all UASF promises is to keep pushing the cludgy 2 merkle code until late 2018
no plan B. just plan A or plan A+riding a nuke
Topic: An Open Letter to Bitcoin Miners – Jonald Fyookball (Read 2230 times)
http://www.uasf.co/
Evvvrybodi caalm dawwn.
SegWit is on its way, no need to worry. BU shills are panicking because they have little time left to fool around till Aug/01/2017. After that time point, they won't be able to fool anybody. And hopefully, we won't be seeing their faces around here ever again.
Evvvrybodi caalm dawwn.
SegWit is on its way, no need to worry. BU shills are panicking because they have little time left to fool around till Aug/01/2017. After that time point, they won't be able to fool anybody. And hopefully, we won't be seeing their faces around here ever again.
{ clasps hands together and prays to Albert Einstein.. please.. god.. }
..
bit scared..
..
'I used to bullseye womp rats in my T-16 back home. They're not much bigger than two meters.' - Skywalker
Physical gold is still the best and will be the best year after year month after month.....bitcoin is just like paper one day its there and one days its not.
http://www.uasf.co/
Evvvrybodi caalm dawwn.
SegWit is on its way, no need to worry. BU shills are panicking because they have little time left to fool around till Aug/01/2017. After that time point, they won't be able to fool anybody. And hopefully, we won't be seeing their faces around here ever again.
Evvvrybodi caalm dawwn.
SegWit is on its way, no need to worry. BU shills are panicking because they have little time left to fool around till Aug/01/2017. After that time point, they won't be able to fool anybody. And hopefully, we won't be seeing their faces around here ever again.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Right now it is showing 33.5% support for SegWit and 41.0% support for BU. None of the proposals are anywhere near the 95% support which is needed for their implementation. So what lies ahead?
Likely this:https://twitter.com/barrysilbert/status/865076196845006848
Segwit will be locked in...
lol. come on dude... These tweets are retarded.
It's like saying "40% of people say they like red cars, and 40% of people say they like blue cars... so therefore 80% of people support purple cars!"
Right now it is showing 33.5% support for SegWit and 41.0% support for BU. None of the proposals are anywhere near the 95% support which is needed for their implementation. So what lies ahead?
Likely this:https://twitter.com/barrysilbert/status/865076196845006848
Segwit will be locked in...
Right now it is showing 33.5% support for SegWit and 41.0% support for BU. None of the proposals are anywhere near the 95% support which is needed for their implementation. So what lies ahead?
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Because I have little technical knowledge, reading the @OP article I only can speak as a user. Increasing the block size, imo, will not solve the spam attack problem and may be will be worse than it is now. I agree with the view I recently read in the forum here.
It is true that no amount of blockspace would stop spam transactions.
But the spam attack becomes much easier/cheaper when blocks are already full to almost full, because it barely costs anything to tip things from almost full to overflowing, even while paying minimal fees that are allowed into a mempool. Conversely, with a large amount of space, spammers would have to constantly fill up that space block after block in order to have an impact, and pay a lot of fees for it.
Thanks for backing Segwit and UASF as the only way forward to actually give cheap tx again. Glad you have woken up from your delusions of being even a tiny bit correct about anything you've ever uttered.
lol...
you should really read what Greg Maxwell says about trying to do a UASF for Segwit
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/014152.html
paraphrasing: it almost guarantees a certain level of disruption.
I even doubt they will go through with it, its too insane.
After doing some research by myself, i see Segwit running great on Lightcoin. I think the keypairs issue is just a storm in a glass of water.
Segwit is ready for Bitcoin, dont worry Frank.
Segwit is ready for Bitcoin, dont worry Frank.
then go ask gmaxwell to tell BTCC to make a segwit block with a segwit TX right now.
show how backward compatible it is to give confidence to pools to flag..
...
wait that wont happen
gmax wont just release the segwit keypair wallet version before activation
gmax wont let a pool just make a block while other pools are making native blocks
gmax wont let native nodes see unconfirmed segwit tx's
Well, if that is a critical issue i advice you to make contact with Core/LightCoin dev's about youre concern. They're testing it atm, this will be the moment for it to how to fix it. We'll be gratefull.
i did..
EG last april i spotted the anyonecanspend issue..
their response.
ridicule me for months..
facepalm themselves after that when they realised.
then do a cheap cludgy work around create/plan the tier network to prevent native nodes from getting relayed unconfirmed segwit tx's after activation..
problem then, nothing stopped a malicious person MANUALLY copying a unconfirmed segwit TX from a segwit node mempool and then messing with it.. in a native node
to which the workaround was to not allow keypair utility until after activation and so that they can then drop accepting native blocks from being mined to prevent malicious uses of my previous sentence as part of the tier activation.
but there are still issues with that too.
it just keep going on and on and on.. core have opened up more attack vectors with their cludgy soft segwit, than there were this time in 2015 pre segwit announcement
the ultimate solution is a 1merkle peer network (not a 2merkblock block in a block on a tier network of stripped/unstripped blocks) which has a lot of other features the community want to.. and done in a manner of a full node and pool consensus upgrade event.
where by everyone gets what they want.. a real main blocksize increase and other features along with the opt in stuff like segwit/ln..
rather than the cludge that leads people into using LN by force due to soo many issues onchain
After doing some research by myself, i see Segwit running great on Lightcoin. I think the keypairs issue is just a storm in a glass of water.
Segwit is ready for Bitcoin, dont worry Frank.
Because I have little technical knowledge, reading the @OP article I only can speak as a user. Increasing the block size, imo, will not solve the spam attack problem and may be will be worse than it is now. I agree with the view I recently read in the forum here.
It is true that no amount of blockspace would stop spam transactions.
But the spam attack becomes much easier/cheaper when blocks are already full to almost full, because it barely costs anything to tip things from almost full to overflowing, even while paying minimal fees that are allowed into a mempool. Conversely, with a large amount of space, spammers would have to constantly fill up that space block after block in order to have an impact, and pay a lot of fees for it.
Thanks for backing Segwit and UASF as the only way forward to actually give cheap tx again. Glad you have woken up from your delusions of being even a tiny bit correct about anything you've ever uttered.
guess you dont know what segwit is 25hashcoin..
imagine it like a plane where the olden days people needed to buy 2 seats. one for their ass and one for their hand luggage..
segwit tx's still need to sit in the base block(plane seats) tooo... just to be able to put their luggage up in the overhead baggage area(weight).. just let other tx's sit where their baggage used to be
just having segwit activated does not mean an entire segwit tx can just sit in the baggage area.. and get 75% discount.
they still have to play with the native/legacy tx's to fight for seats of the base block!!!
this is where the 2009 7tx's (4500seats) hope never occured because on average 2250 people bought 2 seats for themselves and their baggage..
(tx's hav nevr been lean to sit in just 1 sat to actively get 4500 tx's into a block(plane)
what you also dont realise is for segwit to even have the slightest chance of making a tx capacity improvement. the majority of people need to move funds to segwit keys(buy special single tickets that promise to not use up 2 seats), which means millions of outputs need to move (to new plane tickets).. which means more mempool filling up. which means fees go up with all the drama (of changing tickets)
so say fee's are now $2..
with all the drama of moving to segwit keys.. may bring the price up to $8 then with native keys still spamming(fillings seats), the base block(plane) wont be 100% full of segwit tx but lets say 10-20%. meaning only 5-10% transaction capacity increase
and those lucky few that do get a seat and volunteered not to use up another seat for baggage. still end up paying $2 because the drama has gone on so long the prices went up that their 'discount' is only rolling back the prices of 6 months prior
Because I have little technical knowledge, reading the @OP article I only can speak as a user. Increasing the block size, imo, will not solve the spam attack problem and may be will be worse than it is now. I agree with the view I recently read in the forum here.
It is true that no amount of blockspace would stop spam transactions.
But the spam attack becomes much easier/cheaper when blocks are already full to almost full, because it barely costs anything to tip things from almost full to overflowing, even while paying minimal fees that are allowed into a mempool. Conversely, with a large amount of space, spammers would have to constantly fill up that space block after block in order to have an impact, and pay a lot of fees for it.
Thanks for backing Segwit and UASF as the only way forward to actually give cheap tx again. Glad you have woken up from your delusions of being even a tiny bit correct about anything you've ever uttered.
so several days have passed, any result of your kneeling down before your chinese overlords?
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Because I have little technical knowledge, reading the @OP article I only can speak as a user. Increasing the block size, imo, will not solve the spam attack problem and may be will be worse than it is now. I agree with the view I recently read in the forum here.
It is true that no amount of blockspace would stop spam transactions.
But the spam attack becomes much easier/cheaper when blocks are already full to almost full, because it barely costs anything to tip things from almost full to overflowing, even while paying minimal fees that are allowed into a mempool. Conversely, with a large amount of space, spammers would have to constantly fill up that space block after block in order to have an impact, and pay a lot of fees for it.
Because I have little technical knowledge, reading the @OP article I only can speak as a user. Increasing the block size, imo, will not solve the spam attack problem and may be will be worse than it is now. I agree with the view I recently read in the forum here.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1004
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
already translated into chinese
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzIxNTA0NDQzMA==&mid=2651798531&idx=1&sn=25746c81f25d9fe4dec676605a204e69&chksm=8c65c422bb124d34c2ae9bb7698ac5037b75cfca12882ad2a38213e9e4a389f2741a1a545837#rd
and being re-tweeted by major companies
https://twitter.com/spair/status/864523737055580160
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzIxNTA0NDQzMA==&mid=2651798531&idx=1&sn=25746c81f25d9fe4dec676605a204e69&chksm=8c65c422bb124d34c2ae9bb7698ac5037b75cfca12882ad2a38213e9e4a389f2741a1a545837#rd
and being re-tweeted by major companies
https://twitter.com/spair/status/864523737055580160
Dumbest shit article ever. A troll writing a medium.com article does not give it any more credibility. Idiots.
The article was an interesting read. I probably wouldn't have found it unless it was posted here, however seems like posting something like this here will lead to a bit of unproductive discussion...
Each scaling solution has some level of support from miners because what they perceive to be their own interests often varies. There's no accurate way to judge what's in the miners' best interests.
If they do nothing they screw themselves over. Obviously they can milk a lack of scaling for a long time but not forever.
Miners do have an incentive to scale: collect more fees in each block. By the looks of things right now, people would quickly fill bigger blocks.
It comes down to what miners prefer, "half a dozen" of transactions with a hefty fee or many transactions with a small fee. I think the second one is the smart and long-term way to go and if I had a mining operation that's what I would choose for.
Don't forget that miners have more to lose than just transaction fees. If Bitcoin doesn't scale and goes nowhere, they're done, no more profit for them. Do you think they'd like this?
Why is Jonald Fyookball's opinion so important these days? Who is he or she? I cannot see why any of the sides will ever come together... no
matter what they say in open letters. The miners are driven by greed.... NO scaling benefit them now, because they can milk the users for higher
fees and nothing will change their minds. We {full node} users make decisions based on the quality of the code.... not who these people are.
Miners do have an incentive to scale - their incentive is to avoid screwing up the network and stopping people from sending transactions.matter what they say in open letters. The miners are driven by greed.... NO scaling benefit them now, because they can milk the users for higher
fees and nothing will change their minds. We {full node} users make decisions based on the quality of the code.... not who these people are.
Each scaling solution has some level of support from miners because what they perceive to be their own interests often varies. There's no accurate way to judge what's in the miners' best interests.
If they do nothing they screw themselves over. Obviously they can milk a lack of scaling for a long time but not forever.
Miners do have an incentive to scale: collect more fees in each block. By the looks of things right now, people would quickly fill bigger blocks.
It comes down to what miners prefer, "half a dozen" of transactions with a hefty fee or many transactions with a small fee. I think the second one is the smart and long-term way to go and if I had a mining operation that's what I would choose for.
Don't forget that miners have more to lose than just transaction fees. If Bitcoin doesn't scale and goes nowhere, they're done, no more profit for them. Do you think they'd like this?
Why is Jonald Fyookball's opinion so important these days? Who is he or she? I cannot see why any of the sides will ever come together... no
matter what they say in open letters. The miners are driven by greed.... NO scaling benefit them now, because they can milk the users for higher
fees and nothing will change their minds. We {full node} users make decisions based on the quality of the code.... not who these people are.
matter what they say in open letters. The miners are driven by greed.... NO scaling benefit them now, because they can milk the users for higher
fees and nothing will change their minds. We {full node} users make decisions based on the quality of the code.... not who these people are.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. After all you can type:
Why is so&so's opinion so important these days?
Leaving no one to have an opinion.
Do you live in North Korea by any chance?
Why is Jonald Fyookball's opinion so important these days? Who is he or she? I cannot see why any of the sides will ever come together... no
matter what they say in open letters. The miners are driven by greed.... NO scaling benefit them now, because they can milk the users for higher
fees and nothing will change their minds. We {full node} users make decisions based on the quality of the code.... not who these people are.
Miners do have an incentive to scale - their incentive is to avoid screwing up the network and stopping people from sending transactions.matter what they say in open letters. The miners are driven by greed.... NO scaling benefit them now, because they can milk the users for higher
fees and nothing will change their minds. We {full node} users make decisions based on the quality of the code.... not who these people are.
Each scaling solution has some level of support from miners because what they perceive to be their own interests often varies. There's no accurate way to judge what's in the miners' best interests.
If they do nothing they screw themselves over. Obviously they can milk a lack of scaling for a long time but not forever.
Jump to: