I hold allegiance to no man, to no dev team in Bitcoin. My intention is to run the code that I judge best protects my financial sovereignty.
@kyletorpey Ah OK. Code speaks louder than words :-)
@kyletorpey No, I’m saying that there are literally 0 code differences between their github repo and Core. https://t.co/EdQYoeyFI3
@TuurDemeester Point being, however, that a dev could spend weeks working on a single pull request.
@TuurDemeester That is, lines of code are unrelated to contribution counts.
@TuurDemeester A commit to a project’s default branch or gh-pages branch, creation of an issue, or new Pull Request counts as a contribution
@TuurDemeester If you’re talking about open source dev, probably. Though there’s more to being a good dev than writing many lines of code.
@kyletorpey As far as I can tell it doesn’t have any code for Emergent Consensus.
RT @TuurDemeester: ‘Innovative’ ETH overtaking ‘stale’ BTC? @aantonop responds: “don’t mistake easy sailing for great sailors”. https://t.c…
@Satoshi_N_ It was a surprise to me too; I think very few people understand how it works. https://t.co/bGHyMkftF9
@zooko @ryanxcharles But my original tweet was really referring to miners planning on killing the non-EC chain.
@zooko @ryanxcharles By voluntarily switching to Emergent Consensus, node operators allow miners to decide block size up to network limit.
@BitcoinBelle @CharlieShrem “We” is whoever is interested in participating in Bitcoin.
If I’m reading this correctly, the max block size acceptable by Bitcoin Unlimited nodes is not 32MB, but 256MB. https://t.co/4OZ5YIcyHQ
@ryanxcharles Probably. The trade-off is that either you accept up to 32 MB blocks (currently) or you risk falling out of consensus.
@ryanxcharles Right, therefore users either get forced to take on more resource usage than they want or people fall out of consensus.
@ryanxcharles If you’re referring to EC, either the cap is only temporary or with a high AD, you get forked off the main chain.
@GaryBriane Selling while price is spiking prevents it from going higher and vice versa, thus reducing the total price change: volatility.
“Efficiency is the price we pay to buy liberty [in decentralized systems.]” - @aantonop
Is Bitcoin’s governance “decentralized?” @aantonop explains: https://t.co/eEjX5OAd0J
@kristovatlas @jimmysong Surely we’re in agreement that Satoshi is no longer relevant and anyone is free to create their own code.
@kristovatlas @jimmysong I’m afraid you’ve completely lost me. Is there a more detailed explanation of this argument somewhere?
@kristovatlas @alansilbert @brucefenton @eric_lombrozo @ErikVoorhees Are we not discussing on an “uncensored” channel right here?
@kristovatlas @jimmysong Your implied changes being that the 1MB cap gets raised. The 1MB cap is the explicit rule. One is code, one isn’t.
@kristovatlas @jimmysong With “Emergent Consensus” the block size is “centrally planned” by a small group of pool operators…
@kristovatlas @jimmysong There’s a bit of difference between explicit rules and implied future changes, but I see what you mean.
@kristovatlas @jimmysong “Central planning?” How is BU any less “centrally planned” than Core & other implementations?
@brianchoffman It’s the pesky permissionless pegging problem holding them back.
@kristovatlas I think @jimmysong did a fine job laying out alternatives. https://t.co/kX52BsQ85d
If you try to force other Bitcoin users to change the rules to which they agree against their will, you’re gonna have a bad time.
@granthummer @naval This can and will be changed. I suggest looking into user activated soft forks. The economy wil… https://t.co/g13AFUCGld