Topic: An open letter to the community, from the developers of Breadwallet (Read 536 times)

1. what you have yet to realise is that LN is a network that can be used without the bitcoin blockchain.
because LN allows litecoin transactions and other coins..
lets call LN an island. it allows many nations. its just right now its occupied by bitcoiners exploring the land .. it doesnt mean its only for bitcoiners. if bitcoiners leave. other nations can survive as they are allowed on the island.

2. segwit is a compatability with LN fix... maybe you should realise new/reactivated opcodes allow malleability with segwit transactions.. the devs know it. they even discussed renaming an opcode to include a warning

3. segwit is also a X4 weight manipulation. to make old transaction type appear worse then segwit when its actually segwit that are more bloated.. byte for byte
take away the 4x scale factor wishy washy herpaderp code which legacy transactions are made victim of... and that will allow legacy AND segwit to sit side by side using the full4mb weight and allowing more transactions per block than the current herpa derp wishy washy limitation

4. segwit bech32 is also an identifier change done purely to allow LN to recognise litecoin from bitcoin better(and other coins that will join LN)

anyway. seeing as most rebuttles are from people that dont read code, and just want to defend coders rather than the network

.. i know standard reply.. if i dont like the changes i can F**k off to another network (typical BORDER control reply) i guess people dont read that bitcoin meant to be borderless and should not be told to use other networks outside the border
my point is get rid of the wall that is limiting population growth and stop advertising other things outside the border as the only option people have

So you continue to maintain this total fiction that "developers control the network"?  Even though the code they produce has no power unless people choose to run it?  Cool, destroy those tattered remnants of your credibility that little bit further.  Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of consensus can recognise that you are talking nonsense.  Users and miners made this happen.  They made that choice.  Developers just provided them with the tools to do so.  So blame the users and miners (except you can't, because it doesn't fit your narrative).  Consensus made it happen, so blame consensus rather than making ludicrous claims that it was "bypassed".  That's what happens if you run incompatible code and you don't have sufficient numbers behind you.  It's designed to work that way.  If you were forked off the network as a result, that's on you.

If I didn't care about Bitcoin, I wouldn't keep challenging your manipulative FUD posts.  You think you can tell developers, users and miners what they can or can't do in a permissionless system.  As someone who cares about Bitcoin, I think it's vital for everyone to be able to make their own decisions.  You think developers should be forced to stop working on off-chain solutions and drag them kicking and screaming back to the base protocol when that's not what they want to work on.  As someone who cares about Bitcoin, I think developers are free to create anything their vision and talent can manifest, even if it's an alternative client that some would claim is an "attack", "hostile takeover", "coup", whatever (much like how you claim LN is an attack on Bitcoin).  You think you can foist undesirable changes onto nodes that do not want them.  As someone who cares about Bitcoin, I think nodes are vital to the network's resilience and we should not make things prohibitively costly for them.  

SegWit is opt-in.  Bech32 is opt-in.  Lightning is opt-in.  However, imposing greater on-chain throughput onto nodes that do not want greater on-chain throughput is NOT opt-in.  Why do you think you get to force your authoritarian views on others when there are already other chains that cater to your wishes?  That's what you're doing when you insist that we "open up the 4mb space for BOTH segwit and legacy to coexist and get the optimum 15k plus tx capacity".  There are blockchains where nodes freely choose to accept greater on-chain throughput, but that's not this chain.  It would be advantageous for you to use a chain where people share your views.  Stop pretending that you respect the decision this chain has made when all you want to do is overturn it.

Also, it takes two sides to have a disagreement.  There would not have been a fork at all if everyone agreed.  Some chose to run the code that adhered to consensus on the BTC chain, while others chose to run code that did not adhere to consensus on the BTC chain.  Sounds like freedom to me.  Why do you not apportion blame equally to both sides?  Clearly we could not reach an agreement where everyone was satisfied.  And it seems like you still can't find one long after the rest of us have moved on from this matter.  And be under no illusion that we have absolutely moved on.  So it's far better if everyone moves forward in a direction they are happy with, even if that means parting ways.  It gives people greater freedom and choice that way.

Consensus means you run the code you want to run and you will be automatically matched with other people running compatible code.  You will then build a blockchain together and ideally reap the benefits of any network effects you jointly produce.  That's how this works.  You can either adhere to consensus or you fork away and form your own consensus with others.  Whatever you believe the developers and the code did or didn't do, it doesn't really matter anymore.  It's moot and it's done.  The simple fact is that people chose to run that code and consequences happened which you seriously need to get the hell over.



Said the fascist trying to enforce things.  

Your ideas are not compatible with permissionless freedom.  I say that without emotion.  You are being emotional.  Stop whining about things you can't change and move on.

Also, start a new thread for this if you feel the need to continue.  This topic is supposed to be about breadwallet.  If users don't like the change developers have made, usage of breadwallet will naturally decrease.  It's entirely up to the users, as it should be.  There is no "forced change", as you were alluding to when you first started derailing the thread:


Name the users that have had a gun put to their heads by the breadwallet devs to force them to run this new code.  Name one.  Breadwallet may have applied pressure to some businesses to implement bech32 support, but no users are being forced to run code they don't want to run.

Yes and no. The Lightning Network is nothing but a network of user-generated channels that needs one Bitcoin on-chain transaction to open a channel and another one to close it.

Transactions are stored locally until a user decides to close the channel and broadcast its latest state like an ordinary on-chain transaction.


No one is claiming that it is.


No. Bitcoin and Ripple are separate networks that have their own separate ledgers and nodes. Lightning is not an exclusive "network" that can be used without the Bitcoin blockchain.


Define change. Segwit is a malleabilty fix.

The difference comes when you redeem the paper wallet. 1x address will surely work with all the software and you can surely send the money everywhere you want.
And as a bonus, you can also get money for a beer from the various forks.


This is interesting and I didn't know, I will study this.

history cannot change. but reminding people of history ensures they remember it if history tries repeating itself.
and if you do not care about mandatory threats and controlled upgrades that bypass consensus. then you have revealed much more about your lack of care for bitcoin and you more concern of promoting people should use other networks


and oh look you mention the social kardashian drama of someone thats not a dev and not even part of the bitcoin network, and then also including an insult..
 ........ typical response

anyway, moving on

time you did go sleep. tomorrow reign in your emotions to be concerned with the bitcoin network and how people on the bitcoin network are trying to enforce things using mandatory dated explicit consensus bypassing crap without mentioning how other networks are better or second options

You keep saying that as though it matters...

Maybe one day you'll realise it doesn't and that you're pretty much the only one who seems to care.

Repeat if in every thread for the rest of time if you like, it's not changing anything.  Much like the blockchain itself, history can't be undone.

And even if it could be undone, do you honestly think we're going to agree to roll it all back to how it was and then invite Roger Ver over for tea and sodding biscuits?   

You are literally broken in the head.  Seek help.

mandatory bilateral split
research it
P.s read previous posts.. under 40% has been mentioned many time
P.P.s  segwit has not made hard drive bytes more efficient to increase tx count per byte
P.P.P.s  transaction counts have gone DOWN on average. less people are using bitcoin.. not more. less transactors.

No.  No one has said that.  

As with all of your other lies and manipulations, it's literally just you claiming that people are saying it's utopia.  It's just you claiming that people think Bitcoin is broken.  It's just you claiming that on-chain development is being stalled.  How about you stop making claims that further reveal you to be a lying troll?



Because you keep derailing perfectly good threads.  You are the one claiming the current direction we're moving in is making BTC worse. 



Learn to read.  I didn't say it was.  I'll repeat what I said:


There are enough people who do support it to make you and your troll screed insignificant.  If enough people felt strongly enough to have opposed SegWit, we'd all be using BCH by now.  And clearly that isn't happening.  I'm sorry reality can't be more accommodating for you.

typical reaction
let certain players mandatory control the path of bitcoin. tell people the only option is to use another network

segwit is not 100% community supported
proven by the months of less than 40% activation flag requiring a mandatory action
proven by the months of less than under 24%  utilisation requiring a open letter call for enforcement

but them segwit fans want to push "enforcment" (mandatory upgrade or go play with another network)
segwit didnt get activatd via true community consensus. it got activated by the mandaty consensus bypass (buzzworded by devs themselves bilateral split)

sorry but if you are ok with bitcoin becoming a dev monarchy. then you missed the point of the ethos of bitcoin.

surprisingly though its you that love and want people to use other networks. and say innovating bitcoin network is herpa derpa

others say its utopia..
also others say its a bitcoin feature.

its a separate network.
again why are we discussing why other networks are better or worse..
talk about bitcoin and think about bitcoin network. stop emphasising other networks and promoting them.

again if your a bitcoiner you wan he bitcoin network to be strong. but if you want to talk about other networkers then your a crypto fan.

interoperability of another network. not something done on the bitcoin network.
again your promoting features of other networks.. you might aswell deposit into shapeshift. you then dont have to worry about splitting funds over multiple channels or having others raid your funds because they are on your route.. you can swap coins with a co-partner all you want.


the all or nothing. is the bitcoin network vs other networks.
a bitcoiner wants things actually on the bitcoin network.
if your ok with other networks and features being better on other networks. then go play with other networks.

i do find your comments about sorting out the bitcoin network being "herpa derpa" but defending other networks amusing

as for the respect of segwit users.
read my posts
i said open up the 4mb space for BOTH segwit and legacy to coexist and get the optimum 15k plus tx capacity
i never said lets downgrade and then only have 2-4mb legacy only.

yea i revealed segwit byte per tx inefficiency as viewed by the viewpoint of a real full validator and data archiver node. because the fact is people under promise and over promote. and utopianise something.. it needs correcting

and yes if people want to peal the banana. they can use lite wallets too.
but yea. now you are just trying to poke the bear to distract the topic.

bitcoiners should not use enforcement technique to push one side away. if they want a central enforced network. follow their own advice and they move to another network.

i am not enforcing crap. i am not releasing my own node to the network. thus i can predict u biting your lip ready to reply to make it sound like i am..

but all i am doing is waking people up the the under delivered over promised narrative of some. who are desparate to advertise other networks and even more desparate of not letting the community use real consensus.

Yes, now that your LN arguments have been obliterated, let's get back to SegWit and breadwallet.

Permissionless.  Breadwallet devs are free to design a client that only uses bech32 if that's what they believe the best course of action is.  If users don't want to have bech32 addresses, they are free to continue to run older versions of breadwallet, or even a totally different client.  

You are free to not use SegWit.  I'm sure you must know that because no one has put a gun to your head to make you use it.  It is always entirely up to you what code you install and run.  The choice is yours.  However, if lots of people choose to run software that has activated SegWit on this network, you have to respect their decision.  You don't have to agree with it (and clearly you never will), but you don't have a choice in accepting the reality that you have no say whatsoever in what code they choose to run.  If you can't abide by that, again, feel free to use other networks where SegWit has not been activated.  We won't miss you.

anyway back to the topic now the distraction of other networks is handled.

why need 100% adoption
why need everyone using segwit keys.

for full nodes (proper bitcoin data validators and archivers) segwit does not offer a byte per tx advantage

i get it. if you wanna lock funds up in another network then yea use a segwit key and go play

but for day to day onchain utility where real full data is fully validatd and fully stored. why need 100% segwit adoption.
just remove the 4x legacy wishy washy herpa derp and declare the 4mb block as open single box 4mb space for legacy and segwit to coexist in full. and have practical amount of more transaction capacity without the herpa derp

Lightning.  Is.  Not.  Even.  Close.  To.  How.  Banks.  Work.

Your confusion stems from the fact you haven't got the faintest clue how Lightning works.



You're the only person dealing in absolutes.  We're all saying development is going to continue so that both Bitcoin and LN incrementally improve over time.  You're the one who says it's all-or-nothing and everything has to be on-chain or bust.  



That's good.  Interoperability between chains is a feature, not a bug.  Atomic swaps will be good.  Why do you keep arguing good things are bad?



You're the one saying it's broke.  We think it's coming along just fine.



You go play with the "other" networks.  There are plenty of crappy forks where your primitive mindset would be more than welcome.  



Development to improve the base protocol continues.  Again, you're the only one arguing all-or-nothing.  Some developers work on Bitcoin because that's what they freely choose to work on.  Some are developing different Lightning implementations because that's what they freely choose to work on.  You are the one claiming that development on the base protocol is being stalled, which is a total fabrication on your part.
  


You can't force them to "return", you fascist twunt.  Permissionless.  They can do whatever they like.  



You have BCH for that.  You constantly fail to answer every time I ask you:

What is the point in having two BCHs?  

You want larger blocks?  You've got them.  Go play with them.  Leave us in peace.  The scientific approach is to test multiple theories, not repeat the same idea on every fork.  If you think the "real" Bitcoin is purely on-chain, use that network that likes to pretend it's the real Bitcoin (but doesn't have the numbers behind it to back that claim).  
 


The only thing that's dead around here is your credibility.

i know we are all frustrated. we all thought we found the red pill to the banking matrix. to then be told there is a wonderland for alice but it just leads back to how banks work. i understand the frustrations.

i understand the path of frustrations
banks have broke use bitcoin
bitcoins broke use LN
LN's broke but bitcoin is broke and expensive use an alt (thats next stage: dont get ur gold out fortknox. have some nickel coins instead)

yes i know the devs are pushing people in circles and into new rabbit holes that promise wonderlands leading to more rabbit holes

maybe first its best you use LN. and not for the one time utopian scenario of everyone needing to be online is online for that 1 time blissful experience of seeing them say yes in milliseconds. but seeing the flaws.

LN is not a sole feature for only bitcoin.
imagine it this way.
your a stunt driver. you have a bitcoin car. but you want to drive a lightning car and test it out. it has all the bitcoin and litecoin and other altcoin sponsorship stickers on the lightning car and has been promoted as the fastest car there is
but to drive it. you need to put your bitcoin car up as collatoral for insurance purposes and lock it up in a factory.

and now you can drive the lightning car... but remember its not your car. your driving a different car and have a navigator sat beside you.
your car is locked away in a factory of lightning.. it too is not on the lightning track or able to move on the bitcoin network.

the car your driving is not on the bitcoin road network. its on its own separate track.
you no longer have the only set of keys to your bitcoin car.

actually play it out in real world scenario of a month.
preplanning spending habits to know whats best to deposit.
spreading it across channels
knowing others will spend your funds because your on their route
people not always being online
people not always being well funded

the LN dev admit there are flaws. its about time the community admit it to and stop promoting it the wonderland to alice.

remember its just a vehicle. and other people will use that vehicle. people from litecoin town will use the vehicle.

as for those that think bitcoin is broke the whole emotion that bitcoin needs a different network is a massive facepalm.
if you want to concede and think bitcoin is broke and needs another network. the go play with another network.

meanwhile those that actually care about the bitcoin network will concentrate on the bitcoin network. not trying to make other networks better, but call out where bitcoin devs are causing issues

so before hitting the reply in frustration at me. take a step back. have some coffee. and relax.
actually think about these questions.

a. do you want to concede that bitcoin is broke and needs people to move away from bitcoin and use other networks like LN rootstock and bakkt
b. would you rather have all the devs return and only innovate the bitcoin blockchain for pure bitcoin mainnet utility. or promote other networks and let bitcoin stagnate to make these other networks look good

take a deeper step back and really ask
is the whole bloat up a new tx format to peal off a few bytes and hide them elsewhere.. and then 4* legacy tx's to make the pealable tx format look better and all the other convoluted code any less 'herpa durpa' then just allowing segwit AND legacy to fully use the 4mb area the devs now say is ok...

get rid of the 4x wishy washy tweaking and just treat the bytes of a legacy as a bytes. and the bytes of a full segwit as bytes and just let the network have extra capacity. upto a lean 15k+ instead of 6k+ and then grow the capacity over time.
(unless your going to cry that livestreaming and playing HD online gaming running around, firing at targets while also on teamspeak is broke because millions of people cant.. blah blah blah false arguments about internet limitations and computer limitations of pretending we are in the 1990's floppydisk era)

P.S
you can buy coffee without needing multiple co-sign channels and without multiple tx's onchain.. its called buy a starbucks giftcard as then your just in a simple partnership with stabucks spendin what you need without the headache of others raiding your funds on your route or needing to watch raw tx data incase the partner makes you sign something by mistake

but hey if you want to keep thinking bitcoin is dead and the only option is other networks. you go play that game.

And apart from "herp derp blocksize increase", how would you have created a better LN?  You keep saying that everything about Lightning is wrong (and many disagree with you, but that's not the point).  What do you have to offer to make LN better?  Clearly Lightning is not going away, so what constructive contributions can you offer in your infinite wisdom?  If all you can do is suggest things that don't help improve Lightning, what function do you serve? 

Yes, part of the security model is that both parties have to agree on what the current state is.  Would you prefer it if the other party could send you transactions you hadn't agreed to in an attemp to trick you into spending from an older state?  Is that how LN would work if franky1 was in charge?  Of course not.  So stop trying to paint useful security features as a flaw, you manipulative weasel.

1&2 coinbase is not bitcoin but a service built ontop of bitcoin. they also use other altcoins.
LN and coinbase can survive without bitcoin. they simply just trade litecoins instead if something happened to bitcoin.
it is not dependant on bitcoin.

litcoin traders will use it and never touch bitcoin and it functions. OMG shock horror, right. litecoin using LN and not need bitcoin..

bitcoin nodes could if LN became too malicious not use LN..
i get what your saying, they want it to be tagged as the solution/child of bitcoin (lots of fame and promo oppertunities by doing so.). but thats like a bank saying its gold... and we all know all banks do these days is play with paper.

as for the belief that you have 100% control you dont. you say that you can cash out.. well your co-signer can too..
and guess what. they can send your previous transaction out. because they needed to sign a previous one of yours.. and then they can because you gave them the revocation. they can then send out a current one with the revocation and spend the funds that you think you own(but never did).. and lets jsut call it what it is.. "chargeback".

you are in a mutually assured distruction multisig where you are both tied to each other.. with which devs are still trying to patch up.. lots of buggy opportunities to rip each other off with due to the mutual relationship of LN

and LN devs know of the issues its why they warn you to only use low amounts as there is risks you can lose what you put in
if you had 100% you cant lose.. obviously

i find it funny people think you retain 100% control.
if you ever did then the other person wont know if your spending funds secretly elsewhere..
it needs to be co-signed to prevent you spending elsewhere.

but anyway. research watchtowers and factories and you will see the % control decrease even further.

1&2. LN is not bitcoin but a network that is build on top of bitcoin and relies on bitcoin and the blockchain of it. the fact that other altcoins use it doesn't make it any less true.
it uses multisig but you still are in full control of your funds. you can take it out anytime you wanted to. that "permission" that you need to get your bitcoin's out is granted to you when you open the channel and when the balance changes like after spending or receiving funds and you can use the already signed transaction to "cash out" or make the on-chain transaction closing the channel and taking your money out.

3. i don't know about it to deny or admit

i am not visiting reddit by the way...