Topic: [ANN] Bitcoin Cash - Pro on-chain scaling - Cheaper fees - page 219. (Read 704531 times)

vicious little dump on BCH .

I'd say the "Do Nothing" option is the best for now, so BCH can watch how BTC's LN evolves, and if it's really worth fixing malleability.
If BTC's LN proves to be good idea, then BCH might eventually intoduce a fix, but for now it's not really neccessary.

I hate to feed the Blockstream/Core/LN trolls here in the Bitcoin Cash thread. But I will point out here that Bitcoin Cash is free of the cancer that is The SegWit Omnibus Changeset, upon which the current implementation of LN is dependent. As for LN:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=pOZaLbUUZUs

I'm curious what Adam's "large teams full time job" will come up with to debunk (*ahem!*) the above.

Go ahead shills - rip it to shreds. If you can.

Probably after since the keys were lost shortly after it was released and it was promptly removed from the play store because a bug was discovered that could cause pending payments I don't know when this demo happened but I'm presuming it was recently

Finally. We get to something concrete and debatable. Thanks.


Exactly. Three people met and discussed what -- if anything -- to do about malleability. The outcome: nothing at this time. Slight preference for MalFix, but no consensus.

True, one of the participants was the individual who currently leads the market-leading client implementation. Was he the holdout? Who knows? Doesn't matter.

But you fail to support your claim that MalFix would result in Bitcoin Cash abandoning Bitcoin's tried and true security model. Again, put up or shut up. You may just be parroting my observation that The SegWit Omnibus Changeset has caused Bitcoin Segwit to abandon Bitcoin's tried and true security model. But you seem to fundamentally misunderstand Bitcoin. For it is not the separation of sig from tx within The SegWit Omnibus Changeset that has abandoned Bitcoin's security model. Rather, it is the misguided abortional crude hack of pretending that an anyonecanspend tx is anything other than exactly that, which has opened post- SegWit Omnibus Changeset Bitcoin Segwit to a myriad of new attack vectors.

Go sharpen your pencil and get back to us.

Again, until you provide some evidence, all can safely consider this claim debunked, dispatched, and discredited.


Again, you fundamentally misunderstand Bitcoin. Non-mining, fully-validating clients (often misrepresented as 'full nodes') have no power to effect the network itself. This is true whether discussing Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Segwit, or any other PoW satoshi-pattern cryptocurrency. Miners have the power to enact any change they want to - or the majority thereof does. This power is counterbalanced only by the power of users and holders to abandon any chain that does not implement the characteristics they desire. In contrast, the only power non-mining, fully-validating clients possess is to divorce themselves from the network. Period. Other than suiciding themselves, they do not affect they network in any way.

The above is true regardless of Bitcoin Cash or Bitcoin Segwit. For better or for worse, this is the system satoshi bequeathed us. True, miners are likely to use such chain abandonment as a signal of user/hodler displeasure. However, they are fully aware that such non-mining, fully-validating clients are subject to Sybil attacks. The only non-Sybillable resources are mining power and Bitcoin ownership, which is what makes the system work to begin with.


Exactly - and exactly identical for Bitcoin SegWit as for Bitcoin Cash.


No. Non-mining, fully-validating clients are the only entities in the system subject to Sybil attack. While they bring benefits to their owners, they do nothing for the network itself. They are merely a Sybiled proxy for economic power. Again, this is exactly identical for Bitcoin SegWit as for Bitcoin Cash.

^ eclair rings a bell...lol

https://www.cryptoglobe.com/latest/2018/04/bitcoin-lightning-network-wallet-app-removed-from-google-play-as-developers-lose-signing-key/
Bitcoin’s first Lightning Network-enabled wallet app, Eclair Wallet, has recently been removed from Google’s Play Store by the developers, as they lost access to the app’s signing keys. This, as the developers noted on social media, prevents them from fixing bugs and working on the app


so was this demo before or after the devs lost the keys?

You posted that earlier and yes I saw

That vid of Roger and LN that's using eclair it's one of the early betas and has some issues I'm well aware of those I've had many failures with eclair that is not a issue with LN though just buggy early beta software that will be fixed

I've never had such issues with LND you just need to use the command line

Eclair also has other issues it currently cannot receive LN payments either only make them and does not advertise itself to the network or route payments for others

LND is the most reliable client so far yes there is still a lot of work to do

Bitcoin is the currency like USD
The block chain is where you store your money like your bank account
LN is a payment network like visa or MasterCard etc

When you go to shops etc you don't go and make a bank transfer to pay for something you use a payment processor and can only spend money that is on your bank account (your channel balance)

https://twitter.com/BTCNewsUpdates/status/984270024968998912
Long time Bitcoin Core advocate "Cobra" confirms:

▪️Lightning is a threat to BTC's value
▪️Lightning is better used with other coins
0 use case left, no more reason to hold or buy BTCs. 📉🔥

Cobra-Bitcoin
A lot of people miss that. From the Bitcoin maximalist point of view, LN is actually a bit of a threat to Bitcoin's value long term. Rather than exclusively being a scaling solution for Bitcoin, it's actually a scaling solution for any coin with a malleability fix.

When stores start shifting from accepting BTC payments to LN, any altcoin with a malleability fix gains new adoption as a result. So why use Bitcoin in the first place if you can just use some shitcoin, open a channel into Lightning (at much cheaper cost), and spend at any LN-accepting merchant?

Bitcoin maximalism fits better with on-chain scaling philosophy in some ways in that respect, or scaling through sidechains.



So, if you want to use ln, you can with other coins , no need to hold og btc...tek thoughts?


also did you see ln in action? ooooooo 
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8bmyp6/roger_gets_a_demo_of_lightning_network/

The proposed fixes are listed here

https://github.com/bitcoincashorg/workgroups/blob/master/wg-malfix/summaries/20180130%20-%20Meeting%20Summary.md

Yes they are proposals nothing more I'm not saying that any will be adopted just that their is a chance

As for Bitcoin Cash users won't accept being forced into a new system the whole premise of Bitcoin cash is users nodes don't matter only mining nodes matter so you will get forced if the exchanges upgrade and the miners upgrade the users are forced to either upgrade because you use SPV wallets or sell taking huge losses


The only reason BTC users can have a say is the users run the majority of the nodes therefore the miners etc won't switch as it's not in their interest to mine something the vast majority of users define worthless

we can invest more intelligently by exploiting the wisdom of smart people through cripto. Our goal is to reduce the barriers to entry into the crypto investment market by providing tools that make crypto trading opportunities accessible to professional users and mainstream users. because we can succeed if we follow the rules that exist in this crypto.

So tek claims. He is partially right about the first one. A separation of signature data from the rest of the transaction data has indeed been proposed as a malleability fix. Funny thing about proposals - anyone can make one. Even an insane one. Not saying the concept of separating sig from tx is necessarily insane, just saying that there are essentially zero barriers to making a proposal.

To get the proposal implemented, however, requires consensus. There is no consensus for this proposal at this time.


I think you sum up the situation rather well - Bitcoin Cash users are unlikely to accept being forced into such a system.

*edit: tek posted while I was composing this. From a quick scan, tek has identified a specific proposal, though tek's claims will still be debunked using this new evidence. Stay tuned.

Can't find all the information the devs do a lot of discussing in private

https://github.com/bitcoincashorg/workgroups/blob/master/wg-malfix/summaries/20180130%20-%20Meeting%20Summary.md

This is some of the proposed fixes it's to be done at some point in the future via the scheduled hard forks and affects everyone there is no opt in like segwit where you decide yourself if you want to carry on with legacy or not

BCH wants the malfix for everyone this means the security model has to change permanently

One of the criticisms of segwit is that it does not fix it for everyone (because it's optional)

Are these claims true about a proposed BCH malleability fix?  If not it needs to be debunked.  If there is such a proposal I believe it could not possibly be adopted in such a way, as it appears that most Bitcoin Cash users would not accept to be forced into a new system.

Decentralization implies the freedom to keep using legacy addresses in the long term.  Massive on-chain scaling is precisely allowing for that, at a very low cost.  If a malleability fix is envisioned at a later time to add more options, it will respect the freedom of choice for users.

Bitcoin Cash gets majority of PoW then it becomes de facto Bitcoin.

Give your reasons if BCH will replace BTC in the future.
Because BCH is altcoin the same as the others.

Just a kind reminder about upcoming hard-fork
https://cryptovest.com/news/bitcoin-cash-bch-prepares-for-the-next-planned-hard-fork/
The most notable change is the increase in block size to 32 MB.

^ agree m8...

here enjoy a live ln demo with roger and a lil wager 

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8bmyp6/roger_gets_a_demo_of_lightning_network/

oouch ln  ouch 

Bitcoin Cash has built its community up very very well. The community has been bigger, stronger over time. And Bitcoin Cash has great team behind the scene, who contribute to make great developments for the project. Internal strenght will help Bitcoin Cash fly over the Moon.

I don't see any reason for Bitcoin to stay there as the King in the crypto world. It should belong to another coin, Bitcoin Cash, Dash, Ethererum, but never should be Bitcoin.

https://twitter.com/BTCNewsUpdates/status/984270024968998912
Long time Bitcoin Core advocate "Cobra" confirms:

▪️Lightning is a threat to BTC's value
▪️Lightning is better used with other coins
0 use case left, no more reason to hold or buy BTCs. 📉🔥

Cobra-Bitcoin
A lot of people miss that. From the Bitcoin maximalist point of view, LN is actually a bit of a threat to Bitcoin's value long term. Rather than exclusively being a scaling solution for Bitcoin, it's actually a scaling solution for any coin with a malleability fix.

When stores start shifting from accepting BTC payments to LN, any altcoin with a malleability fix gains new adoption as a result. So why use Bitcoin in the first place if you can just use some shitcoin, open a channel into Lightning (at much cheaper cost), and spend at any LN-accepting merchant?

Bitcoin maximalism fits better with on-chain scaling philosophy in some ways in that respect, or scaling through sidechains.



So, if you want to use ln, you can with other coins , no need to hold og btc...tek thoughts?

It would be great if CSW posted here, just to let bch followers know he was reading. He's definitely a polarizing figure, but it's pretty clear to me he was part of the earliest days of Bitcoin development. I think if all the Beatles albums had been released anonymously and someone outed John Lennon like CSW was he would react and come off exactly the same, a bit crusty and argumentative, but with obvious talents. In that scenario if John Lennon said, 'others helped me, but yes, I am responsible for the music of the Beatles', would he be lying, assuming the other 3 members of the band wanted to stay anonymous, or maybe were dead like Kleiman.  

John Lennon was a talented angry dude with poor interpersonal skills, but his heart was in the right place (if you doubt he was a prick checkout what his kids say of him), CSW is the same type of person, heart in the right place but a talented angry wanker with a big ego.