Samson Mow: Why I support Core

[arnoudk]

I will for the moment assume that this post is genuine, and that the translation is accurate. (Both are assumptions that I cannot confirm!)



This "decentralized organization" is funded for large part by a single private company, Blockstream. Now I am grateful for Blockstream for funding bitcoin development - as long as that happens in an above-board manner. But since they are by far the largest investor, and core devs are employees of Blockstream, it is false to claim there is no centralization. If there is centralization, it cannot possibly be decentralized. Bitcoin Core is, thus, not a decentralized organization.

If we leave core, bitcoin will not fail. There are many alternative clients now - Classic, Unlimitedand XT. Core Developer Gavin Andresen was entrusted by Satoshi to run the project. He is involved with bitcoin longer than any other developer. He supports a non-Core client. Jeff Garzik is also an extremely experienced core developer that is involved with those other client implementations. Even so, there are many skilled individuals in the world that could complement the team. Bitcoin is supposed to be decentralized. If it is centralized, it can be controlled. If it can be controlled, it will be controlled. If it will be controlled, it will be corrupted. If it will be corrupted, it will fail and lose its value. Thus, to maintain and grow its value, it MUST be decentralized. The biggest centralization threat is development of the core client. Bitcoin should not have a reference client.

Mr. Mow is being dishonest, OR he is driven by fear.

For everyone else - let's scale.

[LiteCoinGuy]

i dont think that bitcoin will fail when some core devs leave but i would like to stick with core at the moment as long as they make the HF soon. hopefully before mid 2017. we are going in the right direction. i would wait a little bit longer.

[arnoudk]

i dont think that bitcoin will fail when some core devs leave but i would like to stick with core at the moment as long as they make the HF soon. hopefully before mid 2017. we are going in the right direction. i would wait a little bit longer.

I would have liked core to implement a HF too. But it is clear to me that they are not going to do so on time. The character sketch of core by Coinbase ceo brian armstrong explained a lot: high iq, terrible communicators, do not listen to their users, see themselves as protectors, prefer perfect to good enough, prefer inaction to good enough, prefer failure to not perfect.

On time for me is no lt 5s before hitting a concrete roadblock. On time for me is with a margin. We can discuss how large this margin should be. Hitting the upper block size with paid transactions that result in delays is not OK. I don't care much for other people calling competing paying transactions spam. Anything that has a valid signature, valid inputs and enough fee is a non spam transaction in my book. ANY other definition is arbitrary.

If one or a few people can fill blocks affordably for the fun of it - the problem is not that these people do that. The problem is that it is possible. The problem is that bitcoin is fragile in this aspect. Not fragile in the sense of breaking but fragile in the sense of slowing down to the point of being inferior.

Bitcoin has to fix this. And you either fix this by increasing size. Then there is room for everyone. Or you fix this by increasing fees.

Increasing fees is by far the worst solution - at the moment. Bitcoin has the most potential I think in the developing world. But here, people are not going to compete with the rich west. What you call an acceptable transaction fee could be an hour of work here. Would you really expect people to pay that? Or do you want to make bitcoin something for the rich and the elite?

The alternatives are NOT available. The crisis is very soon. You cannot refer to non existing promises as solutions to a serious problem.

The only thing that can be done safely now is a small scale increase. That buys time to develop LN and test it properly. It buys time to develop SegWit, test it properly, and implement it as a HF. SegWit shouldn't be allowed to add to the technical debt. It also allows time to improve on chain scaling with Xtreme Thin Blocks and other innovations.

Saying you prefer core to scale is in my opinion a statement out of fear for the unknown. What will bitcoin be like without a central structure for development? Well it would be a decentralised currency. It is a scary concept

Let's be part of the solution and let's scale

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I will for the moment assume that this post is genuine, and that the translation is accurate. (Both are assumptions that I cannot confirm!)



This "decentralized organization" is funded for large part by a single private company, Blockstream. Now I am grateful for Blockstream for funding bitcoin development - as long as that happens in an above-board manner. But since they are by far the largest investor, and core devs are employees of Blockstream, it is false to claim there is no centralization. If there is centralization, it cannot possibly be decentralized. Bitcoin Core is, thus, not a decentralized organization.

If we leave core, bitcoin will not fail. There are many alternative clients now - Classic, Unlimitedand XT. Core Developer Gavin Andresen was entrusted by Satoshi to run the project. He is involved with bitcoin longer than any other developer. He supports a non-Core client. Jeff Garzik is also an extremely experienced core developer that is involved with those other client implementations. Even so, there are many skilled individuals in the world that could complement the team. Bitcoin is supposed to be decentralized. If it is centralized, it can be controlled. If it can be controlled, it will be controlled. If it will be controlled, it will be corrupted. If it will be corrupted, it will fail and lose its value. Thus, to maintain and grow its value, it MUST be decentralized. The biggest centralization threat is development of the core client. Bitcoin should not have a reference client.

Mr. Mow is being dishonest, OR he is driven by fear.

For everyone else - let's scale.

SamsonMow's opinion carries no weight as it is weighed down by deception.

He is a fraud, a liar and a fear monger.

Bitcoin is fine, has been fine - and will continue to be fine so long as you run Bitcoin Classic nodes. This is not fear, this is truth.

Listen to those of whom Satoshi Nakamoto left in-charge of Bitcoin.