Community Directory

Forum Posts

• Replies: 744
• Topics: 48
• Likes Received: 301

• Re: Token Controlled Access and the Lightning Network

  i like to state a lot to non bitcoiners that i am not fully in the camp of 100% decentralized applications, i feel that in certain cases a more centralized solution is needed. I am usually referring to coinbase because when someone says they want to buy bitcoin and they need my help, i tell them to use coinbase. why? because it is a centralized service that will properly secure their funds for them instead of me being resposible for creating them a paper wallet, or them getting something like blockchain wallets in which i know they will just forget their password and the funds will be lost forever. But at the same time, i love the decentralized applications that i use because i am comfortable enough to do so because i have the knowledge.

  So the same goes for the lightning network, i feel that it will serve a purpose in the space for doing a high amount of transactions. even with increased block sizes, i feel that the lightning network could be used in paralel with the network.

  For tokens the lightning network will not work and that is because tokens are still very new, they are like internet 1990 while bitcoin is becoming internet 1997 right now. and eventually if the lightning network and tokens are popular enough, someone will design a great centralized solution for tokens if they desire to, but the fact that anyone can still use the decentralized applications is a crucial feature that cant be replaced.

  I think spells could get a good use for a centralized application as they are trusted and becoming more of a successful project every day. But the decentralized token apps need to work before the centralized ones do just like in the bitcoin community.

  Posted on August 20, 2015 at 11:18 AM
  General

• Re: Upcoming Bitcoin Hard Fork & /r/bitcoin censorship

  @sangye This has been a painful chat to read - mostly because there is such a flame feel around the whole thing. Interesting the story of how the various online "so called" communities are leaning one way or another.

  Why would people get so irate unless they were either ignorant or felt they had a vest interest in one way or another.

  The way i see the collaboration of the "core developers" is with both admiration and the sigh of experience working in software dev or any IT core team who try to be a "democracy". I agree that the role of the lead developer is to lead. When you don't lead someone will say "you suck as a leader" at some point. When you do they'll possibly say "i thought this was a democracy" when they don't get it their way. Alas this is the case and its also true that when you aren't at the center of it all you'll have these mischievous types who want it to break before it gets fixed for their own amusement but they rant and rave as if it is a reasonable position. Then there is the type of rant that is to accuse the "large blockists" of having no basis for their concern - which is so ignorant in itself since there are statistics, stress test results and so on to prove what someone who has a basic understanding of transactions being put into blocks can easily just comprehend - that eventually ... there will be lack of capacity.

  So is it any wonder that a large amount of people are easily convinced that the capacity planning aspect is relevant. I am aware of the many other arguments and i am not trying to address them, just the fact that i feel the general ignorance of this whole scene if people can't imagine what it is like if "you were in charge" and you had to weigh up risk of doing nothing vs risk of not doing something (about blocksize).

  I personally hope the size is just an upper limit and that people can still make small blocks until they need to tune up their node. As long as it works out like that i really think the arguments are politics and not really designer relevant. Design is to make the currency do what you want and not to exploit economic side effects of supply and demand (for transactions).

  I agree that everything you have said has some truth to it. I even addressed that i kind of feel bad for him. But if you choose to become a leader, these are the burdens that you must take on. If you cannot handle them, then you are not meant to be a leader.

  There is always going to be two sides to an argument, and the side that a leader doesn't choose is always going to be mad. Pro life vs choice, legalize pot vs not, gay rights vs no marriage equality, and now core vs XT.

  However all that being said, if people are really that upset about the /r/bitcoin then they will find alternatives, just like if a majority of people choose XT, then bitcoin will move to XT.

  I think the intensity of the debate and the reddit censorship is beginning to dwindle away as almost all heated arguments like this do. Now it is time for each of us (being those who run nodes) to make a decision about running core or XT. And honestly which ever one wins it doesnt really matter, because i would assume the entire Bitcoin community will continue on mining and using Bitcoin.

  Then after this, we will wait until the next big debate that will show the same emotion as this one has. I really actually love how passionate people are getting about a big decision like this, it shows that no matter what side of the debate you are on, we all truly care about the success of bitcoin and cryptocurrency.

  Posted on August 18, 2015 at 3:22 PM
  Bitcoin & Beyond

• Re: SoG - Ethereumcard SwapBot Lottery

  @andaloons You're the man. Thanks for you help!

  Did anyone contact you? i dont see any activity in this thread from someone. Sorry I tried my best :(

  Posted on August 17, 2015 at 11:35 PM
  General

• Re: Upcoming Bitcoin Hard Fork & /r/bitcoin censorship

  @adam

  @cryptonaut

  @ivanb "If 90% of /r/Bitcoin users find these policies to be intolerable, then I want these 90% of /r/Bitcoin users to leave." -Theymos

  It's consistent with the way he acts, but wow...hard to believe that we have 'leadership' like that in the Bitcoin community. Keep it up Theymos - you might actually push more people to run to XT and a different way of thinking than if you had just allowed discussions to take place.

  Yeah, I think his time is coming to an end finally. You can see the subreddit subscribers slowly dropping down lol.

  I don't suppose many people remember but Theymos actually didnt start r/bitcoin, it was a 17 year old libertarian who called himself Atlas and who was the owner of r/bitcoin through its first 10,000 or so subs. He was fiercely libertarian, liked to play devils advocate and debate abstract concepts. One day he got really discouraged after being trolled a bunch of time and felt that he no longer deserved to be the "owner" of the community, and so gave it to the more responsible Theymos.

  Not trying to say anything with this, just noting the wheel continuing to turn.

  History does have a funny way of repeating itself, this always happens when someone gets a lot of power.

  I do kind of feel bad for the guy because which ever way he makes a decision, someone in the community is gonna be mad. But that is the burden you must take on as a leader, can't please everyone.

  But I do think it is absolutely absurd to think that XT is not part of the Bitcoin discussion. It doesn't matter if you are for or against it, I honestly can't be for one side or the other as my technical knowledge of which one is "better" is based solely on what I read, I am not a coder (I am leaning towards XT though for the record).

  But when someone calls it an altcoin that is a pure technicality, it is bitcoin, and this will effect bitcoin. Even if it does become an altcoin, it's still going to fork the Bitcoin network itself.

  Posted on August 17, 2015 at 6:33 AM
  Bitcoin & Beyond