update network descriptions to be more accurate

[jlopp]

These descriptions of transaction features are somewhat open to interpretation; it would probably be best not to oversell Bitcoin given the current state of the network.

It wasn't clear to me if this is the correct way to update the "master" translation; I poked around in Transfinex and didn't see an obvious way to make similar suggestions, but I've never used Transfinex before.

[Cobra-Bitcoin]

From the moment the user visits the site, and even in the video, the entire site has always emphasised low fees. Obviously we don't expect some insanely low fee, but the current fees make it impossible for reasonable people to transact with each other. I don't know what's gone wrong, but I don't think the correct solution is to change the site to focus on the "uncensorable" aspect. We'd have to go deep into lots of pages where low fees and "fast" transactions are mentioned and do translations for everything. Fees were supposed to come down with Segwit anyway.

What even is an uncensorable transaction? Cash is uncensorable, but with cash, there are no fees. So someone reading that would still assume that fees are low or nonexistent. The only way to present the current and possible future state of the network (if nothing is done) accurately would be to somehow sell these fees as a "cost" for the uncensorable transactions. So we'd have to market high fees as a feature. This is a huge change to how Bitcoin has been marketed for much of its history, and it implies that we've misled millions of people about what Bitcoin actually is. In fact, it'll actively turn people off and they'll use something else. Heck, even the criminals and darknet market people, the ones that need the "uncensorable" aspect the most, would be turned off by that, they all use Monero anyway for anonymity and lower fees.

The entire brand of "Bitcoin" has always been about being able to spend it. It's in the name itself, a "coin", you use coins as money to pay for things. Nobody would use coins if they somehow had high fees. The correct solution isn't to change how we've marketed Bitcoin to millions of people, for example millions of people associate Coke as a sugar drink, this is their experience and how it's been for it's entire history, but if one day Coke started tasting salty, people would rightly freak out.

I think we just have to leave this for the network to resolve. Since we don't have any off chain solutions out there yet, it makes more sense the community build a consensus to change the network in such a way as to reduce the fees while these off chain solutions like Lightning are fully fleshed out and adopted over the next few years. Then once these off chain solutions start working, we can pivot the marketing to work with that in a way that is consistent with the history of how Bitcoin is marketed, because we'll still be able to promise "low processing fees" but through payment channels.

[Cobra-Bitcoin]

From the moment the user visits the site, and even in the video, the entire site has always emphasised low fees. Obviously we don't expect some insanely low fee, but the current fees make it impossible for reasonable people to transact with each other. I don't know what's gone wrong, but I don't think the correct solution is to change the site to focus on the "uncensorable" aspect. We'd have to go deep into lots of pages where low fees and "fast" transactions are mentioned and do translations for everything. Fees were supposed to come down with Segwit anyway.

What even is an uncensorable transaction? Cash is uncensorable, but with cash, there are no fees. So someone reading that would still assume that fees are low or nonexistent. The only way to present the current and possible future state of the network (if nothing is done) accurately would be to somehow sell these fees as a "cost" for the uncensorable transactions. So we'd have to market high fees as a feature. This is a huge change to how Bitcoin has been marketed for much of its history, and it implies that we've misled millions of people about what Bitcoin actually is. In fact, it'll actively turn people off and they'll use something else. Heck, even the criminals and darknet market people, the ones that need the "uncensorable" aspect the most, would be turned off by that, they all use Monero anyway for anonymity and lower fees.

The entire brand of "Bitcoin" has always been about being able to spend it. It's in the name itself, a "coin", you use coins as money to pay for things. Nobody would use coins if they somehow had high fees. The correct solution isn't to change how we've marketed Bitcoin to millions of people, for example millions of people associate Coke as a sugar drink, this is their experience and how it's been for it's entire history, but if one day Coke started tasting salty, people would rightly freak out.

I think we just have to leave this for the network to resolve. Since we don't have any off chain solutions out there yet, it makes more sense the community build a consensus to change the network in such a way as to reduce the fees while these off chain solutions like Lightning are fully fleshed out and adopted over the next few years. Then once these off chain solutions start working, we can pivot the marketing to work with that in a way that is consistent with the history of how Bitcoin is marketed, because we'll still be able to promise "low processing fees" but through payment channels.

[jlopp]

I'm not married to any particular replacement text; those are just the first aspects that came to mind.

It's no one's fault in particular that Bitcoin's user experience has changed - we're constantly learning more about this system. It's far easier to change the marketing to reflect reality than to change the system to fit the historical marketing, so I wouldn't count on the latter. I'm hopeful as well that once off chain solutions are production ready, the marketing will once again be accurate.

[jlopp]

I'm not married to any particular replacement text; those are just the first aspects that came to mind.

It's no one's fault in particular that Bitcoin's user experience has changed - we're constantly learning more about this system. It's far easier to change the marketing to reflect reality than to change the system to fit the historical marketing, so I wouldn't count on the latter. I'm hopeful as well that once off chain solutions are production ready, the marketing will once again be accurate.

[wbnns]

@jlopp

Completely agree that this text should be updated, one way or another. Thanks for opening the PR.

[wbnns]

@jlopp

Completely agree that this text should be updated, one way or another. Thanks for opening the PR.

[phillipsjk]

It would be a drastic change in messaging (and scope), but one thing you can do is actually mention the Bitcoin forks that preserve those features. Bitcoin Cash is in the top 5 on Coinmarketcap, while Bitcoin Gold (which I feel is mostly a scam-coin) is top 12.

If you don't want to maintain a separate list of Bitcoin Cash clients, I suggest linking to bitcoincash.org (with the requisite disclaimer that it is a third-party site, not endorsed by Bitcoin.org).

[phillipsjk]

It would be a drastic change in messaging (and scope), but one thing you can do is actually mention the Bitcoin forks that preserve those features. Bitcoin Cash is in the top 5 on Coinmarketcap, while Bitcoin Gold (which I feel is mostly a scam-coin) is top 12.

If you don't want to maintain a separate list of Bitcoin Cash clients, I suggest linking to bitcoincash.org (with the requisite disclaimer that it is a third-party site, not endorsed by Bitcoin.org).

[KainniaK]

@Cobra-Bitcoin

I don't know what's gone wrong, but I don't think the correct solution is to change the site to focus on the "uncensorable" aspect.

While you censor the shit out of bitcointalk and /r/bitcoin you talk about the "uncensorable" aspect? When you decided on an internet handle and icon to go with did you choose a cobra snake because your tongue spits venom in to the bitcoin community? Who are you anyway? An alt of theymos? The jealous sister of Satoshi now out to destroy his work? An AI experiment gone wrong? Or just a human being that is gaining power at the expense of his own conscience? Yeah it's probably the last one. One day you or at least your handle will be exposed for who you are as a person and I won't be surprised if in the crypto history books we will find a picture of Mark Karpelès drinking a Frappuccino through a straw with a caption that says: Well at least I am not like Theymos/Cobracoin

[KainniaK]

@Cobra-Bitcoin

I don't know what's gone wrong, but I don't think the correct solution is to change the site to focus on the "uncensorable" aspect.

While you censor the shit out of bitcointalk and /r/bitcoin you talk about the "uncensorable" aspect? When you decided on an internet handle and icon to go with did you choose a cobra snake because your tongue spits venom in to the bitcoin community? Who are you anyway? An alt of theymos? The jealous sister of Satoshi now out to destroy his work? An AI experiment gone wrong? Or just a human being that is gaining power at the expense of his own conscience? Yeah it's probably the last one. One day you or at least your handle will be exposed for who you are as a person and I won't be surprised if in the crypto history books we will find a picture of Mark Karpelès drinking a Frappuccino through a straw with a caption that says: Well at least I am not like Theymos/Cobracoin

[seweso]

Cobra: I don't know what's gone wrong

What went wrong is what I said beforehand what could go wrong. If you marry a blocksize increase to the development, testing, release, activation AND adoption of unrelated tech. You are linking the health and fees of the network to something random. It didn't have to go wrong, but the writing was literally on the wall. And I did the writing (amongst others).

I guess people thought most transaction volume was fake and would go away once fees increased. Instead transactions went into a bidding war, which I also predicted. I even wrote a Bitcoin simulator which showed this.

So if you didn't know this could/would happen: I told you so.

I literally said fees would go up exponentially. That makes total sense, need I explain that again/more?

Billions are sent over the network, did you think they would go away?

Lopp: It's no one's fault in particular that Bitcoin's user experience has changed

That's rather easy cop-out. You are on the side of extreme consensus and slippery slope arguments. You certainly bear some responsibility.

Not that increasing the Blocksize is something you can do forever. But you could at least make sure TCO of a full node makes sense at a certain nr of transactions, instead of only looking at one aspect. Because that truly is the problem here: Being conservative in one dimension only.

Yours,

A reasonable blocker.

[seweso]

Cobra: I don't know what's gone wrong

What went wrong is what I said beforehand what could go wrong. If you marry a blocksize increase to the development, testing, release, activation AND adoption of unrelated tech. You are linking the health and fees of the network to something random. It didn't have to go wrong, but the writing was literally on the wall. And I did the writing (amongst others).

I guess people thought most transaction volume was fake and would go away once fees increased. Instead transactions went into a bidding war, which I also predicted. I even wrote a Bitcoin simulator which showed this.

So if you didn't know this could/would happen: I told you so.

I literally said fees would go up exponentially. That makes total sense, need I explain that again/more?

Billions are sent over the network, did you think they would go away?

Lopp: It's no one's fault in particular that Bitcoin's user experience has changed

That's rather easy cop-out. You are on the side of extreme consensus and slippery slope arguments. You certainly bear some responsibility.

Not that increasing the Blocksize is something you can do forever. But you could at least make sure TCO of a full node makes sense at a certain nr of transactions, instead of only looking at one aspect. Because that truly is the problem here: Being conservative in one dimension only.

Yours,

A reasonable blocker.

[bruntdev]

What and absurd statement, "....the current fees make it impossible for reasonable people to transact with each other. I don't know what's gone wrong..."
People are bidding to get their transaction into the next block. You were warned of this years ago, and now it has come to pass.

[bruntdev]

What and absurd statement, "....the current fees make it impossible for reasonable people to transact with each other. I don't know what's gone wrong..."
People are bidding to get their transaction into the next block. You were warned of this years ago, and now it has come to pass.

[jlopp]

There's no point arguing about possible alternative realities; the point of this PR is to adjust the web site descriptions to match the current reality.

[jlopp]

There's no point arguing about possible alternative realities; the point of this PR is to adjust the web site descriptions to match the current reality.

[seweso]

There's no point arguing about possible alternative realities

If you don't have a portal gun...

[seweso]

There's no point arguing about possible alternative realities

If you don't have a portal gun...

[JoelDalais]

"misled millions of people about what Bitcoin actually is"

Cobra has some interesting points.

[JoelDalais]

"misled millions of people about what Bitcoin actually is"

Cobra has some interesting points.

[bruntdev]

"the point of this PR is to adjust the web site descriptions to match the current reality." Good idea, time to stop calling it Bitcoin
A coin implies something that is easy to make small transactions with. Who'd use a 50p coin if it cost 50p to send it? Perhaps renaming it BitAsset, BitSecure something like that?

[bruntdev]

"the point of this PR is to adjust the web site descriptions to match the current reality." Good idea, time to stop calling it Bitcoin
A coin implies something that is easy to make small transactions with. Who'd use a 50p coin if it cost 50p to send it? Perhaps renaming it BitAsset, BitSecure something like that?

[Cobra-Bitcoin]

While you censor the shit out of bitcointalk and /r/bitcoin you talk about the "uncensorable" aspect?

@KainniaK: I don't censor anything on those places, I don't even have the ability to moderate anyone there. The moderation is a necessity though, otherwise those places would get attacked by Bitcoin Cash brigades and new users would be confused.

@seweso: I'm actually in favor of a block size increase. It doesn't look like Lightning will be ready for mass adoption by users and merchants anytime soon, and Segwit adoption seems to very slow, and by the time it's very widely used, fees will be high again.

You really think I want newbies getting a wallet, buying some bitcoin, and then being turned off with some insane fee and no off chain alternative? Lightning will eventually need larger blocks anyway. Very few people think the block size should be kept at the current size forever, but people just differ on when and how it should be increased. It can be done through a soft fork when needed (though unlike Segwit, it probably should be enforced and not opt-in).

@jlopp: The low fees/fast transactions stuff is all over the site and in the video too. Bitcoin is money, right there in the title of the site it says "Open Source P2P Money", and since 2009 it's always had basically a similar title. You shouldn't have to pay some crazy fee to spend your own money.

If for some reason the Bitcoin network became centralized, should we go back and remove the "P2P" part too? It's ridiculous to change Bitcoin marketing materials based on how the network currently is when the current state is a mistake and a total disaster. The concept of a fee market is economically broken, go read about the diamond market and the De Beers mining company if you genuinely believe that a fee market is the optimal solution to solve the scaling issue for good. The scaling issue can be solved for good by careful increase of block sizes, research into new PoW algorithms (and hybrid PoW) for which it's very easy to create ASIC's for to make it as easy as possible for new miners to enter the space, and obviously off chain solutions like Lightning.

Anyway, I'm mostly against this change. I got into Bitcoin to have uncensorable money, but to also be able to spend it when necessary without being ripped off in fees by Jihan and his cronies. We should just leave the text as it is, and hopefully through quicker/greater Segwit adoption the network will change to have low fees again and Lightning will also come around and make fees even lower and live up to how Bitcoin has been presented and marketed for years.

[Cobra-Bitcoin]

While you censor the shit out of bitcointalk and /r/bitcoin you talk about the "uncensorable" aspect?

@KainniaK: I don't censor anything on those places, I don't even have the ability to moderate anyone there. The moderation is a necessity though, otherwise those places would get attacked by Bitcoin Cash brigades and new users would be confused.

@seweso: I'm actually in favor of a block size increase. It doesn't look like Lightning will be ready for mass adoption by users and merchants anytime soon, and Segwit adoption seems to very slow, and by the time it's very widely used, fees will be high again.

You really think I want newbies getting a wallet, buying some bitcoin, and then being turned off with some insane fee and no off chain alternative? Lightning will eventually need larger blocks anyway. Very few people think the block size should be kept at the current size forever, but people just differ on when and how it should be increased. It can be done through a soft fork when needed (though unlike Segwit, it probably should be enforced and not opt-in).

@jlopp: The low fees/fast transactions stuff is all over the site and in the video too. Bitcoin is money, right there in the title of the site it says "Open Source P2P Money", and since 2009 it's always had basically a similar title. You shouldn't have to pay some crazy fee to spend your own money.

If for some reason the Bitcoin network became centralized, should we go back and remove the "P2P" part too? It's ridiculous to change Bitcoin marketing materials based on how the network currently is when the current state is a mistake and a total disaster. The concept of a fee market is economically broken, go read about the diamond market and the De Beers mining company if you genuinely believe that a fee market is the optimal solution to solve the scaling issue for good. The scaling issue can be solved for good by careful increase of block sizes, research into new PoW algorithms (and hybrid PoW) for which it's very easy to create ASIC's for to make it as easy as possible for new miners to enter the space, and obviously off chain solutions like Lightning.

Anyway, I'm mostly against this change. I got into Bitcoin to have uncensorable money, but to also be able to spend it when necessary without being ripped off in fees by Jihan and his cronies. We should just leave the text as it is, and hopefully through quicker/greater Segwit adoption the network will change to have low fees again and Lightning will also come around and make fees even lower and live up to how Bitcoin has been presented and marketed for years.

[tbrannt]

I'm actually in favor of a block size increase. It doesn't look like Lightning will be ready for mass adoption by users and merchants anytime soon, and Segwit adoption seems to very slow, and by the time it's very widely used, fees will be high again.

Wow.. So guess what the intention of segwit2x was? However we now have two parallel paths to test and I'm curious if LN will actually get adopted. Let's see if core was wrong again on this one. I'd guess so.

[tbrannt]

I'm actually in favor of a block size increase. It doesn't look like Lightning will be ready for mass adoption by users and merchants anytime soon, and Segwit adoption seems to very slow, and by the time it's very widely used, fees will be high again.

Wow.. So guess what the intention of segwit2x was? However we now have two parallel paths to test and I'm curious if LN will actually get adopted. Let's see if core was wrong again on this one. I'd guess so.

[WyseNynja]

You should also fix the FAQs about fees with this Pull Request.

https://bitcoin.org/en/faq#how-much-will-the-transaction-fee-be

Transactions can be processed without fees, but trying to send free transactions can require waiting days or weeks.

I don't think this is true anymore. Last I checked, 0-fee transactions aren't even relayed by most nodes. Sending a $2 fee transaction could still not ever confirm.

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq#why-upgrade

(We don’t expect fees to get as high as the highest seen in this table; they are just provided for reference.)

The highest fee in the table is $0.756, so "we" were clearly wrong here.

https://bitcoin.org/en/glossary/high-priority-transaction

Transactions that don’t have to pay a transaction fee because their inputs have been idle long enough to accumulated large amounts of priority.

Priority transaction space has defaulted to 0 for a while now.

[WyseNynja]

You should also fix the FAQs about fees with this Pull Request.

https://bitcoin.org/en/faq#how-much-will-the-transaction-fee-be

Transactions can be processed without fees, but trying to send free transactions can require waiting days or weeks.

I don't think this is true anymore. Last I checked, 0-fee transactions aren't even relayed by most nodes. Sending a $2 fee transaction could still not ever confirm.

https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq#why-upgrade

(We don’t expect fees to get as high as the highest seen in this table; they are just provided for reference.)

The highest fee in the table is $0.756, so "we" were clearly wrong here.

https://bitcoin.org/en/glossary/high-priority-transaction

Transactions that don’t have to pay a transaction fee because their inputs have been idle long enough to accumulated large amounts of priority.

Priority transaction space has defaulted to 0 for a while now.

[jlopp]

@Cobra-Bitcoin Sure, if Bitcoin changed so that only enterprises could run full nodes / it became obviously not peer-to-peer, then the descriptions should be updated to reflect reality. None of us control Bitcoin, some of us control Bitcoin.org. By describing Bitcoin as "fast and cheap" when it really was fast and cheap, that was accurate - not misleading. By now describing it as "fast and cheap" when it's not, that seems more misleading to me that continuing to describe it by its former attributes.

@WyseNynja Good points; I'll look into those.

OHAI, /r/btc - please try to stay on topic. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7n1su8/bitcoin_segwit_developers_discuss_whether_to/

[jlopp]

@Cobra-Bitcoin Sure, if Bitcoin changed so that only enterprises could run full nodes / it became obviously not peer-to-peer, then the descriptions should be updated to reflect reality. None of us control Bitcoin, some of us control Bitcoin.org. By describing Bitcoin as "fast and cheap" when it really was fast and cheap, that was accurate - not misleading. By now describing it as "fast and cheap" when it's not, that seems more misleading to me that continuing to describe it by its former attributes.

@WyseNynja Good points; I'll look into those.

OHAI, /r/btc - please try to stay on topic. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7n1su8/bitcoin_segwit_developers_discuss_whether_to/

[atroxes]

For many, bitcoin.org is a primary source of information about Bitcoin when initially trying to research information about it. Changing the text to reflect its current state, is effectively admitting defeat to poor design choices and just "rolling with it" because we dun fucked up.

I don't think anyone wants +$10 fees on transactions, and it seems like a lot of people really would like fees to go down significantly, otherwise why bother deploying an effective block size increase through SegWit anyway?

If the description gets changed now, do we change it back later when fees are, hopefully, lower? Do we continually adjust the description on bitcoin.org to reflect the current state of the network once a year?

I suggest having bitcoin.org reflect what Bitcoin was intended to be in the first place and keep working towards attaining that, instead of simply accepting its current broken state.

[atroxes]

For many, bitcoin.org is a primary source of information about Bitcoin when initially trying to research information about it. Changing the text to reflect its current state, is effectively admitting defeat to poor design choices and just "rolling with it" because we dun fucked up.

I don't think anyone wants +$10 fees on transactions, and it seems like a lot of people really would like fees to go down significantly, otherwise why bother deploying an effective block size increase through SegWit anyway?

If the description gets changed now, do we change it back later when fees are, hopefully, lower? Do we continually adjust the description on bitcoin.org to reflect the current state of the network once a year?

I suggest having bitcoin.org reflect what Bitcoin was intended to be in the first place and keep working towards attaining that, instead of simply accepting its current broken state.

[jlopp]

@atroxes Yes, the descriptions should be changed as necessary to reflect the state of the network. Yes, when second layer solutions become ubiquitous then it should be changed again to reflect the experience that Bitcoin users can reasonably expect.

[jlopp]

@atroxes Yes, the descriptions should be changed as necessary to reflect the state of the network. Yes, when second layer solutions become ubiquitous then it should be changed again to reflect the experience that Bitcoin users can reasonably expect.

[Komodorpudel]

The best solution should be to provide some kind of pop up on the website, addressing the current situation openly(!) and honestly(!):

a) Large parts of the content were written years ago (Yes, there are newer parts in the English version, but the versions for the other languages are dated)

b) Especially the topics about fast transactions and low fees do not reflect the current situation, given the increased popularity of Bitcoin. But it should be stated, that it is still the ultimate goal of Bitcoin to be cheap, fast, and usable for everyone!

c) Possible long-term solutions are being developed (like LN). Short-term solutions (like SegWit) were already deployed.

d) And most importantly: To have a scaling issue, there must be the necessity to scale (Following Andreas Antonopoulos).

This way, it can be avoided to change everything on the website talking about low fees and fast transactions while at the same time informing visitors about current issues and possible solutions.

[Komodorpudel]

The best solution should be to provide some kind of pop up on the website, addressing the current situation openly(!) and honestly(!):

a) Large parts of the content were written years ago (Yes, there are newer parts in the English version, but the versions for the other languages are dated)

b) Especially the topics about fast transactions and low fees do not reflect the current situation, given the increased popularity of Bitcoin. But it should be stated, that it is still the ultimate goal of Bitcoin to be cheap, fast, and usable for everyone!

c) Possible long-term solutions are being developed (like LN). Short-term solutions (like SegWit) were already deployed.

d) And most importantly: To have a scaling issue, there must be the necessity to scale (Following Andreas Antonopoulos).

This way, it can be avoided to change everything on the website talking about low fees and fast transactions while at the same time informing visitors about current issues and possible solutions.

[bitsko]

haha.

what a fail.

[bitsko]

haha.

what a fail.

[Will-Bill]

Why not increase block size therefore taking Bitcoin back to its roots by reducing fees, regaining market share, confidence and most importantly, utility?

This will give time for the development of LN and means you don't need to rewrite history.

[Will-Bill]

Why not increase block size therefore taking Bitcoin back to its roots by reducing fees, regaining market share, confidence and most importantly, utility?

This will give time for the development of LN and means you don't need to rewrite history.

[jlopp]

@Cobra-Bitcoin Might be best to restrict this PR to contributors only since lots of non-contributors are only adding noise.

[jlopp]

@Cobra-Bitcoin Might be best to restrict this PR to contributors only since lots of non-contributors are only adding noise.

[KainniaK]

@Cobra-Bitcoin :

I don't censor anything on those places, I don't even have the ability to moderate anyone there. The moderation is a necessity though, otherwise those places would get attacked by Bitcoin Cash brigades and new users would be confused.

What about bitcointalk? The absolute stubbornness towards even the smallest compromise regarding a block size increase is what got Bitcoin in to the trouble it is now.
When in 2013 we started seeing the first maybe-we-should-increase-the-blocksize-limit-a-bit topics on bitcointalk the consensus was that an increase to even as high as 20 MB would not be a problem.
In one of the very first topics there was even a prophet who said: best to do it now when we can still get it done. This guy understood the difference between code and people.

Then finding a compromise was effectively blocked by a minority group and this minority group used tools like "moderation" (just a euphemism for "censorship") and misinformation (just a euphemism for lying) and whatever tool they could find to prevent a simple fix. Until the network became bigger and bigger and it became harder and harder to find consensus.

All this "moderation" did not help at all, no it helped the stalemate. Finally SegWit came and then oh no .... look there is Bitcoin Cash. Well if you hate Bitcoin Cash so much, you should know that it's the actions of a few very stubborn people or with possibly some not-so-kosher-interests (it's always power) that lead to this hard fork.

Now suddenly you and your peers start admitting that "we might have a problem". No shit, you and your peers thought it was a good idea to introduce "moderation" in to the debate and dialogue around bitcoin, a monetary instrument that can not be moderated. What was the defacto result of the "moderation" of you and your peers? Well Bitcoin is now also moderated, by fees with miners as the mods. So yeah live with it you blockhead, or switch camps. Because Bitcoin Core, if you guys don't increase the blocksize, will become a settlement tool and the question is if it can survive long term (more then 20 years) if it's not suited for transactions. After all gold, next to scarcity has a usefulness as a metal because it's soft and shiny and does not rust. What is the absolute baseline value of Bitcoin? its usefulness and so its network that makes it useful. But it's becoming less useful every day but higher in market price??? hmmmmm that does not make sense. I wonder if that will correct ... (all the high prices of all the crypto since the last 6 months are bullshit imho that's what you get if you want zero regulation on everything except for the most popular online place for bitcoin discussion and dialogue, you hypocrites!)

With centralized currency control it can take months before a transaction is really finalized in a way it can not be undone anymore, so Bitcoin is still better that at least that right now. And if the market price of Bitcoin crashes to much it's screwed because BItcoin Cash has an EDA mechanism and Bitcoin is stuck with 2016 blocks before difficulty adjustment. How high are the fees going to go when the price crashes a bit to much and the sentiment changes from buy buy buy to sell sell sell, cause that can go really quickly. We better pray to our Tethery Lord in Heaven to keep up the good work!

You and your peers also managed to basically paint miners and especially Chinese miners as the enemy which is just insane, they generate the coins and make the blocks, you are stuck with them whether you like it or not unless you make significant changes to Bitcoin which they won't accept anyways. So yeah, well done ... well done.

If I where you I would get all those blockheads together and have them accept defeat, because an okay-we-are-also-going-to-increase-the-block-size defeat is better then a oh-no-bitcoin-cash-is-now-bitcoin-and-we-are-bitcoin-obsolete defeat. But hey that is your call, you can also just wait until you see the lightning and hear the thunder. Some cultures are known to see those events as religious in nature.

Enough people from all over the system (devs, users, business, miners) wanted a blocksize increase (even a small one to 2MB) but that was blocked so finally another minor-y group (10% - 20% of the network) got together and they got a blocksize increase in a way that could not be blocked. Open source system with it's culture of forking can be a bitch! But I guess somebody that thinks that "lets moderate all the things that are not a non blocksize increase" probably does not understand what open and permissionless means and how undermining it's value can also take place OUTSIDE OF CODE.

Or maybe you and your peers do but you don't think that openness and permissionless is a good thing. Well congrats. You now need to have at least 10 dollars worth of Bitcoin before you get permission from the moderators to finalize a bitcoin transaction in a predictable way or you can take a gamble and wait. The problem always has been trying to introduce very selective moderation in to a monetary tool that was intended to be the exact opposite of that. It has taken 4 years but I think it's finally starting to sync in.

Even if the blocksize was 500 GB right now, I think downloading and verifying it on a 2010 laptop would still go faster then getting everything I just wrote to "sync" in to a Bitcoin Core Cult Leader's BlockHead. Cause that's what happens when you try to regulate though and debate. Did you not look at what happened in Germany in 1989? All the blocks are gone!

This is not limited to just Bitcoin, this cult like thing ... no it's everywhere now. It makes one almost think that somebody divided the community on purpose. Because attacking the math is not possible, attacking the code is to hard, and people are always the weakest link. So now you have two cults fighting each other! You introduced dogmas in to crypto currency .... like WTF!!!!!

What is the next step, a new religion? Do you have some time to hear about our lord and Savior Satoshi. and his prophe... I am sorry we already visited your house? Oh no those are the fake guys. Yeah they worship a false 8 MB Satoshi but we worship the REAL satoshi and Andreas is his 1 MB prophet, (hodl upon him.) See we are the segregated witnesses. Yeah I know it can get confusing. Oh shit there they are, quick grab the signs: No2X, No2X, 8MB Satoshi is blasphemy! Andreas for bitcoin Pope!

edit: See posts like this and immediately people are asking for more moderation. Let's close op the debate so only people that say things that we already agree with post in it. Yeah that's no-out-of-the block-type of thinking guys. That's how you loose wars. Adjust or become obsolete, your call.

[KainniaK]

@Cobra-Bitcoin :

I don't censor anything on those places, I don't even have the ability to moderate anyone there. The moderation is a necessity though, otherwise those places would get attacked by Bitcoin Cash brigades and new users would be confused.

What about bitcointalk? The absolute stubbornness towards even the smallest compromise regarding a block size increase is what got Bitcoin in to the trouble it is now.
When in 2013 we started seeing the first maybe-we-should-increase-the-blocksize-limit-a-bit topics on bitcointalk the consensus was that an increase to even as high as 20 MB would not be a problem.
In one of the very first topics there was even a prophet who said: best to do it now when we can still get it done. This guy understood the difference between code and people.

Then finding a compromise was effectively blocked by a minority group and this minority group used tools like "moderation" (just a euphemism for "censorship") and misinformation (just a euphemism for lying) and whatever tool they could find to prevent a simple fix. Until the network became bigger and bigger and it became harder and harder to find consensus.

All this "moderation" did not help at all, no it helped the stalemate. Finally SegWit came and then oh no .... look there is Bitcoin Cash. Well if you hate Bitcoin Cash so much, you should know that it's the actions of a few very stubborn people or with possibly some not-so-kosher-interests (it's always power) that lead to this hard fork.

Now suddenly you and your peers start admitting that "we might have a problem". No shit, you and your peers thought it was a good idea to introduce "moderation" in to the debate and dialogue around bitcoin, a monetary instrument that can not be moderated. What was the defacto result of the "moderation" of you and your peers? Well Bitcoin is now also moderated, by fees with miners as the mods. So yeah live with it you blockhead, or switch camps. Because Bitcoin Core, if you guys don't increase the blocksize, will become a settlement tool and the question is if it can survive long term (more then 20 years) if it's not suited for transactions. After all gold, next to scarcity has a usefulness as a metal because it's soft and shiny and does not rust. What is the absolute baseline value of Bitcoin? its usefulness and so its network that makes it useful. But it's becoming less useful every day but higher in market price??? hmmmmm that does not make sense. I wonder if that will correct ... (all the high prices of all the crypto since the last 6 months are bullshit imho that's what you get if you want zero regulation on everything except for the most popular online place for bitcoin discussion and dialogue, you hypocrites!)

With centralized currency control it can take months before a transaction is really finalized in a way it can not be undone anymore, so Bitcoin is still better that at least that right now. And if the market price of Bitcoin crashes to much it's screwed because BItcoin Cash has an EDA mechanism and Bitcoin is stuck with 2016 blocks before difficulty adjustment. How high are the fees going to go when the price crashes a bit to much and the sentiment changes from buy buy buy to sell sell sell, cause that can go really quickly. We better pray to our Tethery Lord in Heaven to keep up the good work!

You and your peers also managed to basically paint miners and especially Chinese miners as the enemy which is just insane, they generate the coins and make the blocks, you are stuck with them whether you like it or not unless you make significant changes to Bitcoin which they won't accept anyways. So yeah, well done ... well done.

If I where you I would get all those blockheads together and have them accept defeat, because an okay-we-are-also-going-to-increase-the-block-size defeat is better then a oh-no-bitcoin-cash-is-now-bitcoin-and-we-are-bitcoin-obsolete defeat. But hey that is your call, you can also just wait until you see the lightning and hear the thunder. Some cultures are known to see those events as religious in nature.

Enough people from all over the system (devs, users, business, miners) wanted a blocksize increase (even a small one to 2MB) but that was blocked so finally another minor-y group (10% - 20% of the network) got together and they got a blocksize increase in a way that could not be blocked. Open source system with it's culture of forking can be a bitch! But I guess somebody that thinks that "lets moderate all the things that are not a non blocksize increase" probably does not understand what open and permissionless means and how undermining it's value can also take place OUTSIDE OF CODE.

Or maybe you and your peers do but you don't think that openness and permissionless is a good thing. Well congrats. You now need to have at least 10 dollars worth of Bitcoin before you get permission from the moderators to finalize a bitcoin transaction in a predictable way or you can take a gamble and wait. The problem always has been trying to introduce very selective moderation in to a monetary tool that was intended to be the exact opposite of that. It has taken 4 years but I think it's finally starting to sync in.

Even if the blocksize was 500 GB right now, I think downloading and verifying it on a 2010 laptop would still go faster then getting everything I just wrote to "sync" in to a Bitcoin Core Cult Leader's BlockHead. Cause that's what happens when you try to regulate though and debate. Did you not look at what happened in Germany in 1989? All the blocks are gone!

This is not limited to just Bitcoin, this cult like thing ... no it's everywhere now. It makes one almost think that somebody divided the community on purpose. Because attacking the math is not possible, attacking the code is to hard, and people are always the weakest link. So now you have two cults fighting each other! You introduced dogmas in to crypto currency .... like WTF!!!!!

What is the next step, a new religion? Do you have some time to hear about our lord and Savior Satoshi. and his prophe... I am sorry we already visited your house? Oh no those are the fake guys. Yeah they worship a false 8 MB Satoshi but we worship the REAL satoshi and Andreas is his 1 MB prophet, (hodl upon him.) See we are the segregated witnesses. Yeah I know it can get confusing. Oh shit there they are, quick grab the signs: No2X, No2X, 8MB Satoshi is blasphemy! Andreas for bitcoin Pope!

edit: See posts like this and immediately people are asking for more moderation. Let's close op the debate so only people that say things that we already agree with post in it. Yeah that's no-out-of-the block-type of thinking guys. That's how you loose wars. Adjust or become obsolete, your call.

[1ib3r7yr3igns]

Reminds me of 1984.

Chocolate rations have gone up. Low fee bitcoin, down the memory hole, like it never existed.

Here's an idea! Maybe you can tell people that bitcoin fees have dropped dramatically since the early days. You could tell people that the fees used to be thousands of dollars in the early days. Then they'll think, "WOW, it must be worth it. And the fees are so low now!!" /s

[1ib3r7yr3igns]

Reminds me of 1984.

Chocolate rations have gone up. Low fee bitcoin, down the memory hole, like it never existed.

Here's an idea! Maybe you can tell people that bitcoin fees have dropped dramatically since the early days. You could tell people that the fees used to be thousands of dollars in the early days. Then they'll think, "WOW, it must be worth it. And the fees are so low now!!" /s

[achow101]

@jlopp The only restriction allowed is for collaborators, i.e. those who have write access to the repo. However it is probably still prudent to do that temporarily. @Cobra-Bitcoin @wbnns @theymos

[achow101]

@jlopp The only restriction allowed is for collaborators, i.e. those who have write access to the repo. However it is probably still prudent to do that temporarily. @Cobra-Bitcoin @wbnns @theymos

[thecryptodon]

@jlopp - Might be best to restrict this PR to contributors only since lots of non-contributors are only adding noise.

This is exactly the problem, you call it noise, maybe it is just people who are frustrated because the system is now broken and little is being done to fix it. A block increase to 2mb or 4mb would go a long way.

People are not just creating noise. They are voicing concerns

[thecryptodon]

@jlopp - Might be best to restrict this PR to contributors only since lots of non-contributors are only adding noise.

This is exactly the problem, you call it noise, maybe it is just people who are frustrated because the system is now broken and little is being done to fix it. A block increase to 2mb or 4mb would go a long way.

People are not just creating noise. They are voicing concerns

[jlopp]

@thecryptodon The frustrations being voiced are off-topic for this PR. I'll be muting further notifications on this thread and check back in a few days; my time is too valuable to be spent rehashing the same arguments over and over for years.

[jlopp]

@thecryptodon The frustrations being voiced are off-topic for this PR. I'll be muting further notifications on this thread and check back in a few days; my time is too valuable to be spent rehashing the same arguments over and over for years.

[thecryptodon]

@jlopp - That's fair enough. But remember, bitcoin is an open source system and contributors come in many forms and not just code.

[thecryptodon]

@jlopp - That's fair enough. But remember, bitcoin is an open source system and contributors come in many forms and not just code.

[bitsko]

just use euphemisms. it doesn't matter if you feel slimy.

instead of saying 'low processing fees' the rediculous fees can be described as 'sustainable long term security through transaction taxes'

instead of saying 'peer to peer transactions' you can say: 'peer to future decentralized mesh network hub to node to node to hub to peer maybe one day'

I think Jameson redid 'worldwide payments' already.

yes a few minor adjustments and we will be in tip top shape..!

[bitsko]

just use euphemisms. it doesn't matter if you feel slimy.

instead of saying 'low processing fees' the rediculous fees can be described as 'sustainable long term security through transaction taxes'

instead of saying 'peer to peer transactions' you can say: 'peer to future decentralized mesh network hub to node to node to hub to peer maybe one day'

I think Jameson redid 'worldwide payments' already.

yes a few minor adjustments and we will be in tip top shape..!

[KainniaK]

You guys might be brilliant coders but your are shitty politicians. Stop threating human beings like it's code! "Oh and if I just remove this naughty little thought here then my system will work again"
It's been 4 years. You have not fixed anything with this approach, just splintered everything. If you don't like alt-coins why did you splinter the community so much? There would have been less of them now. Right now there is a digital gold rush happening all over the world, but you can't clone gold in to silver. This is because crypto is seen and perceived as a store of value, which is absurd and unsustainable unless it turns in to money first. And what is money, is in the human mind and fore most first in the human mind. But yeah go ahead and clean up this discussion hear until only your own voices remain. The code is solid enough, you guys need better economics, better politicians, because bitcoin is just a tool and you need good tool wielders to do anything revolutionary with it. You guys are crappy tool wielders and you are cutting people left and right. Right now you are cutting away the access of the network to poorer people. Middleclass Bitcoin, how is that for a new slogan? Maybe combine it with captchas that ask people to write some code?

[KainniaK]

You guys might be brilliant coders but your are shitty politicians. Stop threating human beings like it's code! "Oh and if I just remove this naughty little thought here then my system will work again"
It's been 4 years. You have not fixed anything with this approach, just splintered everything. If you don't like alt-coins why did you splinter the community so much? There would have been less of them now. Right now there is a digital gold rush happening all over the world, but you can't clone gold in to silver. This is because crypto is seen and perceived as a store of value, which is absurd and unsustainable unless it turns in to money first. And what is money, is in the human mind and fore most first in the human mind. But yeah go ahead and clean up this discussion hear until only your own voices remain. The code is solid enough, you guys need better economics, better politicians, because bitcoin is just a tool and you need good tool wielders to do anything revolutionary with it. You guys are crappy tool wielders and you are cutting people left and right. Right now you are cutting away the access of the network to poorer people. Middleclass Bitcoin, how is that for a new slogan? Maybe combine it with captchas that ask people to write some code?

[satoshi1iv3s]

@Cobra-Bitcoin I must admit that lately you've been real force for good. Impressive after that nasty start. Looking at amount of anger shown here - consider doing some AMA on /r/bitcoin. At least you can give people some form of catharsis. Last few years have been very frustrating and it's sad to see Bitcoin below 40% market share.

Thanks for commit @jlopp and sorry for me being another non-contributer adding to the noise. If there is any task list with stuff I could do to give back, let me know.

[satoshi1iv3s]

@Cobra-Bitcoin I must admit that lately you've been real force for good. Impressive after that nasty start. Looking at amount of anger shown here - consider doing some AMA on /r/bitcoin. At least you can give people some form of catharsis. Last few years have been very frustrating and it's sad to see Bitcoin below 40% market share.

Thanks for commit @jlopp and sorry for me being another non-contributer adding to the noise. If there is any task list with stuff I could do to give back, let me know.

[JaredR26]

@jlopp yeah definitely not worth rehashing the arguments that have been proven right. Steady the course, my node is now #no2x

[JaredR26]

@jlopp yeah definitely not worth rehashing the arguments that have been proven right. Steady the course, my node is now #no2x

[J-A-M-E-5]

Gotta say as a Bitcoin (Cash) fan after years supporting Bitcoin since 2010 I am enjoying this. Thanks all for your contributions here.

[J-A-M-E-5]

Gotta say as a Bitcoin (Cash) fan after years supporting Bitcoin since 2010 I am enjoying this. Thanks all for your contributions here.

[dsmurrell]

PSA: https://www.bitcoin.com/info/bitcoin-cash-is-bitcoin

[dsmurrell]

PSA: https://www.bitcoin.com/info/bitcoin-cash-is-bitcoin

[notreya]

Just because users don't understand what decentralised trust is, doesn't mean we should completely break it, or any other aspect for any reason.

If something is technically, logically, or ethically true and "right", never means actual humans / humanity will follow it.

Is not mitigating this out of intolerance of illogical humanity worth the risk of the sovereignty of bitcoin and therefore decentralised network?

Decentralised networks can in fact heal. communities sometimes cannot.. therefore directly leading to magnifying what was originally attempted to be mitigated by not properly managing the balance between what’s logical and what is functionally necessary. (the mitigation of node adoption dropping)

Yes it was necessary to keep the sovereignty of the nodes with the users, however it is also necessary to keep "the transfer of cash" valid.

@Cobra-Bitcoin This censorship is necessary for new users not to be confused, however completely turns off many others for legitimate reasons. We need ALL the community, as they are the decentralised trust themselves.

<3

[notreya]

Just because users don't understand what decentralised trust is, doesn't mean we should completely break it, or any other aspect for any reason.

If something is technically, logically, or ethically true and "right", never means actual humans / humanity will follow it.

Is not mitigating this out of intolerance of illogical humanity worth the risk of the sovereignty of bitcoin and therefore decentralised network?

Decentralised networks can in fact heal. communities sometimes cannot.. therefore directly leading to magnifying what was originally attempted to be mitigated by not properly managing the balance between what’s logical and what is functionally necessary. (the mitigation of node adoption dropping)

Yes it was necessary to keep the sovereignty of the nodes with the users, however it is also necessary to keep "the transfer of cash" valid.

@Cobra-Bitcoin This censorship is necessary for new users not to be confused, however completely turns off many others for legitimate reasons. We need ALL the community, as they are the decentralised trust themselves.

<3

[Cobra-Bitcoin]

We'd also have to change parts of this page: https://bitcoin.org/en/innovation.

@satoshi1iv3s: I really don't like the high fees when there's not any off chain alternative yet. Nobody really likes these costs, but they're more quiet about it. In Bitcoin, it's especially important for all of us to be as loud as people because it's through our collective opinion that consensus emerges.

[Cobra-Bitcoin]

We'd also have to change parts of this page: https://bitcoin.org/en/innovation.

@satoshi1iv3s: I really don't like the high fees when there's not any off chain alternative yet. Nobody really likes these costs, but they're more quiet about it. In Bitcoin, it's especially important for all of us to be as loud as people because it's through our collective opinion that consensus emerges.

[JaredR26]

@Cobra-Bitcoin how exactly are people who are banned for supporting bigger blocks supposed to be "as loud as possible?"

Or, more relevant to this specific repository, how are businesses who were removed from the website like Bitpay supposed to support them?

The irony of course being that you and jlopp know exactly how we got here. You just didn't mean for it to get here. Which is no consolation at all to those of us who are banned, dismissed, insulted, and attacked for trying to avoid this exact situation.

[JaredR26]

@Cobra-Bitcoin how exactly are people who are banned for supporting bigger blocks supposed to be "as loud as possible?"

Or, more relevant to this specific repository, how are businesses who were removed from the website like Bitpay supposed to support them?

The irony of course being that you and jlopp know exactly how we got here. You just didn't mean for it to get here. Which is no consolation at all to those of us who are banned, dismissed, insulted, and attacked for trying to avoid this exact situation.

[LEscobar-Driver]

I been in the space since 2013. I remember when r/Bitcoin was a place where different minds could discuss differing opinions. Recently I made 2 post on r/Bitcoin, one asking about Bitcoin forks and another where I happen to include the letters "eth". Both were removed because they were related to altcoins... I pointed out said censorship and was given a 30 day ban. I can post proof if needed but am on my phone.

I have gotten countless ppl into Bitcoin but can no longer; in good faith, direct ppl to this coin. The fees are insane, there are literally zero privacy features, sending transactions take hours and hours. I have been a hodler since the beginning and have held my coins in bip38 paper wallets generated from a secure offline boot. I am very seriously considering abandoning this project, I feel that I am in danger due to the total lack of privacy and the inability to move my coins quickly after years and years... There is a centralized bankster shitcoin on our doorstep and look at the state of fucking Bitcoin. Every normie I know in bitcoin buying 100 or 1000 USD is shocked and turned off by the fees... Ppl like me are turned off by the total lack of privacy protection. As btc continues to grow, we desperately need iron clad privacy; we all know what terrorist regimes like the US are capable of.

I am writing this here because I can't do it elsewhere without getting censored. Take this as a humble warning, I know I am not the only one who is deeply worried.

[LEscobar-Driver]

I been in the space since 2013. I remember when r/Bitcoin was a place where different minds could discuss differing opinions. Recently I made 2 post on r/Bitcoin, one asking about Bitcoin forks and another where I happen to include the letters "eth". Both were removed because they were related to altcoins... I pointed out said censorship and was given a 30 day ban. I can post proof if needed but am on my phone.

I have gotten countless ppl into Bitcoin but can no longer; in good faith, direct ppl to this coin. The fees are insane, there are literally zero privacy features, sending transactions take hours and hours. I have been a hodler since the beginning and have held my coins in bip38 paper wallets generated from a secure offline boot. I am very seriously considering abandoning this project, I feel that I am in danger due to the total lack of privacy and the inability to move my coins quickly after years and years... There is a centralized bankster shitcoin on our doorstep and look at the state of fucking Bitcoin. Every normie I know in bitcoin buying 100 or 1000 USD is shocked and turned off by the fees... Ppl like me are turned off by the total lack of privacy protection. As btc continues to grow, we desperately need iron clad privacy; we all know what terrorist regimes like the US are capable of.

I am writing this here because I can't do it elsewhere without getting censored. Take this as a humble warning, I know I am not the only one who is deeply worried.

[Arcurus]

@jlopp

Sure, if Bitcoin changed so that only enterprises could run full nodes / it became
obviously not peer-to-peer, then the descriptions should be updated to reflect reality.

same ¨would¨ be true if transaction fees are that high that only enterprises / large investors can afford to make transactions.

more transactions lead to more centralization, but also higher fees lead also to more centralization.

the middle ground would be to increase the block size to that level, that it could still be run on an average computer with average internet connection. This could be done as a soft fork with extension blocks, or even faster with hard fork (both have their pros and cons).

I personally would not wait with that too long, because currently we loose the first mover advantage very quick to forks like bitcoin cash, or even worse ripple.

On top of that a second layer could allow even higher transaction scaling without loosing security of layer one.

The question is do we want to have the bitcoin block-chain only as settlement layer for big transactions like it has became currently, if so we should describe it like this. If not, we should explain on the website why it is currently like that and what the solutions will be (if we could agree on some at least).

[Arcurus]

@jlopp

Sure, if Bitcoin changed so that only enterprises could run full nodes / it became
obviously not peer-to-peer, then the descriptions should be updated to reflect reality.

same ¨would¨ be true if transaction fees are that high that only enterprises / large investors can afford to make transactions.

more transactions lead to more centralization, but also higher fees lead also to more centralization.

the middle ground would be to increase the block size to that level, that it could still be run on an average computer with average internet connection. This could be done as a soft fork with extension blocks, or even faster with hard fork (both have their pros and cons).

I personally would not wait with that too long, because currently we loose the first mover advantage very quick to forks like bitcoin cash, or even worse ripple.

On top of that a second layer could allow even higher transaction scaling without loosing security of layer one.

The question is do we want to have the bitcoin block-chain only as settlement layer for big transactions like it has became currently, if so we should describe it like this. If not, we should explain on the website why it is currently like that and what the solutions will be (if we could agree on some at least).

[Cobra-Bitcoin]

Locked this for now, it's being brigaded by /r/btc people.

[Cobra-Bitcoin]

Locked this for now, it's being brigaded by /r/btc people.

[Cobra-Bitcoin]

I've unlocked the conversation.

I have a suggestion if we do decide to change the text, maybe we replace "Low processing fees" with "Control against fraud" (with https://bitcoin.org/img/icons/ico_lock.svg as the icon). Then replace "Fast peer-to-peer transactions" with "Peer-to-peer transactions", since the "fast" is conditional based on the fee, we obviously don't want to promise that.

This seems really simple and easy for people to understand, instead of emphasizing vague stuff like the "uncensorable" aspect. I also don't like "No chargebacks" because we should be focusing on what Bitcoin does well, not what Bitcoin doesn't do. With the video, it's so old, we should just get a new one made.

[Cobra-Bitcoin]

I've unlocked the conversation.

I have a suggestion if we do decide to change the text, maybe we replace "Low processing fees" with "Control against fraud" (with https://bitcoin.org/img/icons/ico_lock.svg as the icon). Then replace "Fast peer-to-peer transactions" with "Peer-to-peer transactions", since the "fast" is conditional based on the fee, we obviously don't want to promise that.

This seems really simple and easy for people to understand, instead of emphasizing vague stuff like the "uncensorable" aspect. I also don't like "No chargebacks" because we should be focusing on what Bitcoin does well, not what Bitcoin doesn't do. With the video, it's so old, we should just get a new one made.

[notreya]

Maybe we can use something from this write up i did about Bitcoin Security. :)
All active nodes are equal in a Decentralized Trust (What is bitcoin security? It's you <3)

https://medium.com/@Ben_Harper/all-active-nodes-are-equal-in-a-decentralised-peer-to-peer-trust-bitcoin-387da598bdce

[notreya]

Maybe we can use something from this write up i did about Bitcoin Security. :)
All active nodes are equal in a Decentralized Trust (What is bitcoin security? It's you <3)

https://medium.com/@Ben_Harper/all-active-nodes-are-equal-in-a-decentralised-peer-to-peer-trust-bitcoin-387da598bdce

[Komodorpudel]

@Cobra-Bitcoin

First off: I do not have a Contributor marking, simply because I’m new to GitHub, but I’m doing the German translation of bitcoin.org for almost 5 years now 😊

I still do not think, that changing the description is a good idea. Mainly, because this feels like admitting that Bitcoin currently fails it's objective (which is okay, to admit) while trying to hide the very same fact (which is not okay).

I always thought bitcoin.org was about proving people with an understanding of Bitcoin. While the current network descriptions are not accurate, they still are one of the key goals of Bitcoin and they will eventually be achieved with SegWit and Lightning. Changing the network descriptions feels for me like we are trying to make Bitcoin look good (just like advertising) instead of informing people about Bitcoin.
Staying true to the original objective of bitcoin.org, I still believe that this is the best solution:

Providing some kind of pop up on the website, addressing the current situation openly(!) and honestly(!), stating:
a) Large parts of the content were written years ago (Yes, there are newer parts in the English version, but the versions for the other languages are dated)
b) Especially the topics about fast transactions and low fees do not reflect the current situation, given the increased popularity of Bitcoin. But it should be stated, that it is still the ultimate goal of Bitcoin to be cheap, fast, and usable for everyone!
c) Possible long-term solutions are being developed (like LN). Short-term solutions (like SegWit) were already deployed.
d) And most importantly: To have a scaling issue, there must be the necessity to scale (Following Andreas Antonopoulos).

This way, it can be avoided to change everything on the website talking about low fees and fast transactions while at the same time informing visitors about current issues and possible solutions.

Wish you all a great 2018!

[Komodorpudel]

@Cobra-Bitcoin

First off: I do not have a Contributor marking, simply because I’m new to GitHub, but I’m doing the German translation of bitcoin.org for almost 5 years now 😊

I still do not think, that changing the description is a good idea. Mainly, because this feels like admitting that Bitcoin currently fails it's objective (which is okay, to admit) while trying to hide the very same fact (which is not okay).

I always thought bitcoin.org was about proving people with an understanding of Bitcoin. While the current network descriptions are not accurate, they still are one of the key goals of Bitcoin and they will eventually be achieved with SegWit and Lightning. Changing the network descriptions feels for me like we are trying to make Bitcoin look good (just like advertising) instead of informing people about Bitcoin.
Staying true to the original objective of bitcoin.org, I still believe that this is the best solution:

Providing some kind of pop up on the website, addressing the current situation openly(!) and honestly(!), stating:
a) Large parts of the content were written years ago (Yes, there are newer parts in the English version, but the versions for the other languages are dated)
b) Especially the topics about fast transactions and low fees do not reflect the current situation, given the increased popularity of Bitcoin. But it should be stated, that it is still the ultimate goal of Bitcoin to be cheap, fast, and usable for everyone!
c) Possible long-term solutions are being developed (like LN). Short-term solutions (like SegWit) were already deployed.
d) And most importantly: To have a scaling issue, there must be the necessity to scale (Following Andreas Antonopoulos).

This way, it can be avoided to change everything on the website talking about low fees and fast transactions while at the same time informing visitors about current issues and possible solutions.

Wish you all a great 2018!

[phillipsjk]

@notreya we are probably going to have to agree to disagree, but your central point adds a clause not present in the original white-paper:

As long as “honest” nodes control the most CPU power.. they can build the longest chain by both building and validating against the greater p2p consensus (decentralized trust), ensuring sovereignty and outpacing any attackers.— Me :)

From the whitepaper, page 1:

The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes.

The KISS principle applies here: only mining nodes matter, unless there is a compelling reason to say otherwise.

I agree that non-mining nodes can help mitigate DDOS attacks and share the load of SPV wallets. However they are still not as important as full mining nodes: which are able to write to the transaction ledger.

[phillipsjk]

@notreya we are probably going to have to agree to disagree, but your central point adds a clause not present in the original white-paper:

As long as “honest” nodes control the most CPU power.. they can build the longest chain by both building and validating against the greater p2p consensus (decentralized trust), ensuring sovereignty and outpacing any attackers.— Me :)

From the whitepaper, page 1:

The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes.

The KISS principle applies here: only mining nodes matter, unless there is a compelling reason to say otherwise.

I agree that non-mining nodes can help mitigate DDOS attacks and share the load of SPV wallets. However they are still not as important as full mining nodes: which are able to write to the transaction ledger.

[notreya]

https://medium.com/@Ben_Harper/a-response-from-a-very-lovely-person-on-reddit-lol-cbec9d4d83be

<3 We love you.

[notreya]

https://medium.com/@Ben_Harper/a-response-from-a-very-lovely-person-on-reddit-lol-cbec9d4d83be

<3 We love you.

[KainniaK]

This is the impasse .... not being able to admit that you where wrong. That keeping that blocksize limit lower then a floppy disk just was not a good idea. As long as bitoin.org people are not mature enough to admit when they made a mistake they will be stuck and bitcoin core will become obsolete which is no problem for bitcoin users because backup bitcoin is alive and kicking. So here are all the options:

• Change the website to reflect current reality
  - Some will laugh at bitcoin.org
  - Newcomers will not be so eager to join (what use is this for me?)
  - If will be clear that either the original Bitcoin idea is not achievable
  -or that bitcoin.org is no longer about the original Bitcoin idea.
  - At least bitcoin.org will be honest and admit that bitcoin has no low fees or fast transactions
• Keep it like it is
  - bitcoin.org will not be honest and newcomers might eventually feel lied to
  - Get Lightning Network deployed as soon as possible
  - Maybe let people know they can use tabs when the fees are very high?
• Raise the blocksize limit and see all problems disappear within a week.

Now that last one will never happen. And because it will never happen it really shows people, that are capable of independent thought, that bitcoin.org really does not care about their users. I can not make it more simpler than that. Oh and of course you can say: but then bitcoin will become centralized and bla bla bla bla. Do you really think that regular users care about that right now? No, because they have a very powerful option, namely to not use Bitcoin at all. So if you care about the users and the user experience you raise the blocksize limit. Otherwise just put the whole website behind a paywall with a note: sorry, but bitcoin is not for you. That would at least be more honest then how it is now. How it is now is deceitful and every visitor will eventually know that the people behind bitcoin.org live in a fantasy world and not in reality.

Maybe .. maybe ... about now it's time to admit that keeping the blocksize limit like it was, was not a good idea. Maybe it's time to admit that the original vision behind Bitcoin was a better one then the one bitcoin.org has. Because bitcoin.org has not given that vision a chance. And the current bitcoin.org vision is not working. So maybe, just maybe .... let's try the original vision? Let's go back to what Satoshi wrote and then just do what those writings said without making up or adding to much of our own ideas to it? Because 10 years is really way to early to make an assessment about Satoshi his original idea and say that he was wrong. No, you guys are wrong because: Fees are to high and transaction times are unreliable.
I can't help anymore, if you don't get that ... then sorry I don't have time to explain it to you. We all did, we all tried to explain it to your for 4 fucking years. I think it's to late. I think the tunnel vision is already here. And at the end of the tunnel is .... the light .... ning ....network. (but also the dead of bitcoin)

Bitcoin is dead, long live backup Bitcoin!. If you don't like that, then raise the blocksize limit. Right now we are still talking to you guys. But soon we will completely ignore you because it's not worth spending our energy and time on stubborn people with no good insight in to bitcoin that lie and censor or have no problem when their bitcoin friends lie and censor.

No matter how brilliant of a coders you guys are all. My mechanic might be the best mechanic in the world, if he wants to keep my car for longer then 3 months to implement some kind of solution so my car will never break down anymore ... but I need my car tomorrow!!! Okay I will just go and use a different car. Oh look this car sometimes breaks down but then the next day it's fixed. How about my old car? Oh I told the mechanic he could keep it, he is completely obsessed with it and his boss fired him. I don't know where that guy is right now or my old car.

Do you guys get the crappy analogy I am trying to make? Do you know how fast the internet moves forwards? Do you know it is totally unworkable for any business to wait longer then a couple of days for a solution they need right now? I would be very happy to find out that a solution I am going to implement in my business does not really work that well, so I can go out on time and get something that does work ... so at least I am not going to get stuck to a solution that does not work or get stuck to people that will not fix my problems right away but instead bullshit me for 6 months!

So bitcoin core right now is completely loosing it, no business in the future is ever going to want to have anything to do with it because the coders don't live in reality. It might already be to late for almost any bitcoin core developer.

The internet will move forwards and you guys will be stuck with maybe an amazing lightning network but zero users. Then all that work is just implemented in backup bitcoin and you did a lot of work ... but lost most of your power and influence in the process. Other coders will come in (just like with linux) and the consensus becomes: no, not those bitcoin.org people ... we don't trust those anymore. We don't want to work with those people any more, they are way to toxic and unreliable. We have not forgotten their shenanigans and we will never forget nor will we let the future forget (let's put the story in the blockchain, the unchangeable history)

Toxic and unreliable that is what Bitcoin has become and that is because the people that tried hijacking it for themselves are toxic and unreliable and they rub off. So you still have a choice, still a door that is somewhat open. But it is closing fast. Stay with the toxic people or admit that you where wrong and leave the dark side for the light side, we don't have cookies but we have a working ecosystem with actual users that is growing rapidly and is temporarily called backup bitcoin until it is called bitcoin again. Because all your work and energy and time will eventually be forgotten and all that will be left is a long chain of orphaned blocks that only exists on a handful of hard drives ... it probably won't even be the longest orphaned chain of blocks in history. I am sure even you guys stubbornness can and will be surpassed by somebody else in the future. That is just human nature. Your choice. choose wisely but choose fast.

Because we have businesses to run.There are payments to be done.
On the blockchains that are still alive. And believe me they are still alive.
I'm using bitocin and I'm still alive. I feel fantastic and I'm still alive. While you're chain is dying I'll be
still alive. And when you're blockchain is dead I will be still alive.

PS: This use to be like conversations we had on /r/bitcoin and bitcointalk before the censorship ruined them. So this feels really good. A little glimmer of hope to get the lost boys (you guys) back on track. We are not against you guys, we just want to move forwards. And we known and believe that Satoshi had one hell of an idea and we want to build the motor he designed first before we make a judgment and say: oh well his motor can't possible run very long so let's design our own motor instead. So please I beg you, find the courage to admit you where wrong and leave those other toxic people behind. Bitcoin can use good coders but apparently finding good coders is easy, finding righteous people is hard. And backup bitcoin can definitely use more righteous people. In fact if it wants so succeed it will need all kinds of people. Economists, government guys, politicians, users, businesses, artist, etc etc etc. Because money is used by the poorest beggar to the richest guy in the world. Money itself does not discriminate. If you don't have the offer something that is better then the money that was already there when most people where born ... fat chance of changing the nature of the question of "what is money?" FAT CHANCE.

[KainniaK]

This is the impasse .... not being able to admit that you where wrong. That keeping that blocksize limit lower then a floppy disk just was not a good idea. As long as bitoin.org people are not mature enough to admit when they made a mistake they will be stuck and bitcoin core will become obsolete which is no problem for bitcoin users because backup bitcoin is alive and kicking. So here are all the options:

• Change the website to reflect current reality
  - Some will laugh at bitcoin.org
  - Newcomers will not be so eager to join (what use is this for me?)
  - If will be clear that either the original Bitcoin idea is not achievable
  -or that bitcoin.org is no longer about the original Bitcoin idea.
  - At least bitcoin.org will be honest and admit that bitcoin has no low fees or fast transactions
• Keep it like it is
  - bitcoin.org will not be honest and newcomers might eventually feel lied to
  - Get Lightning Network deployed as soon as possible
  - Maybe let people know they can use tabs when the fees are very high?
• Raise the blocksize limit and see all problems disappear within a week.

Now that last one will never happen. And because it will never happen it really shows people, that are capable of independent thought, that bitcoin.org really does not care about their users. I can not make it more simpler than that. Oh and of course you can say: but then bitcoin will become centralized and bla bla bla bla. Do you really think that regular users care about that right now? No, because they have a very powerful option, namely to not use Bitcoin at all. So if you care about the users and the user experience you raise the blocksize limit. Otherwise just put the whole website behind a paywall with a note: sorry, but bitcoin is not for you. That would at least be more honest then how it is now. How it is now is deceitful and every visitor will eventually know that the people behind bitcoin.org live in a fantasy world and not in reality.

Maybe .. maybe ... about now it's time to admit that keeping the blocksize limit like it was, was not a good idea. Maybe it's time to admit that the original vision behind Bitcoin was a better one then the one bitcoin.org has. Because bitcoin.org has not given that vision a chance. And the current bitcoin.org vision is not working. So maybe, just maybe .... let's try the original vision? Let's go back to what Satoshi wrote and then just do what those writings said without making up or adding to much of our own ideas to it? Because 10 years is really way to early to make an assessment about Satoshi his original idea and say that he was wrong. No, you guys are wrong because: Fees are to high and transaction times are unreliable.
I can't help anymore, if you don't get that ... then sorry I don't have time to explain it to you. We all did, we all tried to explain it to your for 4 fucking years. I think it's to late. I think the tunnel vision is already here. And at the end of the tunnel is .... the light .... ning ....network. (but also the dead of bitcoin)

Bitcoin is dead, long live backup Bitcoin!. If you don't like that, then raise the blocksize limit. Right now we are still talking to you guys. But soon we will completely ignore you because it's not worth spending our energy and time on stubborn people with no good insight in to bitcoin that lie and censor or have no problem when their bitcoin friends lie and censor.

No matter how brilliant of a coders you guys are all. My mechanic might be the best mechanic in the world, if he wants to keep my car for longer then 3 months to implement some kind of solution so my car will never break down anymore ... but I need my car tomorrow!!! Okay I will just go and use a different car. Oh look this car sometimes breaks down but then the next day it's fixed. How about my old car? Oh I told the mechanic he could keep it, he is completely obsessed with it and his boss fired him. I don't know where that guy is right now or my old car.

Do you guys get the crappy analogy I am trying to make? Do you know how fast the internet moves forwards? Do you know it is totally unworkable for any business to wait longer then a couple of days for a solution they need right now? I would be very happy to find out that a solution I am going to implement in my business does not really work that well, so I can go out on time and get something that does work ... so at least I am not going to get stuck to a solution that does not work or get stuck to people that will not fix my problems right away but instead bullshit me for 6 months!

So bitcoin core right now is completely loosing it, no business in the future is ever going to want to have anything to do with it because the coders don't live in reality. It might already be to late for almost any bitcoin core developer.

The internet will move forwards and you guys will be stuck with maybe an amazing lightning network but zero users. Then all that work is just implemented in backup bitcoin and you did a lot of work ... but lost most of your power and influence in the process. Other coders will come in (just like with linux) and the consensus becomes: no, not those bitcoin.org people ... we don't trust those anymore. We don't want to work with those people any more, they are way to toxic and unreliable. We have not forgotten their shenanigans and we will never forget nor will we let the future forget (let's put the story in the blockchain, the unchangeable history)

Toxic and unreliable that is what Bitcoin has become and that is because the people that tried hijacking it for themselves are toxic and unreliable and they rub off. So you still have a choice, still a door that is somewhat open. But it is closing fast. Stay with the toxic people or admit that you where wrong and leave the dark side for the light side, we don't have cookies but we have a working ecosystem with actual users that is growing rapidly and is temporarily called backup bitcoin until it is called bitcoin again. Because all your work and energy and time will eventually be forgotten and all that will be left is a long chain of orphaned blocks that only exists on a handful of hard drives ... it probably won't even be the longest orphaned chain of blocks in history. I am sure even you guys stubbornness can and will be surpassed by somebody else in the future. That is just human nature. Your choice. choose wisely but choose fast.

Because we have businesses to run.There are payments to be done.
On the blockchains that are still alive. And believe me they are still alive.
I'm using bitocin and I'm still alive. I feel fantastic and I'm still alive. While you're chain is dying I'll be
still alive. And when you're blockchain is dead I will be still alive.

PS: This use to be like conversations we had on /r/bitcoin and bitcointalk before the censorship ruined them. So this feels really good. A little glimmer of hope to get the lost boys (you guys) back on track. We are not against you guys, we just want to move forwards. And we known and believe that Satoshi had one hell of an idea and we want to build the motor he designed first before we make a judgment and say: oh well his motor can't possible run very long so let's design our own motor instead. So please I beg you, find the courage to admit you where wrong and leave those other toxic people behind. Bitcoin can use good coders but apparently finding good coders is easy, finding righteous people is hard. And backup bitcoin can definitely use more righteous people. In fact if it wants so succeed it will need all kinds of people. Economists, government guys, politicians, users, businesses, artist, etc etc etc. Because money is used by the poorest beggar to the richest guy in the world. Money itself does not discriminate. If you don't have the offer something that is better then the money that was already there when most people where born ... fat chance of changing the nature of the question of "what is money?" FAT CHANCE.

[bitsko]

geocities had a lot of neat "under construction" gifs to choose from.

I suggest you slap "under construction" over all the features you have destroyed, then at the bottom of the page, put "layer 2 coming soon" but cross it out and just beneath it add "layer 3 coming soon"

conintue to cross them out and add more layers as long as the world is still paying attention to bitcoin.org.

[bitsko]

geocities had a lot of neat "under construction" gifs to choose from.

I suggest you slap "under construction" over all the features you have destroyed, then at the bottom of the page, put "layer 2 coming soon" but cross it out and just beneath it add "layer 3 coming soon"

conintue to cross them out and add more layers as long as the world is still paying attention to bitcoin.org.

[KainniaK]

Anybody in this thread had their github account hacked very recently?

[KainniaK]

Anybody in this thread had their github account hacked very recently?

[jlopp]

Sounds good to me @Cobra-Bitcoin - I took another stab at it.

[jlopp]

Sounds good to me @Cobra-Bitcoin - I took another stab at it.

[dsmurrell]

@bitsko also need to add 'ready in 18 months'. Shouldn't have to update that number.

[dsmurrell]

@bitsko also need to add 'ready in 18 months'. Shouldn't have to update that number.

[Nelsonyaru]

@dsmurrell Soon-ish.

Looks like the admin of bitcoin.org has decided to continue misleading newbies.

You have been blockstream-ed.

[Nelsonyaru]

@dsmurrell Soon-ish.

Looks like the admin of bitcoin.org has decided to continue misleading newbies.

You have been blockstream-ed.

[Bang631]

i have the address bitcoin .but i can not send or payout my coin.What is wrong and what is the difference

[Bang631]

The network can payment isure

[jlopp]

bump any thoughts @Cobra-Bitcoin @wbnns?

[jlopp]

bump any thoughts @Cobra-Bitcoin @wbnns?

[WyseNynja]

Should I open a separate PR for improvements to the scaling FAQ?

[WyseNynja]

Should I open a separate PR for improvements to the scaling FAQ?

[ghost]

Hello im a user i left bitcoin bcos of crazy fees

[ghost]

Hello im a user i left bitcoin bcos of crazy fees

[wbnns]

@Cobra-Bitcoin Thanks for merging.

[wbnns]

@Cobra-Bitcoin Thanks for merging.

[TurnUpforButt]

@nurazhar Hello user, that's completely understandable!

[TurnUpforButt]

@nurazhar Hello user, that's completely understandable!

[NotCobra]

@nurazhar If we look at the bright side, the coin you left was not the real Bitcoin.

The fee on the real Bitcoin network was, is, and will be super low.

We Bitcoin!

[NotCobra]

@nurazhar If we look at the bright side, the coin you left was not the real Bitcoin.

The fee on the real Bitcoin network was, is, and will be super low.

We Bitcoin!

[uaorob]

If for some reason the Bitcoin network became centralized, should we go back and remove the "P2P" part too?

No. Because that would be... crazy...because....?

Of course it should NOT say P2P if it's NOT P2P.

The correct solution isn't to change how we've marketed Bitcoin to millions of people, for example millions of people associate Coke as a sugar drink, this is their experience and how it's been for it's entire history, but if one day Coke started tasting salty, people would rightly freak out.

And rightfully so. People should know the truth. Don't compare Coke to Bitcoin in the first place, please.

EDIT: I see lots of people are trying to cover things up in here as well. Good luck with that!

[uaorob]

If for some reason the Bitcoin network became centralized, should we go back and remove the "P2P" part too?

No. Because that would be... crazy...because....?

Of course it should NOT say P2P if it's NOT P2P.

The correct solution isn't to change how we've marketed Bitcoin to millions of people, for example millions of people associate Coke as a sugar drink, this is their experience and how it's been for it's entire history, but if one day Coke started tasting salty, people would rightly freak out.

And rightfully so. People should know the truth. Don't compare Coke to Bitcoin in the first place, please.

EDIT: I see lots of people are trying to cover things up in here as well. Good luck with that!

[ghost]

was is will i dont know what im experiencing now is ridiculous

[ghost]

was is will i dont know what im experiencing now is ridiculous

[HansHauge]

=[

[Retroity]

This is hilarious.

[ghost]

satoshi said no

[lucasverra]

hacker news news

[mtomana]

Smooth... ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[lambdaq]

手动滑稽

[Dobika]

Haha

[bithavoc]

LOL

[JavierGonzalez]

This 100% predictable by anyone who really understands Bitcoin. What's happened?

[JavierGonzalez]

This 100% predictable by anyone who really understands Bitcoin. What's happened?

[surjikal]

Fees are very low now, shall we revert this?

[surjikal]

Fees are very low now, shall we revert this?

[ghost]

Low like a penny? Pada 23 Jan 2018 1:26 PTG, "Nick Porter" <notifications@github.com> menulis:

…

Fees are very low now, shall we revert this? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2010 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AeCWSPUER-veMDPzR6fDx300-IdKWrTyks5tNW2WgaJpZM4RL8WG> .

[ghost]

Low like a penny? Pada 23 Jan 2018 1:26 PTG, "Nick Porter" <notifications@github.com> menulis:

…

Fees are very low now, shall we revert this? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2010 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AeCWSPUER-veMDPzR6fDx300-IdKWrTyks5tNW2WgaJpZM4RL8WG> .

[daira]

Fraud protection? I guess some kinds of fraud are harder, but others are easier.