Topic: Andreas redpills /r/btc loons - page 2. (Read 5242 times)

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

You WANT on chain transactions to be expensive?  If you really believe that, you've been brainwashed by Core.   This is just basic common sense: people will rather pay less than pay more for the same thing.   

Because, for a small payment, the on chain transaction will be too expensive. That is exactly what we want. I do not want kiddies paying for a Hamburger on our blockchain!! They can use LN for that...

Why use a bicycle instead of a car?? Why do you pretend to be stupid?

Andreas statements about Bitmain are 100% correct, not sure about AXA being a threat...

As long as Segwit is introduced together with a guarantee that Onchain transfers will always remain an affordable alternative for reasonably sized transactions, LN will never be a threat.  

LTC has done that. Guaranteed block size increase PLUS Segwit

Massive pump resulted....market likes it. Discussion pointless. 

It is both faster and cheaper and you are most likely going to be able to make multi-coin transfers with it (see latest news on LTC & BTC LN). I don't see why someone would not want to use LN (excluding very high profile transactions for which a larger number of confirmations is recommended).

Why would anyone want to use lightening when they can do on chain transactions?
 

Segwit will shine in LTC along with lightning network and LTC will go to new ATH, meanwhile BTC will stay as it is, hopefully going up too, but we'll see. Maybe people get tired and move to LTC, but I guess people that don't care about making any transactions will stick with BTC as the hodlers coin back by the network effect.

The rest of options are stupid, including blocksize increase without segwit first.

Segwit is dead. Even if it were safe I wouldn't run it - it's not a solution for the current problems, its backers are showing more and more sketchy behaviors, and there are too many unknowns. Bury it and move on to the next solution.  How about we  scale bitcoin by increasing the blocksize and quit dicking around with these overcomplicated and pointless code upgrades on altcoins?

The amount of volume and number of nodes is entirely irrelevant to this. Segwit has proven itself both on testnet and real world networks. On the other hand, EC has proven itself nowhere.

Either such people are paid or they have been drinking a lot of the propaganda kool-aid. I can't possibly explain this otherwise (assuming user is not a troll).

It has everything to do with miner centralization. Another display of faulty knowledge.

Blocksize has little to do with miner centralization. 

It's not that segwit can't "work" or that things will blow up overnight.  Most of the opposition to the core roadmap comes from the belief that they (core) will not
steward the appropriate amount of on-chain scaling.  The "segwit now and we'll see what comes next" approach is looked upon with great suspicion by the miners
and users like myself.

The miners want a blocksize increase with segwit both as a consensus signal for bigger blocks as well as a hard fork approach.

So what do you want then? Segwit has been proven to be safe on testnet, it has been tested along with LN too but that's another story anyway, let's focus on segwit itself. It's been on testnet for ages, it's been on several alts, not it will be on LTC too.

The next step is to be added on bitcoin, so looks like segwit haters will not become believers until they see it live in bitcoin, but block at the same time. Decide.

So a few coins with very low volume and a small number of nodes needed a soft fork to increase (not capacity?), but Lightning compatbility? And this is proof of... what exactly? I think it's largely pointless, since coins the size and traffic of Litecoin can easily do hard forks.

ORLY

all this finger pointing to blame xt in 2013, classic in 2014 bu in 2016 and pools in 2017 is just social distractions to avoid people looking at where the real centralisation is happening.

pools and nodes have a symbiotic relationship.
pools 'could' get power if they can hold out and make new formed funky blocks for a many hours or a few days, weeks, months to delay the network syncing to blackmail the community into upgrading their node to a version that pools make, that allows node users to see transactions rather than only seeing rejects/orphans and their node unsynced.
but so far that has only happened once. the 2013 leveldb fork. which made all the nodes move to a new version0.8 and the DNS seed to cut off allowing connections to 0.7 and below(old nodes)
(yes i mention the 2013 event often, because its an actual event that actually occurred. not a 'what if' fud doomsday)

since then pools have been more cautious about doing things that dont get accepted by the majority of nodes because of the drama and risks to pools costs/spendability could occur.

the last time a pool made an obvious out of majority block structure, it got rejected in 3 seconds and the pool didnt push it. they decide to just follow the nodes rules that are/were majority accepted.

every week pools make mistakes that dont follow the rules and find their blocks getting rejected/orphaned. they learn their lesson the hard way, by not winning the node acceptance to get their block added to blockheight.

in short. nodes hold the power.
even if pools could collude where pools are all onside doing funky blocks,.. they still need to survive pushing their blocks for hours/days/weeks to blackmail the unsynced nodes to download new nodes, just to see the funky block as acceptable... but thats alot of effort, and a very costly risk.

for pools to get power is not just about one pool having hashpower. its about having their competition not fighting them to ensure the blocks keep adding on. and then. keeping it going long enough to blackmail the nodes to switch too.

---

so ultimately its still nodes that hold the power. as long as the nodes dont give in and give up the power so easily.
nodes could simply ban a malicious pool thats causing endless orphans if its not following the rules.

whats more important than worrying about the "what if's" of pools.. is the real network threat of node centralisation.

this is where node diversity is needed. so that we do not have one node dev team that create a version and change the DNS to force the network into following like sheep.

we need to realise that trying to bypass the security mechanisms of consensus (yep orphans are part of security) with these 'going soft approaches' may seem good if the community as a whole want the change. but can be abused by bad actors who may want to trojan horse changes that are not wanted.

wasting 3 years for something that is (now seen as not) backward compatible by going soft. should be a neon red flag that something else should be tried.

not blackmail, not threats of killing off nodes/pools. but instead making something that the community would accept and uniting the community. by doing something properly that uses consensus. to avoid the risks, backdoor tactics and politics and civil war drama

firstly pools do not have ultimate control.

its a symbiotic relationship between pools and nodes.

yes pools can collate data in new ways and re-invent a blockstructure, but if the nodes do not accept it. then the blocks get ignored.
even if a pool had 50billion exahash. if the block doesnt propagate and get accepted by nodes. then its just wasting pools time. because all the merchants have trashed that block in 3 seconds.

knowing they cant spend rewards for 100 confirms they wont do funky blocks in the morning unless they know the block would still exist and have 100 confirms (blocks accepted ontop) that are viewable from merchants nodes in the afternoon to be able to spend that mornings block reward.

everyone has already seen that blocks that dont fit the nodes rules get rejected in just 3 seconds. and pools then realise their mistake and the very next block they make are blocks that fit the rules.

every week we see pools making blocks either by mistake or intentionally that dont fit the rules. and within seconds or a couple blocks (rarely) pools learn their lesson and ensure their block fits the rules of the majority of nodes
https://blockchain.info/orphaned-blocks

because its not just about the cost of creating a block (electric+time) its also about who has a node that would see their funky block to spend the reward with in 100 blocks+ time.

EG
you might see for instance 80 merchants have a node that would accept it.. but if that pool wants to spend the reward with the 800 other merchant nodes who wont see the block. then there is no point making a block that wont get seen


location is not much of an issue. you will be surprised that for instance antpool is not located in one location, but dozens.

even pools claimed as being "chinese" are managed by people that are not in china. (slush is managed in thailand) and ontop of this pools have many stratums spread out around the world. so if one stratum is shut down. in 2 seconds the farms are 'pool hopped' to another stratum else where.

lastly thinking that one guy has 70% control of pools is an utter laugh that no one can prove using real statistics. but only unbacked whispers from twitter and reddit.

PoW alone does not decide anything. For those that are reading, this is classic delusional shill talk.

No amount of miners dictate what Bitcoin is or isn't.

SegWit has been activated on GRS for months now. It's about to activate on LTC and at least 2 other altcoins. It has already proven itself.

That is absurd. The number of works != number of miners.

Seriously? It doesn't matter how many "workers" are in a pool, most pools are controlled by 1 dude and Antpool is controlled by Jihan Wu (1 dude).

I'm glad you think miner centralization is a problem, now you can stop shilling for BU and find another solution or what you say is meaningless.

one thing has nothing to do with the other.  segwit won't stop miner centralization.  I don't know why some people think it will.

but don't worry, its not a 'handful of Chinese guys'... look at antpool, there's almost 100k workers in it.  and that's just one pool.

If a handful of Chinese miners can dictate the direction of Bitcoin it is DOOMED!

Thankfully, that won't happen. Its only a matter of time now before SegWit makes it way to Bitcoin and we can head to 10k per coin!

Unless of course SegWit truly does suck and only time on Litecoin will tell 

its about 35 percent.  poW decides the rules in bitcoin.