Complaints from Bitcoin Users

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

As it turns out,

"nobody actually knows how Lightning is going to be implemented." - RemoveTheLimit

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

color me

"surprised" - timetraveller57

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

the "leaders" of bitcoin development bash the question because of one misspoken word instead of answering his question

"nice community we got here, so helpful and welcoming to people and businesses, new or old" - DaSpawn

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I wasn't exactly thrilled with the response I got but I do think that it gives our own team enough information to formulate a plan going forward.

"That plan may or may not actually use Bitcoin, but at least we know that it would be naive to build a business that relies on the unproven results of future development efforts by a for-profit company." - KillerHurdz

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Rather than provide an answer to his question (because they can't), or admit that they don't have any idea how it will work, they just nitpick the semantics of the question

"in an effort to humiliate the asker." - ergofobe

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

they use it as an excuse to cripple Bitcoin today.

" traitors." - Hod1

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

When a software project fails delivery for two years after a dev team is formed, its highly likely it will never be released. Wtf is this, Duke Nuke'm Forever.

"Fuck the core. I'll NEVER use LN" - fat_tony555

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Great, so we have like 8 different maybe-working lightning implementations but Core doesn't have a clue which one of them is the right one to integrate yet

"and will rely on some random 3rd-party code "when it's done"." - totoCZE

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Also some funds might need to be locked for some time...

"This definitely affects business." - killerstorm

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Why continue to decorate a house built on quicksand

"if you can just move to stable ground and it's free?" - ret87

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

I thought it was supposed to be ready

"this past summer?" - dontcensormebro2

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

BTCfork starting development of minimum viable fork

"based on Bitcoin Unlimited" - ftrader

[RTZ]

I think if you're intentions was to have a compilation of complaints from bitcoin users and NOT spam to have higher post count,
you would just edit your main post everytime and add the complaints there, instead of making a reply for every complaint.

^THIS

You're just gaining free postcount while we work our asses off getting legitimate replies.

Why do you even post complaints? You dont even give solutions atleast. This is pointless and Bull****.

[cloud]

[BitcoinXio]

I think if you're intentions was to have a compilation of complaints from bitcoin users and NOT spam to have higher post count,
you would just edit your main post everytime and add the complaints there, instead of making a reply for every complaint.

^THIS

You're just gaining free postcount while we work our asses off getting legitimate replies.

Why do you even post complaints? You dont even give solutions atleast. This is pointless and Bull****.

I think seeing real user complaints is useful, but I do think links to each post validating the actual complaint is warranted. Without proof these people are saying these things, it's not very useful in my opinion.

[creationlayer]

Maybe you could do like batches, and include links rather than one at a time.

It's hard to follow one by one.

[mjglqw]

I think if you're intentions was to have a compilation of complaints from bitcoin users and NOT spam to have higher post count,
you would just edit your main post everytime and add the complaints there, instead of making a reply for every complaint.

^THIS

You're just gaining free postcount while we work our asses off getting legitimate replies.

Why do you even post complaints? You dont even give solutions atleast. This is pointless and Bull****.

I think seeing real user complaints is useful, but I do think links to each post validating the actual complaint is warranted. Without proof these people are saying these things, it's not very useful in my opinion.

Maybe you could do like batches, and include links rather than one at a time.

It's hard to follow one by one.

You guys are being too lenient; in my opinion.

[BitcoinXio]

Maybe you could do like batches, and include links rather than one at a time.

It's hard to follow one by one.

+1 This is a good idea.

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Complaints from users, Day 78 (27/09/2016):

Censored proposals are getting an attention booster

"It seems that Blockstream/Core still believes that repression works in the long run as well as in the short one." - Shock_The_Stream

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Why do you hate free choice

"and free speech so much?" - knight222

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Unlimited Overtook Classic

"in Slush Pool’s Blocksize Voting" - xbach

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Node count is also breaking new

"all-time high records" - decentralize_it

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

It's really moving up nice and smoothly. I think Ver's pool is going to be a big boom for BU. It's interesting how XThin allows miners to mine outside of China while not being affected by the GFC. Technically chinese miners could mine from within China, at a pool outside of China while not experiencing any losses.

"This could help decentralization and keeping some power out of the hands of the Chinese government." - _Mr_E

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Yes, eventually Bitcoin Unlimited or something like it will become the dominant implementation of bitcoin, and the network's performance and price will benefit. As far as i can tell, the fork was just to decentralize development away from the current governance team - a soviet style, single-party politburo of code governors.

"Everyone "votes" for blockstreamcore, even though we're really really not able to vote for anyone else. So the plan was to fork away without changing the codebase. It also provided a quick-fix band-aid to the blocksize limit to alleviate the immediate danger of congestion.

Everyone including Classic proponents know that changing the artificial limit of 1MB blocksizes to a slightly larger artificial limit of 2MB doesn't actually fix anything in the long term. The plan was to decentralize development and reach an equitable long-term solution (like flexcaps or bitcoin unlimited), but the most urgent thing was to decentralize development and break the monopoly core has.

However, it looks like the market has said, "just fix the fucking problem and people will follow you," rather than the approach of classic, "get people to follow you and then fix the problem." As a result, Bitcoin Unlimited has been getting a lot more attention, along with Flex transactions, headfirst mining, and xthin transactions." - jeanduluoz

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

certain core devs who ignore user sentiment and even treat them as ignorant idiots. they fail to realize it's those same users who bootstrapped Bitcoin from the ground up, not for profits like Blockstream or even VC funds. and certainly not skeptics like Greg and Adam

"who either proved Bitcoin could not work or were skeptical even when handed the opportunity of a lifetime in it's early days." - Hod1

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Core's technique doesn't send a Bloom filter with its get_data() request like Xthin does,

"and so the transmitting node can't figure out which transactions the receiving node is missing (without a second round of communication)." - Peter__R

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

Adopting xthin would validate BU concepts and coders,

"so thats not an option for BS." - arnili

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

they released CB with same ID as Xthin creating conflict, despite the fact, that CB is unfinished feature? Serious incompetence is serious.

"Link with explanation for reference https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4 ... coin_core/" - mcgravier

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

they're a sneaky

"bunch." - H0dl

[iFixBTCmemoryIssues]

The real problem is, that Core were aware of the issue 2016-08-11 https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/8500
But refused to solve it, and released bitcoin core client 0.13.0 at date of 2016-08-23 with compact block that uses same ID as Xthin. That causes completly unnesesary issues with both implementations, and unnesesary work to route around them.

"For me it is plain incompetence" - mcgravier