As the discussion between Core and Classic is heated more and more, can Clear signs of an order which arises spontaneously chaos. Finally, the most intelligent among proponents of various changes have come to realize that differences of opinion are irreconcilable with the other party, having spent the past 3 months battling with the army of trolls and cantamañanas always meet in the environment of ideological movements.
The industry has begun to look at itself in a satirical way, from trolls high - profile Samson Mow , absurdly deployment in Miami Satoshi Rountable , organized by Bruce Fenton, the Bitcoin Foundation, whose announcement appeared a group medieval knights in armor around a round table. The industry has reached its peak crazy, absurd and self - flagellation, and possibly not get worse, so we can expect the situation to start back to "reality" very soon .
Several promising things have happened recently that make me feel hopeful about what we see at the end of this "rite of passage" in the life of Bitcoin:
Core has begun to consider a hard fork, proposed by their own developers.
The number of nodes Bitcoin has increased by more than 2000 (at the time of writing).
Mining pools have begun to implement voting systems among miners.
They have new tools that provide greater visibility on the situation to the people, encouraging them to participate and get involved in the process of crypto-government emerged.
A total of 4 attempts to generate binding agreements between industry participants have failed to produce a consensus.
Let us examine them one at a time.
By the Sacred Rear MarÃa Magdalena! A Hard Core fork!
Core's proposal of a hard fork following the deployment of SegWit ( Segregated Witness ), would involve mining 95% support before activation, coupled with a grace period of 252 days. Yes, you read that right: Total 1 year. Why would anyone on this planet needs 1 year to upgrade? Well, your reasoning is that they do not want to lose any of the nodes in the network, while avoiding any chance that someone, somewhere, lose money. The irony is that the reason they defend the grace period of nearly 1 year (keep people lose money) is exactly why others believe they do not need a period of as long grace: people do not You want to lose money. Core seems to believe that people can not take care of their own money, so they want to do for us.
Moreover, the cost of corruption a veto of 5% is too low. All parties playing in bad faith only have to pay the 5% of miners to block any changes. In fact, it does not take a bribe; it could simply be a death threat or a threat of physical harm or a company. A margin as low veto increases personal risk for miners and their families.
And finally, during the grace period (the time from the start of the countdown to the activation of the fork) power distribution hasheo can change a lot. It is even possible that the proposed change was not enough 2MB for what could happen within a year. Miners can start playing power games or new ASIC technology could be developed within one year. It is extremely dangerous that a majority control in terms of computing power to set the rules agreed facing a future that when these rules come into force, may not even be the same participants in business . I think the proposal Core developers shows some ingenuity when it takes the hard fork as a purely technical matter. A hard fork, unlike a soft fork, is an animal of economic, and financial incentives are those who play the most important role in their development. We also know too well the economy is difficult to mold and easy if economists would have done it long ago. Sometimes you just have to take reasonable parameters and allow the economy to adjust to them. Still, the fact that they are considering a proposal is already a step forward.
2000 new nodes!
With the furor over support new deployments, the Bitcoin network has seen how he numbered more than 2,000 new full nodes in the last 3 months, with a growth rate not seen since the early days of Bitcoin. This in itself is a great thing. It shows a renewed interest in Bitcoin, with people willing to dedicate resources to the network grow. Nodes that are running on Classic now exceed 30% of the total network. Core supporters, however, lend themselves to quick to say that the number of nodes does not matter. This is curious, especially when little until the fall in the number of full nodes was all he could speak .
In fact, that increased to 2MB would increase the cost of maintaining an entire node function and therefore reduce the number of nodes in the network, today remains one of the main arguments used by "decentralizing". But I think when "full nodes" say refer to complete Core nodes running. The other nodes should not count, I guess. A great place to see the distribution of nodes can be found HERE . It's just a matter of time that this integrated display on a map the style of "The War Room" in Stanley Kubrick 's Dr. Strangelove.
Voting by the power of hasheo
This is one of the most exciting things that are happening. The decision to Slush Pool to introduce a voting system where the miners individually for the first time have the opportunity to express their opinion as to which client to use, made two of the largest pools of China, F2Pool and Antpool, They are seen pressured to implement their own forms of voting for their miners. Although the system still has some issues to improve this aspect of Bitcoin it is promising. I think if the pools allow the miners would express system much closer to the idea of Nakamoto 1 CPU = 1 vote. This can also help decentralization, because the difference between pools is no longer limited to the size of each pool or fees charged. Soon, the voting system that offers a pool could be a determining factor when choosing which company mining, adding a new dynamic to the competition between pools. Competition is good. Voting systems also remove the policy of the equation for operators of pools. They can simply delegate the decision to which client to use its affiliates .
Tools, and tools
Great places like CoinDance and NodeCounter have emerged to monitor the consensus process. In the early days , often he spoke of the fear of lack of means by which the economy could monitor the activation of a fork. With these new sites that show live updates of mined blocks for each implementation, network nodes and the power of hasheo, we are actually witnessing for the first time in the history of humanidas a completely free choice, without central coordination , happening in real time. -Pensad that a second. This is huge if it turns out to be the model for future elections in the world of criptomonedas. All other criptomonedas that there are currently operating under the model of "benevolent dictator". If Bitcoin can evolve beyond that point, we'll be making history . I think we are witnessing how true democracy and free choice emerge spontaneously in Bitcoin, and someday a book about the events of 2016 will be written.
'Al Ratel you sweat all cock !!
In the last year, several well - meaning representatives from Bitcoin have tried four times to organize "redonadas tables" with miners, developers and other industry participants to reach a gentleman 's agreement that zanjase the dispute. Like them, I used to think this was necessary; but I recently had an epiphany: the agreements in real life should not be necessary to keep the network running smoothly Bitcoin. If such agreements are necessary, it is that Bitcoin has failed as a consensus system . I do not say that face to face meetings are not useful, but we must avoid the temptation to reach binding agreements outside the block chain.
At the end of the day, that Bitcoin is a strong and resilient network, we need to ensure that all those involved can assert their opinion. Users they would run their own full nodes or by pressing the provider of your wallet to use some type of node. Exchanges, running their own nodes and perhaps starting their own mining operations. Mining pools, they would provide their users voting systems. The test work Nakamoto was created so that we did not have to involve politics or rely on external systems to reach a consensus . We resist the urge to go to preconception wrong and misplaced and superfluous to add a second test work Nakamoto layer. We can talk and lobby all we want in real life or around a table, but should not make decisions outside the chain. Any attempt to do so can be seen precisely as the attack of 51% for Satoshi designed a network that could resist it .
I'm anxious to see how Bitcoin will evolve in the coming months.
The industry has begun to look at itself in a satirical way, from trolls high - profile Samson Mow , absurdly deployment in Miami Satoshi Rountable , organized by Bruce Fenton, the Bitcoin Foundation, whose announcement appeared a group medieval knights in armor around a round table. The industry has reached its peak crazy, absurd and self - flagellation, and possibly not get worse, so we can expect the situation to start back to "reality" very soon .
Several promising things have happened recently that make me feel hopeful about what we see at the end of this "rite of passage" in the life of Bitcoin:
Core has begun to consider a hard fork, proposed by their own developers.
The number of nodes Bitcoin has increased by more than 2000 (at the time of writing).
Mining pools have begun to implement voting systems among miners.
They have new tools that provide greater visibility on the situation to the people, encouraging them to participate and get involved in the process of crypto-government emerged.
A total of 4 attempts to generate binding agreements between industry participants have failed to produce a consensus.
Let us examine them one at a time.
By the Sacred Rear MarÃa Magdalena! A Hard Core fork!
Core's proposal of a hard fork following the deployment of SegWit ( Segregated Witness ), would involve mining 95% support before activation, coupled with a grace period of 252 days. Yes, you read that right: Total 1 year. Why would anyone on this planet needs 1 year to upgrade? Well, your reasoning is that they do not want to lose any of the nodes in the network, while avoiding any chance that someone, somewhere, lose money. The irony is that the reason they defend the grace period of nearly 1 year (keep people lose money) is exactly why others believe they do not need a period of as long grace: people do not You want to lose money. Core seems to believe that people can not take care of their own money, so they want to do for us.
Moreover, the cost of corruption a veto of 5% is too low. All parties playing in bad faith only have to pay the 5% of miners to block any changes. In fact, it does not take a bribe; it could simply be a death threat or a threat of physical harm or a company. A margin as low veto increases personal risk for miners and their families.
And finally, during the grace period (the time from the start of the countdown to the activation of the fork) power distribution hasheo can change a lot. It is even possible that the proposed change was not enough 2MB for what could happen within a year. Miners can start playing power games or new ASIC technology could be developed within one year. It is extremely dangerous that a majority control in terms of computing power to set the rules agreed facing a future that when these rules come into force, may not even be the same participants in business . I think the proposal Core developers shows some ingenuity when it takes the hard fork as a purely technical matter. A hard fork, unlike a soft fork, is an animal of economic, and financial incentives are those who play the most important role in their development. We also know too well the economy is difficult to mold and easy if economists would have done it long ago. Sometimes you just have to take reasonable parameters and allow the economy to adjust to them. Still, the fact that they are considering a proposal is already a step forward.
2000 new nodes!
With the furor over support new deployments, the Bitcoin network has seen how he numbered more than 2,000 new full nodes in the last 3 months, with a growth rate not seen since the early days of Bitcoin. This in itself is a great thing. It shows a renewed interest in Bitcoin, with people willing to dedicate resources to the network grow. Nodes that are running on Classic now exceed 30% of the total network. Core supporters, however, lend themselves to quick to say that the number of nodes does not matter. This is curious, especially when little until the fall in the number of full nodes was all he could speak .
Voting by the power of hasheo
This is one of the most exciting things that are happening. The decision to Slush Pool to introduce a voting system where the miners individually for the first time have the opportunity to express their opinion as to which client to use, made two of the largest pools of China, F2Pool and Antpool, They are seen pressured to implement their own forms of voting for their miners. Although the system still has some issues to improve this aspect of Bitcoin it is promising. I think if the pools allow the miners would express system much closer to the idea of Nakamoto 1 CPU = 1 vote. This can also help decentralization, because the difference between pools is no longer limited to the size of each pool or fees charged. Soon, the voting system that offers a pool could be a determining factor when choosing which company mining, adding a new dynamic to the competition between pools. Competition is good. Voting systems also remove the policy of the equation for operators of pools. They can simply delegate the decision to which client to use its affiliates .
Tools, and tools
Great places like CoinDance and NodeCounter have emerged to monitor the consensus process. In the early days , often he spoke of the fear of lack of means by which the economy could monitor the activation of a fork. With these new sites that show live updates of mined blocks for each implementation, network nodes and the power of hasheo, we are actually witnessing for the first time in the history of humanidas a completely free choice, without central coordination , happening in real time. -Pensad that a second. This is huge if it turns out to be the model for future elections in the world of criptomonedas. All other criptomonedas that there are currently operating under the model of "benevolent dictator". If Bitcoin can evolve beyond that point, we'll be making history . I think we are witnessing how true democracy and free choice emerge spontaneously in Bitcoin, and someday a book about the events of 2016 will be written.
'Al Ratel you sweat all cock !!
In the last year, several well - meaning representatives from Bitcoin have tried four times to organize "redonadas tables" with miners, developers and other industry participants to reach a gentleman 's agreement that zanjase the dispute. Like them, I used to think this was necessary; but I recently had an epiphany: the agreements in real life should not be necessary to keep the network running smoothly Bitcoin. If such agreements are necessary, it is that Bitcoin has failed as a consensus system . I do not say that face to face meetings are not useful, but we must avoid the temptation to reach binding agreements outside the block chain.
At the end of the day, that Bitcoin is a strong and resilient network, we need to ensure that all those involved can assert their opinion. Users they would run their own full nodes or by pressing the provider of your wallet to use some type of node. Exchanges, running their own nodes and perhaps starting their own mining operations. Mining pools, they would provide their users voting systems. The test work Nakamoto was created so that we did not have to involve politics or rely on external systems to reach a consensus . We resist the urge to go to preconception wrong and misplaced and superfluous to add a second test work Nakamoto layer. We can talk and lobby all we want in real life or around a table, but should not make decisions outside the chain. Any attempt to do so can be seen precisely as the attack of 51% for Satoshi designed a network that could resist it .
I'm anxious to see how Bitcoin will evolve in the coming months.