21–30 of 75 posts
Are GDAX related to Coinbase? This is almost word-for-word a copy of Coinbase's statement: https://blog.coinbase.com/update-for-customers-with-bitcoin-...
Are GDAX related to Coinbase? This is almost word-for-word a copy of Coinbase's statement: https://blog.coinbase.com/update-for-customers-with-bitcoin-...
Yes. Coinbase is the brand for their consumer-facing products, while GDAX is the brand for their exchange/trading products.
I think this would be better linked / re-titled to Coinbase as that is what most would be familiar with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a lot of back story behind this. The story as I see it is this - a bank which opposes bitcoin in its current form funded a company called Blockstream to kick the lead developer off the Bitcoin development team and take control of it. They want to change the protocol away from a decentralized blockchain which they can't control to a payment channel system which provides a potential financial services marketpla…
I'm a Bitcoin Core Dev. I'm not employed by Blockstream. I work extensively on scalability, having personality designed and written patches to Bitcoin which have drastically improved block validation times in the Bitcoin Core client. For the benefit of anyone taking your comment at face value, I'm here to say: Your response is total garbage. edit: More details, my response was written slightly in haste... 1. I'm a (n…
The vast majority are picking a side for political reasons - "Core" is embracing censorship as method to push their client, Unlimited believes in open discussion.
This is best exemplified on Reddit, where /r/bitcoin is moderated, heavily, by core, but /r/btc has a no-censorship policy.
This makes the technical differences between the two almost irrelevant, most are picking a side because they don't (or do) believe in censorship.
"Bitcoin" is normally defined as whatever is the longest continuous chain of blocks, which if the current state of affairs continues, will be Bitcoin Unlimited. But somehow Core have managed to stake a claim to the name "Bitcoin", which is going to cause massive confusion if a fork happens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a lot of back story behind this. The story as I see it is this - a bank which opposes bitcoin in its current form funded a company called Blockstream to kick the lead developer off the Bitcoin development team and take control of it. They want to change the protocol away from a decentralized blockchain which they can't control to a payment channel system which provides a potential financial services marketpla…
I'm a Bitcoin Core Dev. I'm not employed by Blockstream. I work extensively on scalability, having personality designed and written patches to Bitcoin which have drastically improved block validation times in the Bitcoin Core client. For the benefit of anyone taking your comment at face value, I'm here to say: Your response is total garbage. edit: More details, my response was written slightly in haste... 1. I'm a (n…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Bitcoin block size limits the transaction rate, because when a new block is generated by a mining operation, every 10 minutes or so, only a limited number of transactions will fit. Anyone generating a transaction can set the fee they will pay to have it processed, and higher fees are done first. Until recently, even zero-fee transactions tended to be processed eventually. But due to increased traffic, the queue t…
Woah, I hadn't realized that. So once BTU was created, could I just create new wallets on it, and import the keys from BTC wallets?
This seems suicidal, what a terrible idea to change things in this way just when the idea was getting some traction. It will set a precedent that there is a lot more uncertainty in cryptocurrencies and hold back adoption.
There's a lot of back story behind this. The story as I see it is this - a bank which opposes bitcoin in its current form funded a company called Blockstream to kick the lead developer off the Bitcoin development team and take control of it. They want to change the protocol away from a decentralized blockchain which they can't control to a payment channel system which provides a potential financial services marketpla…
It's helpful to evaluate the contribution of Blockstream developers to Bitcoin Core versus other non-Blockstream developers in the last year. Let's see
Greg Maxwell: 46
Jorge Timon: 17
Pieter Wuille: 163 (the only developer at Blockstream dedicated full time to Core development)
Mark Friedenbach: 0
Patrick Strateman: 31
Warren Togami: 6
Adam Back: 0
Greg Sanders: 32
Glenn Willen: 0
Total commits for listed Blockstream developers: 295
Wladimir Van Der Laan: 210
Marco Falke: 170
Corey Fields: 152
Jonas Schnelli: 87
Suhas Daftuar: 73
Alex Morcos: 65
fanquake: 56
Pavel Janik: 45
Total commits for listed non-Blockstream developers: 858
So about 35%. 15% if we remove Pieter, but I can confidently say everyone at Blockstream is hugely proud of his contributions and in no way shape or form are we interested in diminishing his accomplishment. From my perspective he has been the single most important contributor to Bitcoin development for many years now.
In short, this narrative is a huge disrespect to every other contributors building the software we all depend on. The obsession of certain people to lend power to specific individuals is simply an attempt to shut down their ideas by attacking their character.
--
I would add that most of the Core contributors working at Blockstream had been contributing before the company was founded and certainly did not "infiltrate the Bitcoin development team".
The previous lead developer had barely contributed anything before he quit out of his own volition after a series of failed attempt to politicize Bitcoin and force through a contentious hard fork. The last straw was of course when he was naively led to believe that notorious scam artist Craig Wright was Satoshi.
With regards to the "off-blockchain" solutions you refer to. Here's a couple of facts:
Fact 1: The Lightning Network was created by Bitcoin developers not involved with the Core project
Fact 2: No Core developer is involved in a business whose revenue model revolves around the success of the Lightning Network
Fact 3: There is very little profit to be made from operating the Lightning Network infrastructure/protocol.
Fact 4: The Lightning Network will happen regardless of the outcome of the current contention.
Fact 5: Bitcoin developers have no control over the consensus code being enforced by independent peers participating in the network. Bitcoin is a voluntary system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a lot of back story behind this. The story as I see it is this - a bank which opposes bitcoin in its current form funded a company called Blockstream to kick the lead developer off the Bitcoin development team and take control of it. They want to change the protocol away from a decentralized blockchain which they can't control to a payment channel system which provides a potential financial services marketpla…
Could you point me to some sources where I can read up on these claims? If all would be true, assumptions I've had about certain people would've change drastically.
If you read /r/btc on reddit you can see a forum that in uncensored, unlike the HEAVILY censored and 'curated' (threads that don't go the way the mods want are sorted by controversial first) /r/bitcoin. Anyone on /r/bitcoin that says something alluding to censorship is banned and has their posts deleted. Anyone who mentions bitcoin unlimited is banned. The moderation logs are not open.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a lot of back story behind this. The story as I see it is this - a bank which opposes bitcoin in its current form funded a company called Blockstream to kick the lead developer off the Bitcoin development team and take control of it. They want to change the protocol away from a decentralized blockchain which they can't control to a payment channel system which provides a potential financial services marketpla…
> funded a company called Blockstream to infiltrate the Bitcoin development team kick the lead developers off it. Blockstreeam was founded by long-time bitcoin lead developers. The rest of your post is paranoid nonsense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Woah, I hadn't realized that. So once BTU was created, could I just create new wallets on it, and import the keys from BTC wallets?
Yes, although it is likely that there won't be a 'BTU', bitcoin unlimited's protocol changes will be the majority of the mining hashpower and so the miner will carry on with the normal bitcoin chain having a dynamic blocksize limit.