Remove BitPay #1752
Remove BitPay #1752
Conversation
|
Full ACK |
|
Based on my reading of the BitPay announcement linked above, I do not believe either Copay or Bitcore are currently configured to leave the existing Bitcoin consensus. I think it would be advisable to proceed slowly and try to get BitPay to clarify their position before we delist them for encouraging the very small number of Bitcore operators to run a btc1 border node that cannot by itself result in any users of a Bitcore service seeing a hard fork. |
|
ACK |
|
I agree with @harding that we should request clarification before acting. |
|
I see clarification has been requested in both their twitter handles: |
|
ACK See here |
|
ACK |
|
NAK. It is reasonable and practical to follow the blockchain with the most hashpower (thus most secure). |
|
@jgarzik Bitcoin is The Longest VALID chain. |
|
@theymos "Nodes work all at once with little coordination. They do not need to be identified, since messages are Not voting/mining nodes aren't nodes. Even if you change and delete all the pages that you don't like on the bitcoin wiki, you can't change this, or you are just trying to change Bitcoin. If you move away from this model (to give power to not-mining nodes), you are then moving more and more to this, back to the democracy: |
|
@HostFat Please stay on topic , this pull request would apply equally whoever is correct about their interpretation of the whitepaper. The reality is we know that many nodes will not switch to btc1 within a dangerously narrow window of 3 months so we are looking at methods at reducing risk for bitcoin users. How long of a time period should we give bitpay to qualify their stance since they have been sufficiently notified. 1 Day? |
|
@HostFat theymos was here in the bitcoin scene long before you or any people from your subreddit even got to know what bitcoin was. Please don't come here with old copypasta, as the discussion here is about if copay wallet stays on bitcoin.org or not. Don't you guys already have bcash? not enough attn? ask roger ver for attention. Sorry for offtopic, I already gave my ack a few comments above. |
|
@friendsofbitcoin I think 1 day is sufficient. |
|
ACK |
|
I agree with @harding and @crwatkins. @theymos may I suggest give them a couple days or till Monday? After all, their announcement may even be fraudulent, and businesses move quite slowly... |
|
ACK |
|
@theymos can you provide some more reasoning as to why you believe BitPay is "fraudulently passing" one software as another? Simply linking to a blog post is not sufficient and is not basis for any change. |
MEGA, FULL, COMPLETE & TOTAL ACKdissenting voices should not be tolerated unless they agree to argue within the acceptable band we consider appropriate. Yes, it's FOSS, but Bitcoin software is Bitcoin core. Bitpay is being so disrespectful of all the amazing work core devs have done! |
|
NACK, you guys are discussing removing the most user-friendly wallet because they don't want to break an agreement they agreed on? Also, it has literally 0 effect on Wallet users. It's a note to users of bitcore, which is not the wallet. @mpatc Can you please be more assimilated? Dissenting voice must be squashed? Only Bitcoin core is true Bitcoin? Come on. |
|
BitPay knows exactly what they are doing. NAK. |
@checksum0 I'm going to assume good faith and forgive you for twisting my words. I said we shouldn't tolerate what bitpay is doing. The Bcore development team has made a decision, miners don't rule bitcoin, lightning is the future, $5 fees are great, and these 2x people are trying to hijack something. So either you're on the side of brave devs, or you're on the side of hijackers. Please get in line. |
|
@theymos isn't that link to just another website you control? |
|
Nack this and nack the hardfork policy. |
|
@checksum0 We can re add the wallet when another version of copay being prepared doesn't place users bitcoins at risk. |
|
@friendsofbitcoin There is no single line of code in copay that can put users fund "at risk". You are lying through your teeth to push your narrative. Sad, real sad. |
They are all segwit2x supporters. Bitpay is doing exactly as Bitpay should do as a signatory of the agreement. Bitpay is being targeted because of segwit2x. Or are you asserting that any deceptive practices by any businesses warrants removal? Especially when the "deceptive" is highly debatable and subjective? Either remove the segwit2x supporters now, or don't pick and choose subjectively. |
|
ACK While a network split is a bad thing in and of itself, at least more sophisticated users have the ability to choose what chain to follow. What Bitpay did is dangerous and dishonest because:
|
Just so we're clear, you're talking about soft-forks here, right? |
|
Soft forks do not alter consensus and they are opt-in by default. Proof: Segwit does nothing to affect users with older, non-upgraded clients using legacy transactions. |
Right, new rules forced on unwitting users. That's what you were saying? |
|
Nothing is forced on non-upgraded legacy users. From their perspective rules introduced in a soft-fork are non-existent. You don't seem to understand what a soft fork is. Please educate yourself: https://bitcoin.org/en/glossary/soft-fork |
So you're saying segwit isn't a blocksize increase? Or you're saying that blocksize increases are non-existent from the perspective of a user? You really should be more careful with your words. |
From the perspective of a legacy, non-upgraded user, yes. Legacy users still see 1MB blocks. That's why it's called a soft fork. It appears you're attempting to debate something you don't understand. I suggest reading up on the matter before attempting to participate in public discussions. |
Ah, so blocksize increases are safe definitely safe then? Or maybe what you're you saying is that signature data is not actually needed on the blockchain? It doesn't matter what you pick here. I could do this all day. Soft-forks are coercive because you change the rules on existing clients without their consent. |
|
Just nuke those fuckers if you haven't been thinking about it, now is a good time to change the pow algo. |
|
Strong ACK. All companies that signed the NYA are also in serious danger of being removed IMO, it makes no sense to send users to businesses that have signed that document and plan on exiting the Bitcoin network. If it looks like these companies will go ahead with their hard fork, I recommend we begin explaining to users that their BTC is in danger in places like Coinbase, Xapo, Bitpay, etc. Someone should write instructions on how to take BTC off of all the major NYA businesses and move them safely into Bitcoin Core wallets. This can be published on all the major Bitcoin communication channels, and we the Bitcoin community can come together and inform journalists about what's going on, we need to reach millions of people and make sure people understand exactly what they need to do to safeguard their wealth from this hostile corporate takeover attempt of the Bitcoin network. @barmstrong @jgarzik You people fundamentally misunderstand Bitcoin and underestimate how much the community is prepared to defend their money so hostile actors like you can't screw with their coins and freedom. You already have your Bcash altcoin, so instead of trying to mess with people's money, why don't you just let the market decide which coin is superior? This Segwit2x nonsense needs to stop. Bitcoin isn't governed by corporations making agreements together, and if think it is, you will find yourself dealing with thousands of extremely angry and potentially unstable people with nothing left to lose wondering what the hell you did to their money. |
|
@Cobra-Bitcoin You're the one that fundamentally misunderstands bitcoin. Consensus forms with open communication and moving forward with an agreed proposition, at the current time this happens to be bitcoin's ruleset defined 8 years ago. Not being able to ever change that agreement (i.e. bitcoins ruleset) and saying that any alternative (popular or not) is NOT bitcoin is a disappointment. @theymos has fundamentally hurt bitcoin and continues to due to his policies on the communication platforms that he controls which are designed to stifle such discussion. You can't use your own definition of bitcoin to define whats an attack and whats not, never-mind making statements that contradict comments made by the original author of the bitcoin network that consensus originally formed around. NACK, would be better to be neutral about it and describe differences between segwit2x, segwit chains and let users choose, I know a pipe dream. |
It's not about an attack or not. If someone pushes a HF without community consensus and even denies to add replay protection, user's funds are at risk. Bitcoin.org should not promote clients with this risks so it's logical to remove it. |
|
@lichtamberg So how do you measure any HF reaching community consensus if you ignore miners and merchants? Node count? Bitcoin Core would never implement a hard-fork no matter consensus since "they don't define the rules" which is why its better to explain to users the differences between the chains that have emerged and why they exist otherwise its asking for trouble down the road. This is bitcoin.org not bitcoincore.org. |
|
Let me put my 2 cents in this thread, to be very clear. There are so many discussions happening here but the core issue is did bitpay commit a scam. And from their blog link https://blog.bitpay.com/bitcore-segwit-activation/. yes they did why.... this is why I think they committed fraud: Then what they do ... point to Go to the "btc1 release page and download bitcoin-1.14.5-x86_64-linux-gnu.tar.gz". Which points to https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/releases. From what I know the core bitcoin github release page is https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/releases. And whats more they also did an addendum to prove their point: To legitimize Segwit2x and sending to a alternate bitcoin github link other than the official link is social engineering at its best. And hence I support @theymos proposal for removing copay and bitpay till they fix their misguided narrative about segwit. |
|
@bitjson you still work over there, right? Can you share some of the rationale for the position as announced on the BitPay blog? |
|
As others have said, this is unfair to bitpay. So I am changing from ACK to NACK, only because there are many other fraudulent companies that have signed the NYA agreement, and thus are trying to trick people. We must remove each and every signatory of the NYA for this to be fair! There is a sickness in the bitcoin community, and these actors are not acting good faith and trying to change the rules of the game midstream. Good riddance! Bitpay isn't close to enough. They all need to be gone! |
|
Any non Bitcoin Core 0.15 compatible (using service bits 6 and 8) projects should be pre-emptively removed. Noobs using those services wont know they are being forked out of the main chain. |
|
ACK. I think BitPay has had sufficient time to clarify their position, but the only clarification posted so far seems to be the addendum to their blog post quoted by @bobquest33 above. The word "dysfunctional" in that addendum sounds to me like they don't plan to support the Bitcoin block chain after btc1 hard forks off, in which case they should not be listed on Bitcoin.org. I hope they will soon clarify that they will default to supporting the Bitcoin block chain without contentious hard forks, in which case I will likely be in favor of quickly relisting them. |
|
Wait, is the reason for removal because of the fraud accusation, or is it
because of segwit 2x? Because there's many more segwit2x signers.
|
|
Thanks for taking a strong stance against all this segwit2x/fraud/fud shit. I think the bitcoin/core community somehow really has to defend itself more against this whole nonsense. First step is taken. Thanks. |
|
You're free to remove the reference from your site of course, but it's pretty ridiculous to call it fraud and unethical. Bitpay is simply voting for the btc1 implementation as bitcoin and promoting it on their website, just like bitcoin.org is used to vote for the bitcoin core implementation as bitcoin and promoting it. Yours and bitpay's tactics to promote your own bitcoin ideology is identical. You might say that it's different because bitcoin.org is open source, but the fact that you so quickly merged this despite it clearly being a controversial change, shows that it is in fact controlled by a select few such as yourself and does not necessarily represent the will of the community. |
|
ACK |
|
NACK. Calling their actions "fraud" is itself borderline libel, not to mention wholly inaccurate. |
|
ACK Misleading people simply is not acceptible! |
BitPay is fraudulently passing off btc1 as Bitcoin software to which people are required to upgrade. This is highly unethical and a violation of the bitcoin.org hard fork policy. Therefore, this pull request removes from bitcoin.org any references to BitPay and their software/services Copay and Bitcore.