API tools faq
paste
Technologov

Answer to Meni regarding Bitcoin Core (Mar.2017)

Technologov
Mar 21st, 2017
147
0
Never
Add comment
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 4.77 KB | None | 0 0
raw download clone embed print report
  1. Alexey Eromenko "Technologov" speaks. A donator for "Bitcoin Israel" fund and I know Meni personally. And a fairly large crypto-currency holder since 2013. I think I must respond.
  2.  
  3. 1. Censorship on r/bitcoin is an attack on freedom of speech and a no-no in my book. This leads to a community split into multiple channels on reddit and IRC.
  4.  
  5. 2. Technical people from Bitcoin Core are just a bunch of clowns, that have no idea how-to scale the network. I have exactly ZERO trust in them. I was aware about block size problem from 2015, and I fully expected them to fix this issue in time, until my transactions stuck last month. In any good corporation they would be fired for gross-mismanagement of the project and inability to scale network. (starting with Greg Maxwell, Adam Back and Luke-jr -- We must show them the door.)
  6. I trust Satoshi Nakamoto, though and his vision of "Peer-to-peer electronic cash system". I'm sorry, but with $1 fees on Bitcoin network nowadays, and 3 hour transaction times, Bitcoin blockchain is non-functional.
  7. I'm a Bitcoin user since 2013, and which new features I got by 2017 ? Smart contracts? In Ethereum, not in Bitcoin. Privacy? Dash and Monero, not in Bitcoin. Masternode voting ? In Dash, not in Bitcoin. Incentivized Full-nodes, that get paid for uptime? In Dash, not in Bitcoin. In other words, all the new development happens in Alt-coins and is never back-ported into Bitcoin proper. I call for Bitcoin developers to back-port useful features from Alt-coins back into Bitcoin. (as it should happen, in most Open-Source projects)
  8.  
  9. 3. The case against SegWit: (it's transactions take 2x more space)
  10. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/60fcgb/segwit_was_intentionally_designed_in_a_wasteful/
  11. SegWit, even if activated on 1 MB blocks will help scalability for just 6-to-12 months, at most. And it will reduce future scalability of the network due to "fat transactions" that take more space.
  12.  
  13. 4. Lightning Network will subvert Bitcoin into a banking system:
  14. https://forum.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-discussion/how-the-lightning-network-could-ultimately-destroy-bitcoin-t21092.html
  15.  
  16. 5. This non-ending scalability deadlock, and the fact that my transactions getting stuck for 3 hours, pushed me squarely into Dash, and I sold a large chunk of my Bitcoins for Dash. (but if Bitcoin Unlimited solves the scalability problems of Bitcoin, I may consider to buy-back some BTC-u coins in the future)
  17.  
  18. 6. Bitcoin Core people prevent the obvious fix -- one-line of code, which is an increase of Bitcoin block size from happening. Core solution is a non-solution and just a band-aid.
  19.  
  20. 7. You say that "Bitcoin Unlimited" code as 'buggy and exploitable'. Yes, I agree that the technical code review process in BU needs to be improved. Crashing full nodes is not good, but it's a short-term damage.
  21. But guess what ? The economic code of "Bitcoin Core" is buggy and exploitable. Technical computer code is much easier to fix, if good programmers are working on it, than the long-term damage done by Bitcoin Core people due to their bugs in Bitcoin 'Economic code', and refusal to scale network.
  22.  
  23. 8. The economic majority favors the big blocks, as can be proved by Dash Masternode voting, where 99.2% of the community voted on increasing the block size.
  24. https://www.dashcentral.org/p/2mb-blocksize
  25. Bitcoin should have developed a similar mechanisms to allow for economic majority voting with their coins. Running a bunch of Full-nodes aka UASF is susceptible to sybil attacks, and just a bunch of nodes kicking themselves out of the network.
  26. I'm damn sure that BTC-c coins will be dumped by the ton and have near zero value, while BTC-u coins will be valuable in the future.
  27. I think if Bitcoin had something like Dash Masternode voting mechanisms, this fork could have been avoided.
  28.  
  29. 9. I believe that 'hard fork' is a lesser evil; The Etherea Twins have two functional block-chains. Bitcoin nowadays has one dysfunctional block-chain, where tx don't confirm for hours. It needs to be fixed at any price. The debate is on-going for years with no resolution, ending in a deadlock. What will another year of debate solve ?
  30.  
  31. 10. I feel that Gavin Andersen's BIP-101 (Bitcoin XT) is safer than Bitcoin Unlimited, as it's a more predictable scaling algorithm. It doesn't suffer from Emergent Consensus issues. Bitcoin Core will never scale, and it has a terrible future. But sadly our community seems to throw Bitcoin XT under the bus.
  32.  
  33. The way to scale network forward: (on-chain scalability, similar to what Satoshi envisioned)
  34.  
  35. A. Incentivized Full Node network (similar to Dash Masternodes), that get paid to upgrade hardware from the block-chain
  36.  
  37. B. Deleting old transaction history; No reason to keep tx history since the Caesar of Rome
  38. https://github.com/dashpay/dash/issues/1380
  39.  
  40. -Alexey Eromenko "Technologov", 21.03.2017
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Public Pastes
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy.  OK, I Understand
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!