Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 5. (Read 46564 times)

I haven't read yet about the connection of Blockstream and PwC. Are PwC financing Blockstream? If so then what's the problem? As long as the code is open source and they don't do stupid shit (like clearly becoming anti privacy like Bitcoin XT and so on) who cares the money comes from as long as it's used for the betterment of Bitcoin. I wish Jamie Dimon used his billions to fund Bitcoin development instead of being a dick.

So you're saying that the majority of the community has good IT knowledge? I said nothing wrong, it is well known that the majority of the people in general have very limited knowledge. The problem here is that people are living in denial. Once you call them out on it, they attack you. Just the toxicity of the ecosystem (which was definitely not present until these takeover attempts appeared and Blockstream suddenly became "evil").

Bro, how can he not talk down to this ignorant community when the yokels refuse to deffer to his [albeit only self-proclaimed] expertise?
Do you even Gaem Theorie?

It's perfectly reasonable to reply with an ad hominem when you talk down to the community like that. You threw logic out of the window when you went down that path.

This must be a joke? Segwit is also needed for LN and it brings many needed fixes along with it. This is just an example. I don't see any proposal that is solely for LN and that has no other uses?

So your answer is ad hominem? Most people here have minimum IT knowledge and their concerns are often a waste of time and a result of listening to propaganda. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. You would just never admit it.

You bet - they dont seem concerned one bit with promoting an incomplete concept as a defined solution. Many of the changes being forced into Bitcoin *today* are supposed to be required to enable LN - but as you have stated above we are nowhere near knowing exactly how it is going to do what it does.

In telecoms we call what LN is trying to do "correlation" - i.e taking high frequency, low value traffic and generating lower volume, high value data streams instead.  The methods proposed by Blockstream so far, while not impossible, are far from optimal and will prove an absolute bugger to deploy.

But why all the "we must do X now so that LN will work"?


I'd contend that your comment is more a reflection of your own ignorance than the alleged ignorance of anyone taking the time to look into it and voice a concern.

Then the author would have not mentioned it in a post about LN. Something is off.

Exactly. While there are some engineering challenges to be solved nobody informed is seriously concerned with path finding. Also people could develop their own version of LN with everything listed there being "fixed". That's where the problem lies. Most people in this community have no skills or skills that are mostly useless and thus we just see them make hyperbolic complaints (out of boredom maybe?).

I understand that and this discussion is useless to me, so there's no need to continue.

GPUs? This is a troll post right? 

All I'm saying is that bitcoin can be viewed as different things, depending the time you live in.

If you live in 1995, it could be "impossible"
If you live in 2015, it could be "problematic to scale"
If you live in 2035, it could be "fantastic"

...and the basic algorithm could be practically the same, the only thing that will have changed is the way the hardware and networks have gone upwards in capabilities by 1000x to 10000x.

So the problems are not necessarily "inherent" to bitcoin, but rather a result of a software-hardware-network ...equation.

Obviously, by improving the software right now we can do more with scaling. For example I was reading about ASICs doing the validation. Well, why ASICs and not GPUs for start? This should be relatively easy to port, with opencl and stuff - so it would allow cpu+gpu to be exploited for max performance. The processing part could take a boost there for sure because GPUs are much much faster.

As for storage, that's where we'll need a breakthrough I suspect. Compression will probably be one that gives serious gains (a simple gzip on a ~130mb block.dat takes me down to something like 100mb), but since CPUs are slow with the compression/decompression of large data sets, maybe it too should be given as a task to GPUs in multiple "blocks" of compressed data to exploit GPU parallelism. If a computer can handle compressed data with virtually no lag, then perhaps there can be a positive spillover effect to the network itself by the transmission of compressed data packages which are compressed/decompressed in realtime by the GPUs for near-zero lag. I think harnessing GPU power is definitely something worth exploring for future scaling, in more than one ways.

I don't see they are fundamental flaws. They all end with a question mark for one thing which implies uncertainty.

This is my understanding about some of those questions.

LN is open source and there are financial motives to run a node. Bigger nodes might be better connected (=more profitable). There will be a degree of centralisation (like mining) I don't see LN being billed as a fix to centralisation?

You transact (multiple times) off chain, net balances are settled on chain.

Routing is explained in the paper and analogous to network routing, if routes don't exist then I expect missing hops will be set up on the fly.

I *think* channels can be torn down instantly at which point funds are settled.

I think a bigger concern is transacting off chain appears to be opaque until a transaction occurs on chain that nets out the respective balances. That is to say only the nodes that constitute a payment channel know about the transaction. Whereas with on chain then that transaction is immediately publicised and propagated to all nodes in public.

The other thing I'm thinking about is that although individual LN transactions are trustless when conducted directly between Alice and Bob, as soon as Carl, Dave and Eddie get involved things change. Whilst the middle men here are financially motivated to do the right thing (and they can't steal -  so perhaps trust is not the right word), you have to *rely* on these third parties, instead of a homogenous network of HA nodes.

LN is definitely not inherently bad, provided people realise its a payment channel for bitcoin and not bitcoin itself. (Much like bank transfers vs cash). Which seems right to me...

I'd use certainly use LN for buying coffee.

His views on 0-conf and fees are orthogonal to a discussion on LN.

Address the issues around:

• How it will avoid centralization when the only likely working model will be hub and spoke.?
• Why transact on main chain at all if payment channels can be settled (effectively) channel to channel?
• How are routes going to be found in real time unless they are for common/recurrent payments?
• How are routes going to persist? Or should they? 
• How long will funds need to be tied up on main chain to support single/multiple channels?

 

Apparently he meant this article:
I'm too tired to analyze all parts of the article. Let me just point 1 thing out:
The author works under the premise that these transaction are fundamental parts of Bitcoin. The right description would be: "these are dangerous, and you shouldn't use them, because you will lose money, and people who know better will laugh at you".

---

---

I will get back to this, but even if these points are true they sure aren't 'fundamental flaws'.

Blockstream isn't selling its soul to PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Rather, it is PwC that is selling its soul to the blockchain.  It's their Come To Jesus moment, wherein they seek forgiveness and redemption.

PwC knows which way the wind is blowing; it's blowing in the direction of davout's famous maxim.


And here you are, trying to spin the new era of sane/transparent/honest Big Four accounting as some sort of deal with the devil.

Are you mad Bitcoin is being used (as Satoshi intended) for heavy lifting, instead of yet another trivial retail payment rail disruption?   

I absolutely second that. What fundamental flaws?

 

^^
Perfect!

You seem to be suggesting this represents some sort of conflict of interest for Blockstream. Care to elaborate?

If by "qualified" you mean "on Blockstream's tip"

Shill activity intensifies, these are the major topics:

Classic vaporware - There is no alternative qualified team other than Core.

Hardfork to crash economy - The proposed block size increase hard fork is dangerous for many reasons. Large blocks will be spammed and full from the start.

Hardfork freeze coins - No matter the fork, the weak chain will be destroyed. This means the weak chain coins will become frozen, speculation will be impossible.

Hardfork cause loss of funds - If user pays during a hard fork, the payment can be reorganized and lead to the loss of funds.

Classic cannot VISA Scale - There is no proposal to reach 1000 transactions per second. Currently Bitcoin process 4 tps, Classic offers 8 tps.

Spam and 1MB cap are temporary - Because the "stress test" never ends, so will the blocks be forever full. Spam cannot be detected because wallets are anonymous.

0-confirmations are unsafe - 1% of blocks become orphaned, in this situation even 1-confirmed transaction can be reversed.

All miners mine 1MB now - There is no miner who has the balls to disrespect the Satoshi Nakamoto 1MB rule and mine a large block.

1MB +fee fast confirmation - With proper fees, transactions get confirmed without any delay

So nobody gets money from anyone and no code is added exclusively due to this solution. But it becomes more valuable because it gets more exposure.

Wouldn't anything the Toomim bros do get more exposure if they become lead devs?


I would have preferred a decentralized solution where people were uniquely identifiable. But that doesn't have much to do with conflict of interest.