Answer the question, guys.
You stand to become much richer if you back Gavin Andresen's plans, launched as an altcoin. You could be 5% each of the entire GavinCoin market cap, and you've had months and months to prove how superior Gavin's coin is, by launching it. So why are you not doing that?
Topic: A few lines of code... - page 2. (Read 1292 times)
Sounds like a massive gap in the market is opneing up, then.
The question is: why don't any of the above complainers want to own +1000x their share of BTC in GavinCoin? Isn't it more logical to let Bitcoin fail, and instead own a larger amount of a superior asset?
Listen dumbass - SegWit and Lightning ARE the alts!!!! Bitcoin, the original Bitcoin Didn't have segWit bullshit, off-chain bullshit, or even 1MB block limits. The question is: why don't any of the above complainers want to own +1000x their share of BTC in GavinCoin? Isn't it more logical to let Bitcoin fail, and instead own a larger amount of a superior asset?
The real Bitcoin got hijacked by assholes that are trying to shove their crap on top of the original. The original works fine and the original anticipated 8MB (and greater) blocks.
The fucking alt is Blockstream/SegWit/Lightning/Thermos/Maxwell
Sounds like a massive gap in the market is opneing up, then.
The question is: why don't any of the above complainers want to own +1000x their share of BTC in GavinCoin? Isn't it more logical to let Bitcoin fail, and instead own a larger amount of a superior asset?
The question is: why don't any of the above complainers want to own +1000x their share of BTC in GavinCoin? Isn't it more logical to let Bitcoin fail, and instead own a larger amount of a superior asset?
lol carlton you have lost all arguments, misunderstood all the tech and all you can do is make fake doomsdays to make everyone that is not friendly to gmaxwell look like they are doing what gmaxwell is doing.
you have no clue.
we all know you love gmaxwell and will follow him to the end of the earth, but can you just skip a few stages and just go play with his altcoin. which is the obvious end goal for you, because its obvious you dont care about bitcoin.
I'm of the view that anyone is free to modify and run whatever code they wish. That means I'm absolutely fine with people testing the waters with proposals like SegWit and Lightning, but by the same token, that also means alternative clients that propose changes to the blocksize are equally acceptable. Complaining about one and not the other would be highly hypocritical. Further, it just results in the usual 'Side A' vs 'Side B' spats we frequently witness on the forums and no one is willing to compromise. Anyone who thinks they can dictate what code people should and shouldn't run is more than welcome to use a closed-source coin and leave Bitcoin alone.
But are you equally fine with a commercial entity like Blockstream having undue influence of key Core devs who continuously push out others like Mike Hearn, Gavin, Ver et al so they can push an inferior and proprietary scaling solution like Lightning into effect where a good free alternative exists? G.Maxwell has vigorously dreamed up reasons why blocks >1Mb can't be used when Satoshi always intended on chain scaling and much bigger blocks. Maxwell needs this 1Mb limit to drive demand for Lightning. G.Max also needs SegWit to make Lightning work. Segwit yields a tiny capacity improvement with heavy overhead and new attack vectors.
It's certainly a concern. There are some highly undesirable scenarios that could arise if development becomes fully centralised behind a commercial entity that lawmakers could easily gain leverage over. I'd hope that people would be wary of the potential for government approved code, but would still defend people's right to run it if that's what they really wanted. I don't think Blockstream are the devil, but at the same time, I don't want them to be in full control of development.
Sounds like a massive gap in the market is opneing up, then.
The question is: why don't any of the above complainers want to own +1000x their share of BTC in GavinCoin? Isn't it more logical to let Bitcoin fail, and instead own a larger amount of a superior asset?
The question is: why don't any of the above complainers want to own +1000x their share of BTC in GavinCoin? Isn't it more logical to let Bitcoin fail, and instead own a larger amount of a superior asset?
Yep. Lightning is a very interesting alternative money system with loads of complexities and unknowns. However, it is not Bitcoin. It is something else entirely.
Agreed. Very different set of principles and rules apply to the LN than the original BTC network....
I signed up for BTC network rules, NOT LN.
I'm of the view that anyone is free to modify and run whatever code they wish. That means I'm absolutely fine with people testing the waters with proposals like SegWit and Lightning, but by the same token, that also means alternative clients that propose changes to the blocksize are equally acceptable. Complaining about one and not the other would be highly hypocritical. Further, it just results in the usual 'Side A' vs 'Side B' spats we frequently witness on the forums and no one is willing to compromise. Anyone who thinks they can dictate what code people should and shouldn't run is more than welcome to use a closed-source coin and leave Bitcoin alone.
But are you equally fine with a commercial entity like Blockstream having undue influence of key Core devs who continuously push out others like Mike Hearn, Gavin, Ver et al so they can push an inferior and proprietary scaling solution like Lightning into effect where a good free alternative exists? G.Maxwell has vigorously dreamed up reasons why blocks >1Mb can't be used when Satoshi always intended on chain scaling and much bigger blocks. Maxwell needs this 1Mb limit to drive demand for Lightning. G.Max also needs SegWit to make Lightning work. Segwit yields a tiny capacity improvement with heavy overhead and new attack vectors.
I'm of the view that anyone is free to modify and run whatever code they wish. That means I'm absolutely fine with people testing the waters with proposals like SegWit and Lightning, but by the same token, that also means alternative clients that propose changes to the blocksize are equally acceptable. Complaining about one and not the other would be highly hypocritical. Further, it just results in the usual 'Side A' vs 'Side B' spats we frequently witness on the forums and no one is willing to compromise. Anyone who thinks they can dictate what code people should and shouldn't run is more than welcome to use a closed-source coin and leave Bitcoin alone.
Yep. Lightning is a very interesting alternative money system with loads of complexities and unknowns. However, it is not Bitcoin. It is something else entirely.
Changing a few lines of code to remove a temporary limit (1MB) is a tiny change to return to the original bitcoin.
SegWit is a ridiculous AltCoin. Segwit is a piece of garbage that barely improves transaction bandwidth and comes with a very high price of having to recode a bunch of stuff for all users/wallets/etc.
How in the world did anyone every believe SegWit was a good thing?
We need 8MB now. Let's get back to the original bitcoin.
SegWit is a ridiculous AltCoin. Segwit is a piece of garbage that barely improves transaction bandwidth and comes with a very high price of having to recode a bunch of stuff for all users/wallets/etc.
How in the world did anyone every believe SegWit was a good thing?
We need 8MB now. Let's get back to the original bitcoin.
Jump to: