Topic: Bitcoin’s Segregated Witness: More Than Just Malleability Fixes and Scaling - page 2. (Read 2201 times)

That's the probem with shills, they don't even understand the code and where the actual problem is, but they have to keep opening their mouths.

Look at the code, don't look at other people. If the code is flawed, it's flawed anywhere it's used. If you don't understand the code, then you don't understand the problem, then don't argue about it.


A whole paragraph of nothing. It's your ignorance towards actual problems that got you the shill title, not your emotion, fashion choices, or any other personal preferences, it's your attitude towards facts and simple logic, the way you kept dancing around them while waving your hands kicking bullshit into the air hoping everyone will get distracted.


Shills always like to play dumb, I don't get it, they actually think they can get away with it.

I am just going to quote franky here:


And this, Blockstream/Core closed pull requests on blocksize increase within minutes:
0.14 with 2Mb block size #10014
Update consensus.h #10092
Do you guys need assistance updating that block size? #10028

One of them was closed by Blockstream co-founder Pieter Wuille (sipa).
One of them was set to 'locked and limited conversation to collaborators'
One of them was closed in 5-7 minutes, like they had bots watching or something.

Meanwhile the stupidest useless pull requests stay open for months.


If it's not controversial, why does it have less support than BU?

This is exactly the kind of bullshit I am just tired of.
Do your research, use common sense, don't talk bullshit, don't play dumb, don't ask stupid questions.
If you have to shill, then shill, but don't act like a smart ass then play dumb.


If you know post count doesn't mean anything then why did you even bring it up?

FFS It's like amateur hour here.

Anyone reading here can see a Blockstream shill trying to play bullshit gymnastics.

When shills run out of actual answers, they often pretend they can speak for everyone.
'Oh look I can't even defend my own bullshit but I'll just pretend everyone already agrees with me.'
Really it's just pathetic.

The transaction volume hasn't moved by more than 150k per day in five years.

What I'm saying is who gives a shit about changing anything right now. Crayzians (crazy asians) are driving the price up faster than I've ever seen before and I've been watching this dog and pony show for more than 6 years. Even the lure of easy international drug sales direct to your door like Silk Road didn't move the price this much. Leave everything alone and watch fat stacks of cash appear in your pocket. What happens if you fuck up bitcoin and the crayzians move on? Will you be happy then?

3. i laugh when you try to pretend blockstream is "one company that has some devs involved with bitcoin"
but then when anyone talks about bitcoin as a whole. you desire to proclaim that if its not blockstream(core) sanctioned its an altcoin
you fail at down playing blockstream

4. so little opposition. lol i have seen some of the yay-sayers are just some consultancy/embassy non node needing groups of wannabies. all using the same website reference like its one guy just pasting in as many names of yay-sayers as he can find.
but when it comes to the ones that are nay-sayers.. some are listed as no response.
making the pole biased. with fake listings

also you can name me and others as loud mouths. but you can only argue that we talk alot. you cannot rebut the content of the issues. because deep down you know segwit isnt perfect.

Not sure what you mean.  Who cares what happened in 2012.  This is 2017 and we're being restricted by the 1mb blocksize.
Are you denying this?

pretending its ok to not upgrade is as bad as saying is ok to dilute the full node count down.
pretending that running prunned mode or no witness/stripped block mode allows other to sync from you.. yet the real answer is nope.

washing away all the "soft ""compatible" word bait and instead take a realistic end user view of it:
full nodes are full nodes by being forced to upgrade. but they have the opt out of segwit option to be treated as lite nodes, by doing nothing.

---

full node users want to be full node users for a reason.. saying the only way to be a full node is to run segwit.. is not "voluntary"
thats just fake word twisting.

blockstream need to accept if they dont get the vote, they dont get the vote.
and to not just point the finger..
but instead point their EARS to the community and listen

not just waste another year, pushing the same thing..
but instead re-code it to be a proper feature that actually is not just a half gesture 'hope' to fix

also
and if a segwit bug occured, where the blockheight was not dropped.. but devs got people to downgrade their nodes back to 0.12.. then all them segwit transactions become anyone can spends.

what their REAL desire is, is a TIER network

Then we hit your "invisible wall" in 2012.

https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions

1. If Vertcoin, Litecoin and other alts implement Segwit without issue, will you admit you are wrong and drop your opposition to SW on Bitcoin?
2. I suppose someone can be hostile to the general bitcoin development community ("core") without being a support of BU. But it's a natural mistake to make in the present environment. Ironically I define myself as "anti-BU" and not "pro-core" in much the same way you define yourself as "anti-core" but not "pro-BU". So your point is well taken, but I hope you take it to heart as well  because it works both ways.
3. The fact that Blockstream is one company that has some devs involved with Bitcoin is not proof that everything is controlled by them. Applying that sort of reasoning leads to all sorts of wild conclusions (because X has influence on Y, X must control Y?) that are going to be wrong 99% of the time.
Even if Blockstream has the most influence... well, of all the organizations involved with the dev community, one would be at the top of the list of influence. Why should I view that one as being more sinister than all the rest? Knock it out of the picture and you could come up with conspiracy theories for the next one, and the next one. Most everything I read from the core-haters just puts an extremely negative spin on anything core does without any sense of balance, often with a fair amount of ranting and raving. It's a real turn-off and does nothing to persuade people.
4. If you think SW so controversial, why is there so little opposition to it at https://coin.dance/poli ?
5. Franky and Jonathan have been posting non-stop on virtually every thread related to this debate. I don't have an exact count but anyone paying attention can see that a handful of BU or anti-core supporters have been trying to dominate the discussion through sheer volume and repetition (such as your example in this thread!). You can't take our posting count over several years as a guide, that's silly. It's the posts on this topic I'm referring to. Again, anyone reading here can see what's going on, so arguing against me on this is just going to damage your credibility with readers in general.

facepalm... the volume isn't growing because we've hit the limit!  You can't put the cart before the horse.

Daily transaction volume just doesn't support what you're saying. Sure, there have been advances in the number of businesses accepting Bitcoin but the number of people using Bitcoin hasn't followed suit.

Another total noob who doesn't even understand Bitcoin, hash rate is the only thing that can't be easily faked, it's the only thing that can reliably solve the Byzantine Generals' Problem.

Your so called 'real support' can be easily bought. Any half ass Eastern European botnet operator can launch a bunch of nodes for UASF. Hell even windows script kiddies can just card a bunch of Amazon cloud and bam, another 1000 of your so call 'real support'.

Can't do that with hash rate. Even if you bribe all the universities and use all their super computers to mine Bitcoin, it'll only cause a blip in the hash rate.

Miners are what made Bitcoin a success.

Blockstream went soft fork with SegWit because they thought they could fuck over both miners and nodes at the same time, that failed, that's why they're now attacking miners and go for UASF.

They're running around like a bunch of amateurs.

That is not true.  Japan is starting to use Bitcoin.  Things are picking up in Venezuala, Africa... a lot of places.  If we don't increase the capacity beyond 3TPS, then Bitcoin could lose its place to Ethereum or something else. 

Why would anyone want to change anything with Bitcoin right now? Almost no one is spending Bitcoin. The daily transaction volume has fluctuated in the same range since October 2016 and before that it hardly went up at all for several years. The daily transactions are Asian speculators driving the price through the roof. Leave everything alone and sail this boat to profitland.

You seem to be making a huge assumption that we must follow core's roadmap, no matter what, even
if the miners disagree, even if it violates principles that core has been espousing.

And you can't even admit there is ANY degree of hypocrisy.

I am not here to judge you.  But I hope you can see why some people think you're a shill...
because you are basically supporting Core no matter what, making huge assumptions like
that, and brushing all of their wrongdoings under the rug.

If you think I am mistaken, I'm here to have an honest and reasonable discussion about it,
if that's something you're interested in.  

And here we go again....

Too much impetus for little to none effect. This forum has seen enough of this dispute's blubberish.

It's not your post count that makes you a shill, it's your ignorance, here is just one example:


I just posted a bunch of reasons why SegWit is an obvious poison pill.
Yet you ignore it and go straight for framing me as 'BU folks'.
Show me one post where I sell BU, seriously, just try and find one, just one.
 
There is no debate, the evidence is clear,  Blockstream/Core are simply crooks who've taken the code hostage since 2015.
Instead of just increase the blocksize to 2M/4M and let things progress naturally, let SegWit face natural competition, Blockstream/Core used dirty tactics to force feed it to everyone.

Github commits, BIPs and mailing lists are now all under Blockstream control.

Complex trojan horses like SegWit gets merged without a hiccup,while  simple 2M increase pull request got instantly closed by Blockstream co-founder, then they locked it so the submitter couldn't even reply. Then they turn around and bullshit about 'community consensus'.

And you have similar posts-per-day as franky/jonald, how do you even come up with bullshit like 'I've posted maybe 1/10 the messages here that BU folks like franky1'.

Just try me, just quote me and reply with bullshit again, and I'll compile a long list of dirty shit Blockstream/Core have done, and every time you shill for SegWit I'll start your so called debate with it. Let's see how well you do in that debate.

Just do your job, but don't act like a smart ass when you're selling bullshit.

blockstream chose to go soft. (pools only)
instead of going full wetard tantrum and do a UASF. blockstream should actually ask the abstainers/ naysayers 'why not' ..
and instead of using lengthy wordplay.. blockstream should make code changes to then address the issues and gain more functions the COMMUNITY as a whole would appreciate.

funny part.
blockstream want to just ram segwit down the communities throats no matter what. no stepping back, no second recodes. no community feedback.. just segwit or nuke

so if bip9 doesnt have adequate 85%ish pool flag by august for hopes of 95% by november. blockstream wont re-evaluate.. they will just press the squeeze button to add threats and bribes and blackmails of UASF

..
now if UASF also fails to get segwit in.. guess what.. no backing down, no rcoding, no community review.. just make another deadline for end of 2018 and keep poking the bear with the half assed gestures of 2merkle no promise fixes verion segwit. just to delay and provoke the community.

http://www.uasf.co/

tl:dr;
dont expect blockstream(core) to even attempt to listen to the community by adding in any dynamic 1merkle (proper full node/pool consensus upgrade)version of segwit before 2019

I've posted maybe 1/10 the messages here that BU folks like franky1 or jonathan f have posted in the same timeframe. If that makes me a shill for core (I'm not, just an ordinary bitcoiner with absolutely 0 ties to Blockstream or any dev), what does that make you guys? You seem to have nothing better to do than hang around this board and reddit all day posting up a storm.

Folks are encouraged to read both sides of this debate (Proverbs 18:17) and make up their own mind, because it is important for the future of Bitcoin.

I guess pretty much everyone outside your group is a shill for core - that is, for bitcoin - outside your mining cartel:
https://coin.dance/poli

I find it ironic that we are forced to it. Not hypocritical, insofar as it was no one's first choice.

There are many proposals been considered now, I believe the best the team will go with the best option. UASF will go forward if miners continue to hold the space ransom