Topic: 1MB block size forever is just silly - page 2. (Read 4292 times)

If I'm wrong please correct me, centralized bitcoin means majority of hashrate owners nodes runners always decide what to do.
Now they are doing as they wish and they care for the success of bitcoin but they also want more power and more profit.
They are heavily invested and wont back down and know that every one using bitcoin is either invested like themselves to avoid risking large amounts over higher fees or are just average users with no impact on economy if stayed or left.

I want to point out something, when US and RU see they are somewhat equal in military power, what they do? they simply try backstabbing each other by soft wars, sanctions, using veto etc.

In this community is exactly the same, as there are Core(US)- BU(RU)- and others are like China and other countries, even though they share similar interests(in our case they all want to have more power over blockchain and support bitcoin but non of them is willing to compromise for the sake of the bitcoin's future.) 

That has no relevance to my post. You are either a very bad troll or you've become delusional.

Pretty impossible with people like mr. 'franky1', as you can see above.

first please learn the difference between consensus and bilateral splits.

then you will realise soft or hard both have best case consensus and both have worst case bilateral.

when mentioning hard. in simple terms is NODES first then pools follow
when mentioning soft. in simple terms POOLS first then NODES follow(if they choose to want to become fullnodes again)

soft gives pools too much power.
hard does not give pools too much power.

please learn the basics. it doesnt require knowledge of C++ to learn these basic concepts and terms. which makes things easier for you.
it has been months since i first asked you and your buddy to learn the basics which should have taken 20-30 minutes to grasp.

why are you not bothered to learn about bitcoin?

We get it
You think Blockstream is New world order and all that stuff
Let's get back to topic, shall we?

CB yet again falsely suggesting non-core want to fork

last month it was
"no its dangerous they should not fork" - they never were going to anyway
now this month
"hurry up and fo a fork" - they never were going to anyway.

please learn consensus CB.

so
satoshi qt the original tribe.. then in 2013 another tribe within the pre-existing tribe starts, call it core.. which then tribals off again in 2014 as blockstream.. with 'white chief poking-bear' as tribal leader
then label the dissenters (those that are not core /blockstream but were old qt) as the invaders is immoral.

i think CB doesnt understand the word ironic, otherwise he would realise he is defending the immoral tribe he tries to describe.

why is it blockstream defenders play the victim card by doing the exact thing they point at others. especially when its obvious that al they care about is tribal leaders and not the whole bitcoin community

Great idea: try to start a tribe.... inside a pre-existing tribe, then label the dissenters as invaders. These people are past immoral

If decentralized routing is to be implemented as planned, the part "to the same person" becomes incorrect. All transactions on LN would be cheaper and faster. However, I'm not currently informed on the status of decentralized routing.

Since when is this a LN thread? If we are going in-depth about LN, then we are going far away from the subject. I also do not have an answer for your question, although I could ask for it. Please do not listen to the pseudo-science post that is coming from some of the trolls. They are probably lurking around.

Quite ironic, isn't it?

It's faster and cheaper for repeated payments to and from the same person, sure, but that's not relevant to every transaction.  And when someone wants to settle on-chain to send those coins to someone else not using lightning, you'll still have to wait for a block when you close the payment channel and settle before you can spend those coins elsewhere.    

I also wouldn't mind some clarification regarding which party pays the miner fee when the balance is settled on-chain.  I don't see people discussing that in great detail.  The whitepaper states that:


If the fees are held in advance, how is one supposed to know what the appropriate fee will actually be by the time the channel is closed?  

It's really simple: don't turn up into Bitcoin, proposing to change the parts of Bitcoin that keep Bitcoin safe, then accuse the original Bitcoiners of tribalism when they dare to voice opposition! You're retarded if you really believe this nonsense

Yes, thank you. It's late in the morning...My sentience fades.

Huh? Mining nodes are incentivized by the subsidy and the accompanying TX fees. I think you meant to say, non-mining nodes?

Maybe a few more are decent? Don't really have the patience to sift through all the crap ones though.

I think we'll eventually want to incentivize mining nodes or even have to when the blockchain becomes less weildly.

There is a very slim chance to gain consensus on something like that IMO.

Wrong. Once you are actually on LN, i.e. you have locked in funds, transacting is both faster and cheaper[/b] than doing so on-chain.

Looks like you're uninformed about this troll. He does sometimes have some valid points, but that's it.

Because trolls and FUDers post nonsense about it. You've seen an example above my previous post (franky) and below it (kiklo).

You must be joking. Nobody reasonable wants these shitcoins. Out of a 1000, maybe 2 are decent.

I can promise you that LN would be dead in the water if there was even a remote chance of fractional reserve or an increase in the total coin cap.  It's one of those red lines that consensus will never cross.  You won't be able to settle a total on the blockchain greater than that which was initially locked.  All coins can be traced back to their coinbase origin, while sums created through fraction reserve would not have such an origin to be traceable to.  Network rules wouldn't accept or validate a transaction where the output was greater than the input and the additional coins appeared from nowhere.  Miners and nodes will never accept those particular rules changing.



Go be bored somewhere else, then.  All you have left is an endless barrage of insults and a tribalist mentality that causes unnecessary friction and polarisation.  Anyone who isn't with you is against you and there's no happy middle-ground or compromise.  I've already said we should implement SegWit and also have Lightning as an option where it's appropriate, but you still just want to attack everything and everyone if anyone even dares to utter the word 'blocksize'.  Triggered much?

And no, I'm not going to conveniently disappear in the event of a controversial hardfork, because I would much rather see a unified approach where the majority agree where the blocksize limit should be set and we all move forward together.  You're the proud bannerman of the fork-off brigade who takes great delight in the prospect of one tribal group crushing the other.  Admittedly there may have been periods where I was sick of your (and ice, brg, davout, hdbuck, etc's) hardliner crap and thought maybe it would be best if two chains went their separate ways, but I'd rather see unity.  I will continue to call for compromise and a consensual fork, not a bilateral split.  And even in the event of a split, I certainly won't be shorting any chains.  I'm afraid whatever happens you're stuck with me.  

Agreed, we have been sitting at 1MB for way too long already and it's holding bitcoin back by a lot.   
We are years behind because of it, and altcoins will overtake bitcoin if we keep the 1MB bitcoin for a while longer.

Somebody needs a nap, you seem a little cranky.  



 

It's a fact, and both you, me and the rest of the honest forum members know it.

You're lying. You know Franky is not debating honestly, and that you do not debate honestly either. That's why you and the rest of your cronies will lose: your words will prove themselves to be false when the Bitcoin Unlimited train actually leaves the station. You will scurry away into the darkness, never to be seen again when BU implodes, of course, because your dishonesty will be proven.

So hurry the fuck up and get your fork over with, the constant droning of your lies is not worrying or irritating, it's just boring.

No it is not real BTC on LN,

LN freezes the amount of BTC on the BTC onchain network,
what is transferred on LN (offchain) is a representation of that value.
(No Different that when Banks allowed people to trade cash for gold.
The Gold is held somewhere else and the Cash is a representation of that amount of Gold.
Only redeemable upon request.)
IE: Banking (there is no difference between it & LN)

And here is the kicker, if LN is only a representation of a BTC, it is only a matter of time before a fractional BTC onchain is represented by more offchain on LN.
This becomes possible once LN can calculate how many people never remove their Locks on the BTC frozen on the BTC onchain network.
Study the history of Banking , this is exactly how they started.  

   


FYI:  http://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/6970/when-was-fractional-reserve-banking-introduced

LN          = Goldsmiths, (which became Banks)
LN Coins =  Notes
BTC        =  Gold

Just History repeating itself.  

Whatever you say, Carlton.  Anything to set the narrative that anyone who disagrees with you has to be a troll and have nefarious motives.  I suppose I should be used to it by now, but it's no less disappointing each time you do it.  Less personal attacks and character assassinations, please.



Now, see, I wouldn't go to this extreme either.  It's not that black and white.  Plus, it is still real BTC, just lifted temporarily off-chain until settled again.  There is no fractional reserve in play, nor should there ever be.  LN has its place and it should be implemented, that's a reasonable standpoint, but at the same time, it's not a substitute for on-chain scaling and no one should be forced into using it.  They're all individual elements of an overall scaling solution.  Again, everything and the kitchen sink.