I am learning a lot and I will do my own due dilligence before I can reply which will take time.
Fair?
Fair?
Fair. I just ask you to consider each position on the strength of its arguments, and not on the passions of the crowd.
Topic: can we admit segwit SF is never going to get 95% approval? (Read 4480 times)
Fair. I just ask you to consider each position on the strength of its arguments, and not on the passions of the crowd.
Do you deny that Segwit improves and makes Bitcoin more secure and robust?
Do you assert that SegWit makes Bitcoin more secure? If so, how?
Do you assert that SegWit makes Bitcoin more robust? If so, how?
Do you realize that after SegWit, miners may collude to roll back to non-SegWit? Do you realize that every previous SegWit then becomes a real 'anyone can spend' transaction? Do you realize that if this is done, the colluding miners may claim the value stored in these 'anyone can spend' transactions? Do you agree that this rollback/theft may be an incentive for miners to act counter to the intentions of the rest of the Bitcoin participants (whether or not sufficient to entice them to do so)? Are you at all concerned about this possibility?
I will message someone else to answer you to technically explain.
...but I was asking you. You see, when you call in the reinforcements, instead of answering in your own words, it leaves the impression that you may have not actually thought through your position, but are merely repeating a position you have heard advocated by others.
You seem to be advocating that SegWit it would make bitcoin both more secure and more robust. Leaving the more complex questions aside for the moment, I would like you to explain to me first what these terms mean to you, and second how you believe SegWit accomplishes these goals.
Fair?
That is fair, yes. But I humbly admit that I am not technically adept and I am not qualified to give you a good rebuttal. I have not mined Bitcoin and I am not a coder. But I am learning a lot and I will do my own due dilligence before I can reply which will take time.
Fair?
1) Variance.
2) Massive mining centralization due to Jihad prioritizing deployment of devices for himself rather than diversifying the network.
3) Segwit is happening.
What you do not understand is the following:
1) Supermajority of developers want Segwit over BU.
2) Supermajority of users want Segwit over BU.
3) Supermajority of the economy wants Segwit over BU.
Therefore, Segwit is happening either with:
1) MASF.
2) UASF BIP 148.
3) UASF BIP 149.
2) Massive mining centralization due to Jihad prioritizing deployment of devices for himself rather than diversifying the network.
3) Segwit is happening.
What you do not understand is the following:
1) Supermajority of developers want Segwit over BU.
2) Supermajority of users want Segwit over BU.
3) Supermajority of the economy wants Segwit over BU.
Therefore, Segwit is happening either with:
1) MASF.
2) UASF BIP 148.
3) UASF BIP 149.
oh lauda. when you get some spare time.. look passed the butcheek of blockstream. and actually think about the bitcoin community
65% of nodes is not super majority - https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/
35% of pools is not super majority - http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-2k.png
stop only getting fake results from your echo chamber of censored groupies..(luke JR and his fake 100,000 nodes lol)
what you are not understanding is that you are like a music bang groupy who thinks the band you adore is the best because all the other groupies you talk to love and adore it..
you are not realising that you are only talking to people on the music bands tour bus. so you cannot see anything beyond the tour buses headlights. you even wanted the tourbus radio to be tuned into a music station that only plays the blockstream tune
You are a troll that spend hours upon days trying to convince people about something you're not even getting paid for....wait maybe you are. Racist Fox News lol
Take a break. Get some pussy, maybe dick for you. Get paid. You're pathetic.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Complexity is the enemy of robustness. Would love to hear anyone explain how adding 5000 lines of code, modifying dozens of files, and introducing new transaction types and data structures will improve the 'robust' aspect of Bitcoin, which has an 8 year track record of working fine.
Do you deny that Segwit improves and makes Bitcoin more secure and robust?
Do you assert that SegWit makes Bitcoin more secure? If so, how?
Do you assert that SegWit makes Bitcoin more robust? If so, how?
Do you realize that after SegWit, miners may collude to roll back to non-SegWit? Do you realize that every previous SegWit then becomes a real 'anyone can spend' transaction? Do you realize that if this is done, the colluding miners may claim the value stored in these 'anyone can spend' transactions? Do you agree that this rollback/theft may be an incentive for miners to act counter to the intentions of the rest of the Bitcoin participants (whether or not sufficient to entice them to do so)? Are you at all concerned about this possibility?
I will message someone else to answer you to technically explain.
...but I was asking you. You see, when you call in the reinforcements, instead of answering in your own words, it leaves the impression that you may have not actually thought through your position, but are merely repeating a position you have heard advocated by others.
You seem to be advocating that SegWit it would make bitcoin both more secure and more robust. Leaving the more complex questions aside for the moment, I would like you to explain to me first what these terms mean to you, and second how you believe SegWit accomplishes these goals.
Fair?
Malleability has never been an issue except to people who imagined it to be one. Just wait for a confirmation or two.
Yes I am aware that it is not really that big of an issue. But as an improvement for the protocol it will be always good for the longterm.
Quote
Even if it was a problem, can you give a technical explanation why SegWit is required to address malleability double spends???
Segwit is required to open the network for other technologies to be developed on the network. Do you deny that Segwit improves and makes Bitcoin more secure and robust?
Why would you want to add unnecessay software?
Because Segwit is an improvement for Bitcoin making it more secure and robust. It is making the protocol open to technologies that will help make it scale and help make it better. Technologies like Schnorr signatures that will help in Bitcoin's scalability, efficiency and privacy.
We get all that in the safety of a soft fork.
Do you deny that Segwit will improves and makes Bitcoin more secure and robust?
Do you deny that Segwit improves and makes Bitcoin more secure and robust?
Do you assert that SegWit makes Bitcoin more secure? If so, how?
Do you assert that SegWit makes Bitcoin more robust? If so, how?
Do you realize that after SegWit, miners may collude to roll back to non-SegWit? Do you realize that every previous SegWit then becomes a real 'anyone can spend' transaction? Do you realize that if this is done, the colluding miners may claim the value stored in these 'anyone can spend' transactions? Do you agree that this rollback/theft may be an incentive for miners to act counter to the intentions of the rest of the Bitcoin participants (whether or not sufficient to entice them to do so)? Are you at all concerned about this possibility?
I will message someone else to answer you to technically explain.
Just WOW. I do notice a distinct wince from the Core-bois when "anyone can spend" is brought up. It just sounds BAD. I need to read up on the subject.
Yeah. Those bastards..
NOT ONLY do I not have to upgrade now, and do everything I could before, until I want to... BUT I DON'T EVER have to upgrade, (as far as ALL the wonderful scripting Magic is concerned), and do everything I could before, until I want to..
You inconsiderate animals. I WANTED to be forced.. HARD FORCED!
.. .. wince.
Do you deny that Segwit improves and makes Bitcoin more secure and robust?
Do you assert that SegWit makes Bitcoin more secure? If so, how?
Do you assert that SegWit makes Bitcoin more robust? If so, how?
Do you realize that after SegWit, miners may collude to roll back to non-SegWit? Do you realize that every previous SegWit then becomes a real 'anyone can spend' transaction? Do you realize that if this is done, the colluding miners may claim the value stored in these 'anyone can spend' transactions? Do you agree that this rollback/theft may be an incentive for miners to act counter to the intentions of the rest of the Bitcoin participants (whether or not sufficient to entice them to do so)? Are you at all concerned about this possibility?
Just WOW. I do notice a distinct wince from the Core-bois when "anyone can spend" is brought up. It just sounds BAD. I need to read up on the subject.
All valid questions..
If they did - Bitcoin would be OVER anyway. And the bitcoins would hold no value. They may as well hard fork back to the BUG where you could print Bitcoins for FREE..
There is a way to get rid of SegWit without this doomsday scenario playing out.. Everyone just has to send the money BACK to normal addresses before the HARD FORK. (All though all trust would be lost - and BTC would probably be dead..)
Yes - But only in a completely self-destructive Mad-Man way.
No.
Do you realize that after SegWit, miners may collude to roll back to non-SegWit? Do you realize that every previous SegWit then becomes a real 'anyone can spend' transaction? Do you realize that if this is done, the colluding miners may claim the value stored in these 'anyone can spend' transactions?
If they did - Bitcoin would be OVER anyway. And the bitcoins would hold no value. They may as well hard fork back to the BUG where you could print Bitcoins for FREE..
There is a way to get rid of SegWit without this doomsday scenario playing out.. Everyone just has to send the money BACK to normal addresses before the HARD FORK. (All though all trust would be lost - and BTC would probably be dead..)
Do you agree that this rollback/theft may be an incentive for miners to act counter to the intentions of the rest of the Bitcoin participants (whether or not sufficient to entice them to do so)?
Yes - But only in a completely self-destructive Mad-Man way.
Are you at all concerned about this possibility?
No.
Do you deny that Segwit improves and makes Bitcoin more secure and robust?
Do you assert that SegWit makes Bitcoin more secure? If so, how?
Do you assert that SegWit makes Bitcoin more robust? If so, how?
Do you realize that after SegWit, miners may collude to roll back to non-SegWit? Do you realize that every previous SegWit then becomes a real 'anyone can spend' transaction? Do you realize that if this is done, the colluding miners may claim the value stored in these 'anyone can spend' transactions? Do you agree that this rollback/theft may be an incentive for miners to act counter to the intentions of the rest of the Bitcoin participants (whether or not sufficient to entice them to do so)? Are you at all concerned about this possibility?
Malleability has never been an issue except to people who imagined it to be one. Just wait for a confirmation or two.
Yes I am aware that it is not really that big of an issue. But as an improvement for the protocol it will be always good for the longterm.
Quote
Even if it was a problem, can you give a technical explanation why SegWit is required to address malleability double spends???
Segwit is required to open the network for other technologies to be developed on the network. Do you deny that Segwit improves and makes Bitcoin more secure and robust?
Why would you want to add unnecessay software?
Malleability has never been an issue except to people who imagined it to be one. Just wait for a confirmation or two.
Yes I am aware that it is not really that big of an issue. But as an improvement for the protocol it will be always good for the longterm.
Quote
Even if it was a problem, can you give a technical explanation why SegWit is required to address malleability double spends???
Segwit is required to open the network for other technologies to be developed on the network. Do you deny that Segwit improves and makes Bitcoin more secure and robust?
All Core vs except Luke JR I think which actually wants to make the blocksize smaller, want to eventually make the blocksize higher.
That is correct. However, BU & their fanatics are not concerned with whether their "teachings" are related to reality/the truth or not. 
I think the biggest problems anti-Core guys have is that they don't trust them. Core hasn't said a specific date where this blocksize increase would happen, I think they will not stop complaining u ntil Core gives a clear date to raise the blocksize after the segwit activation, but I think if Core did that, they would still complain and don't trust them. They just hate them now no matter what they do.
It is not about the hate but its all about the monopoly. Both parties wanted to monopolize the bitcoin mining industry and if they will succeed they will have total control over the production of bitcoin. Thus it will mean huge profit from them and it could mean higher fees for us. What we need is the current bitcoin without bitcoin unlimited and without segwit. Bitcoin is good as it is.
Original Bitcoin did NOT have a blocksize cap. We clearly need to remove it. It never should have been added.
Just because Satoshi said and did this or said that does not mean his word is law or he is correct all of the time. Did he not put the 1mb limit? Removing it now would centralize mining and make the blockchain unmmanageably very large.
Quote
Bitcoin had unused block capacity for years for its entire history until just recently when all blocks started being full. This isn't difficult to understand.
You want it to scale, yes many people do. Why not fix the malleability issues first with Segwit and then make it scale through offchain means?
Malleability has never been an issue except to people who imagined it to be one. Just wait for a confirmation or two. Even if it was a problem, can you give a technical explanation why SegWit is required to address malleability double spends???
All Core vs except Luke JR I think which actually wants to make the blocksize smaller, want to eventually make the blocksize higher.
That is correct. However, BU & their fanatics are not concerned with whether their "teachings" are related to reality/the truth or not. I think the biggest problems anti-Core guys have is that they don't trust them. Core hasn't said a specific date where this blocksize increase would happen, I think they will not stop complaining u ntil Core gives a clear date to raise the blocksize after the segwit activation, but I think if Core did that, they would still complain and don't trust them. They just hate them now no matter what they do.
It is not about the hate but its all about the monopoly. Both parties wanted to monopolize the bitcoin mining industry and if they will succeed they will have total control over the production of bitcoin. Thus it will mean huge profit from them and it could mean higher fees for us. What we need is the current bitcoin without bitcoin unlimited and without segwit. Bitcoin is good as it is.
Original Bitcoin did NOT have a blocksize cap. We clearly need to remove it. It never should have been added.
Just because Satoshi said and did this or said that does not mean his word is law or he is correct all of the time. Did he not put the 1mb limit? Removing it now would centralize mining and make the blockchain unmmanageably very large.
Quote
Bitcoin had unused block capacity for years for its entire history until just recently when all blocks started being full. This isn't difficult to understand.
You want it to scale, yes many people do. Why not fix the malleability issues first with Segwit and then make it scale through offchain means?
All Core vs except Luke JR I think which actually wants to make the blocksize smaller, want to eventually make the blocksize higher.
That is correct. However, BU & their fanatics are not concerned with whether their "teachings" are related to reality/the truth or not. I think the biggest problems anti-Core guys have is that they don't trust them. Core hasn't said a specific date where this blocksize increase would happen, I think they will not stop complaining u ntil Core gives a clear date to raise the blocksize after the segwit activation, but I think if Core did that, they would still complain and don't trust them. They just hate them now no matter what they do.
It is not about the hate but its all about the monopoly. Both parties wanted to monopolize the bitcoin mining industry and if they will succeed they will have total control over the production of bitcoin. Thus it will mean huge profit from them and it could mean higher fees for us. What we need is the current bitcoin without bitcoin unlimited and without segwit. Bitcoin is good as it is.
Original Bitcoin did NOT have a blocksize cap. We clearly need to remove it. It never should have been added.
Bitcoin had unused block capacity for years for its entire history until just recently when all blocks started being full. This isn't difficult to understand.
All Core vs except Luke JR I think which actually wants to make the blocksize smaller, want to eventually make the blocksize higher.
That is correct. However, BU & their fanatics are not concerned with whether their "teachings" are related to reality/the truth or not. I think the biggest problems anti-Core guys have is that they don't trust them. Core hasn't said a specific date where this blocksize increase would happen, I think they will not stop complaining u ntil Core gives a clear date to raise the blocksize after the segwit activation, but I think if Core did that, they would still complain and don't trust them. They just hate them now no matter what they do.
It is not about the hate but its all about the monopoly. Both parties wanted to monopolize the bitcoin mining industry and if they will succeed they will have total control over the production of bitcoin. Thus it will mean huge profit from them and it could mean higher fees for us. What we need is the current bitcoin without bitcoin unlimited and without segwit. Bitcoin is good as it is.
All Core vs except Luke JR I think which actually wants to make the blocksize smaller, want to eventually make the blocksize higher.
That is correct. However, BU & their fanatics are not concerned with whether their "teachings" are related to reality/the truth or not. I think the biggest problems anti-Core guys have is that they don't trust them. Core hasn't said a specific date where this blocksize increase would happen, I think they will not stop complaining until Core gives a clear date to raise the blocksize after the segwit activation, but I think if Core did that, they would still complain and don't trust them. They just hate them now no matter what they do.
Okay, BillyBob. Can you give one good technical reason why separating out witness data is a good idea and why?
How about you watching the video from the scaling conference from 2015? It is a *good technical reason* because it solves all the things that are clearly listed (including cons) on the Bitcoin Core website. Re-writing this list in a post is redundant.People like me don't necessarily not like Core, we just realize they are working for the banks at this point. No, they don't literally work at BoA, silly buns, they are getting paid by big corporations like AXA that represent the same interests though.
This is complete and utter bullshit. Not only "are they" not working for the banks, they are not being paid by corporations (startup funding != being paid by) and Blockstream (if that's what you're referring to with the AXA propaganda bullshit) only represents a a part of the Bitcoin Core development[1].As far as I can tell, the only rational reason for separating out witness data would be if you wanted to restrict access to it later in a takeover scheme.
Nonsense as always.[1] - Here it is:
All Core vs except Luke JR I think which actually wants to make the blocksize smaller, want to eventually make the blocksize higher.
That is correct. However, BU & their fanatics are not concerned with whether their "teachings" are related to reality/the truth or not. I think the biggest problems anti-Core guys have is that they don't trust them. Core hasn't said a specific date where this blocksize increase would happen, I think they will not stop complaining until Core gives a clear date to raise the blocksize after the segwit activation, but I think if Core did that, they would still complain and don't trust them. They just hate them now no matter what they do.
Okay, BillyBob. Can you give one good technical reason why separating out witness data is a good idea and why?
People like me don't necessarily not like Core, we just realize they are working for the banks at this point. No, they don't literally work at BoA, silly buns, they are getting paid by big corporations like AXA that represent the same interests though.
As far as I can tell, the only rational reason for separating out witness data would be if you wanted to restrict access to it later in a takeover scheme.
Jump to: