If the fate of Bitcoin rests on the hands of a small group of people, then the project is a failure. It was supposed to be open and self sustainable.

It wasn't supposed to be like this, a very small group of people already holds (sort of) control of the fate of the system, which was supposed to be ruled purely by supply and demand. And now there's a conflict of intere$ ts. It's not a technical argument, otherwise we would all arrive into consensus.

At the end of the day, this whole BIP148/UASF argument is confirmation that the Bitcoin project had a great start, proposing a fantastic currency system, but it is bound to flop, not because of a technical limitations, but interests. I mean, what's the matter? If a small group of people can decide the fate of something, then the system ain't that special.

Bitcoin should just exist, without control whatsoever. No one should possibly be able to interfere with it. Unless somebody finds a solution that completely nullifies the purpose and existence of Jihans, it will be a matter of time until BTC dies.

submitted by /u/Sucake
[link] [comments]

#BtcNegotiate (on Freenode), a working group to resolve SegWit/8MB dispute

(original post)

I agree with your concerns.

It would be nice to see some indication that the various parties with stake and reputation (miners, devs, businesses, big holders) were communicating and negotiating.

Currently, the prediction markets are saying there's a 50% probability of a BTC hardfork in 2017 (source).

A contentious hardfork will be brutal for business. Miners, holders, businesses alike will suffer should it ever come to that.

More negotiation, more compromising. Maybe package a SegWit+8mb combined hardfork, with the 8mb hard fork code being reviewed and fixed for bugs by the more experienced devs from bitcoin-core repo. Perhaps renaming "SegWit" to "PandaBlocks" or "DragonChain" or "JihanPresentsBitcoinAccelerated". The point is, we need to find a deal that appeals to everyone and preserves the integrity of the core protocol.

I want this to work. Anybody can reach me privately and I will do my best to get you what you want. Reach out to me jecooper@alum.mit.edu , please encrypt your email using my PGP key, keyID = 331B6406, (and please provide your own key, or another secure method of contact).

Any mining pool operators, devs, big hodlers, concerned businesses in the BTC world, PLEASE reach out to me, I want to be your advocate, all of you. I have eschaton-overshadowing incentives to preserve and expand Bitcoin's reach.

/u/bdarmstrong, /u/memorydealers, /u/theymos, /u/bitjson, /u/bitmain (inactive account?), /u/adam3us, and ALL OTHER STAKEHOLDERS, let's talk and (hopefully) formulate something like a plan. I'll bring the resources of my relatively small ($ 2 mil annual revenue) unnamed company to the table if it would help to execute a plan to amicably resolve the SegWit/8mb issue.

Freenode IRC Channel that I've registered, for anyone interested in helping find amicable solutions to the issues discussed: #BtcNegotiate

Channel logs: https://notebin.cc/1kdbou2efi8

Notes (2017/02/02 04:20 GMT)

Some notable individuals showed up (check the logs linked above).
Much contention, some trolling.
A useful paper studying the effects of a blocksize increase was linked: On Scaling Decentralized Blockchains
It was suggested to initiate another formal Consensus.
I suggested making it binding (requiring participants to each place large sums of money on deposit with a reputable counterparty, not to be returned to them until the full consensus had been implemented in Bitcoin's mainnet).

[My thoughts]: It looks like we need more data (or at least model-derived) + well-informed analys on the effects of various scenarios on Bitcoin's long-term market cap and other attributes (decentralization, uncensorability, etc):

  • Studies that shed light on effect of having fewer nodes on long-term market cap (due to BU larger blocks)

  • Studies on effects of maintaining status quo

  • Studies on possible outcomes of hard-forking, their likelihoods, etc.

submitted by /u/Riiume
[link] [comments]