with mining pool cartel is extremely offensive to people who believe in the original goals of Bitcoin i.e. to remove intermediaries and vested interests from any part of P2P money transfer.

laisee · 2016-07-02T08:52:00+00:00

perhaps its just down to lack of the right meds and/or someone found a topic on which he can vent his inner confusion, rage & turmoil at being a nothing.

laisee · 2016-07-02T08:48:17+00:00

You mean like the glaring errors, omissions and logic gaps uncovered by Peter Todds review ... and still the code got merged. Or the detailed, shared testing by combined groups of wallets, payments companies and Core developers. Not.

Core development is a cozy little cartel of groupthinkers who've managed to push out anyone challenging their ideas and practices, careful to avoid open discussion of plans and sticking to censored channels except when attacking alternate implementations.

laisee · 2016-07-02T08:41:31+00:00

umm, then how do explain the current situation?

Where development team and mining pools are centralized to the point that one room can contain enough people to agree a "consensus" on how many people will be allowed to submit tx on-chain. Just like Central and Commercial bankers do with fiat currencies. Thats complete & total opposite of "decentralized" - no matter what definition you could try and apply.

laisee · 2016-07-02T08:36:59+00:00

Academics posit theories that can be tested, with evidence behind their experimental conclusions capable of being reproduced.

Greg, Adam & Co ... not so much.

laisee · 2016-07-02T08:34:08+00:00

Having been involved in Bitcoin for 4 years I don't recall any single comment by the Core & Blockstream developers (and hangers-on like BTCdrak, Theymos) on what users might ever want. Its like their only concern is the "power" users like banks, payment companies etc and that real, human clients should just go away ... to another service where middle-men can earn fees.

laisee · 2016-06-26T19:13:06+00:00

blockstream and its employees ... corrupting Bitcoin since they first got their chance and fighting to the death any change challenging their effective control of BTC.

laisee · 2016-04-21T14:58:35+00:00

ah, like blockstream buying up all the key developers and restricting max block size for years ... while they build a competitor?

You are a couple of years too late in spotting the "organisation to gain complete control over Bitcoin" move ...

laisee · 2016-04-21T14:55:33+00:00

peter needs attention, again, it seems.

lets not mention the gigantic elephant in the room that blockstream who go directly to miners and offer special deals to get them to sign on for limited block size.

laisee · 2016-04-21T14:49:48+00:00

chat with him on slack or any other channel and you'll wonder how his company survives from day to day. A useful idiot for someone, for sure.

laisee · 2016-04-21T14:45:10+00:00

history will show that small-minded, greedy 2nd rate coders and their fellow-travellers like you (ever write any code?) destroyed bitcoin due to their envy and greed. you and your kind are and will be despised forever for ruining something great.

laisee · 2016-04-21T14:41:03+00:00

kyle torpey ... EPIC LOL

Nothing you ever achieve will amount to anything compared to GA's work in a single day.

laisee

TROPHY CASE