even r/bitcoin admits, LN still requires huge blocks to scale

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: quake313 on March 30, 2017, 01:41:04 PM

Advice for those arguing with jonald_fyookball and franky1: Don't waste your time, paid shills are PAID to shill, arguing is what they want. They can not be convinced or swayed only bought and paid.

my income does not come from protecting a brand. and certainly nothing to do with any particular brand

my income is from a business selling products and service completely unrelated to BU or any brand.
you can try pigeon holing me into any brand your side is REKT campaigning at anytime. but it wont help you.

but atleast admit your part of a REKT campaign thats only desire is to protect blockstream devs..
and atleast admit your REKT campaigns have nothing to do with a diverse decentralised PEER network.

otherwise your just being a hypocrit.

and i too have many coins and prefer a single network of diverse decentralised peers.
not a TIER network with one brand control

there would be less argument from me if cor got rid of their puppet masters blockstream. and the core 'independent' devs actually acted independently to help any and all 'brands'.. rather than locking themselves up into one brand and demanding it be the king brand of bitcoin

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: quake313 on March 30, 2017, 01:41:04 PM

Advice for those arguing with jonald_fyookball and franky1: Don't waste your time, paid shills are PAID to shill, arguing is what they want. They can not be convinced or swayed only bought and paid.

or maybe we just own a lot more bitcoins than you and have a lot more to lose if bitcoin is subverted.

quake313

sr. member

Activity: 268

Merit: 250

Advice for those arguing with jonald_fyookball and franky1: Don't waste your time, paid shills are PAID to shill, arguing is what they want. They can not be convinced or swayed only bought and paid.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: Lauda on March 29, 2017, 05:22:45 PM

Wrong. There is no "Core" did that or did this. A few Core contributors and Adam Back wanted to reach consensus with the miners, which ultimately failed when F2Pool mined a Classic block. Most (if not all) of these people now even regret trying that.

your wrong
luke back tract and pretty much denounced his level of involvement in core within hours of signing

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/46rk3d/final_version_bitcoin_roundtable_consensus/d07jdup/

Quote

We can only represent ourselves, not the entire team.

which led to luke saying he cant guarantee 2mb BASE 4mb weight because he has no power or control of core.
which led people to think that the core signatures could have just sent in their janitor and floor sweeper to sign it.. thus rendering the agreement void
nothing at all related to F2pool.

..

secondly lauda
to address the other matter you have been argumentative over for the last year+ now
you think that segwit offers 2mb right at activation for everyone.. here lukes own words

Quote

SegWit doesn't change storage of any data, merely changes the way [segwit-enabled] transactions are hashed for the txid. Currently, all transactions are hashed by serially going over the version, inputs, signatures, and outputs. New transactions are instead exclude signatures from the hashing, so that the txid does not change if [only] the signature is modified. Because old nodes only understand the old method of hashing the transaction, the signatures effectively become invisible to them, and they don't count it against their "block size limit" rule, but they're still part of the real block itself.

If nobody uses SegWit, then none of the signatures are invisible to old nodes, so the entire size must be counted by old nodes and no gains in the limit are accomplished. So the expanded block space can only be used by wallets which upgrade

meaning its about people moving funds from native keys to segwit keys to even start to use the 3mb spare weight.. which you and others are stating 1mb base and 1.1mb spare weight for the sigs will be utilised at best..(totalling 2.1mb) IF(the bit you forget to add is the if) people use segwit keys.

this was all crystal clear a year ago[feb'16] even before segwit was even ready for public testing[summer'16] and obviously before 0.13.1 release [oct'16]

emphasis if they use segwit keys.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2970

Terminated.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 30, 2017, 07:56:42 AM

No... I don't care if Lauda thinks its false... because its not.

I don't think that it is wrong. The things that I've outlined are facts. Those can not be changed regardless how much money you pay people. Roll Eyes

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 30, 2017, 07:56:42 AM

The fact of the matter is that the Bitcoin network
as of TODAY has not scaled beyond the 1mb put
in place 7 years ago.

Straw man. How Classic, or should I say Unlimited? Roll Eyes

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: K128kevin2 on March 30, 2017, 06:35:38 AM

So you're knowingly and willingly spreading false information and... you don't care?
I hope all of the money Ver is paying you helps you sleep well at night.

No... I don't care if Lauda thinks its false... because its not.

The fact of the matter is that the Bitcoin network
as of TODAY has not scaled beyond the 1mb put
in place 7 years ago.

You can make all the excuses you want for it
(which is what he does and continues to do)
but it doesn't change that fact.

To me, he (she?) is just trolling/shilling and a waste
of time to argue with.

K128kevin2

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 29, 2017, 05:28:17 PM

Quote from: Lauda on March 29, 2017, 05:22:45 PM

I can't agree with false information.

So you're knowingly and willingly spreading false information and... you don't care?
I hope all of the money Ver is paying you helps you sleep well at night.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: Lauda on March 29, 2017, 05:22:45 PM

There is so much wrong in your post.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 29, 2017, 05:17:37 PM

Instead of agreeing to a 1 line of code (lets say 2mb) that everyone could have supported,

A 2 MB increase is not a single line of code; HF's are dangerous and the implications that they have on incentives such as centralization need to be factored in. Do I have to remind you about the DOS attack vector?

blockstreams idea is thousands of lines of code.. and if people dont sheep follow and pass the network to blockstream as the upper tier.. then.. guess what something worse than hard consensus..
blockstream want to pull the mining nuclear bomb and make it mandatory to use segwit..
thus still avoiding hard consensus and moving straight to a hard split.

come on lauda.. even you should be able to see the truth that blockstream are pulling the strings

going soft to avoid community node (hard) consensus, then going PoW heavy again to avoid node consensus.

yes by even trying to then go super over the top PoW change and mandatory activation is still avoiding community consensus.

wake up. get that blockstream defender hat off your head and burn it.. put a logical hat on and think about decentralised bitcoin.
stop thinking of things through the butcheeks of blockstream

please for once in a year be unbiased and logical about bitcoins ethos of diverse decentralised open network

wake the hell up

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: Lauda on March 29, 2017, 05:22:45 PM

I can't agree with false information.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2970

Terminated.

There is so much wrong in your post.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 29, 2017, 05:17:37 PM

Instead of agreeing to a 1 line of code (lets say 2mb) that everyone could have supported,

A 2 MB increase is not a single line of code; HF's are dangerous and the implications that they have on incentives such as centralization need to be factored in. Do I have to remind you about the DOS attack vector?

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 29, 2017, 05:17:37 PM

Core played every stalling tactic in the book from broken Hong Kong agreements to scaling conferences where no one was allowed to agree to anything

Wrong. There is no "Core" did that or did this. A few Core contributors and Adam Back wanted to reach consensus with the miners, which ultimately failed when F2Pool mined a Classic block. Most (if not all) of these people now even regret trying that.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 29, 2017, 05:17:37 PM

to coding up 5000 lines of Segwit and then require 95% consensus for it.

There is nothing wrong with that. Segwit is an amazing (whilst not perfect) change.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 29, 2017, 05:17:37 PM

You may never agree with me Lauda, and that's fine.

I can't agree with false information. Why do you keep doing this? Are you reading r/btc daily?

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Instead of agreeing to a 1 line of code (lets say 2mb) that
everyone could have supported, Core
played every stalling tactic in the book
from broken Hong Kong agreements to
scaling conferences where no one was
allowed to agree to anything, to coding
up 5000 lines of Segwit and then require 95%
consensus for it.

You call that delivering... and you blame the miners.

You may never agree with me Lauda, and that's fine.
God bless you and your cats, but to everyone else I ask again: when is enough going to be enough?

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2970

Terminated.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 29, 2017, 12:39:53 PM

Segwit isn't even close to acceptance by half the miners, let alone the 95% it needs to activate... so, no your beloved
Core developers haven't given jack shit.

This is complete bullshit and you know it. Core developers delivering something != miners adopting it. They have no control over the network. If the developers could control what should be adopted and what not, we wouldn't call the coin Bitcoin, we would call it Ethereum.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 29, 2017, 12:39:53 PM

To me, its pretty clear you are shilling (paid or not)..

I am not the one creating a new thread every two-three days, am I? Roll Eyes

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 29, 2017, 12:39:53 PM

You are familiar with the various scaling solutions being currently voted on?

There is Segwit, there are a few block size increase proposals (e.g. Bitpay) and there is the radical 'emergent consensus' that the economic majority does not want.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 29, 2017, 12:39:53 PM

Then what the hell are you talking about with these accusations of me being 'delusional' or 'misleading'?

Stop opening new threads every few days.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 29, 2017, 12:39:53 PM

There's people I disagree with but still respect (like Holliday and AgentofCoin) and then there's people that continually spin, twist, distort, divert, and scream.

There are such people on both sides. If you don't think that various corporate and government agencies haven't infiltrated both sides of the community long ago, then you are very much 'ignorant' as the average Joe. Time to wake up Jonald, and see what is really going on.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: Lauda on March 29, 2017, 09:53:12 AM

Jeesh jonald, what has gotten in to you? Assuming you are not a paid shill, you seem to be very anxious/in panic mode. You've never been creating so many threads in a short time span.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 28, 2017, 09:31:30 PM

Are we really going to wait another year for the core devs to 'allow' us to
upgrade? Or for the miners to reach consensus?

What are you talking about? The Core developers have given you a compromise, Segwit. Segwit will create 2-4 MB blocks. Stop with these delusional and misleading statements.

Segwit isn't even close to acceptance by half the miners, let alone the 95% it needs to activate... so, no your beloved
Core developers haven't given jack shit.

To me, its pretty clear you are shilling (paid or not), but I supposed you can claim that
you didn't know exactly what I meant when I asked 'are we really going
to wait...for the miners to reach consensus' (on ANY scaling solution).

You are familiar with the various scaling solutions being currently
voted on? Then what the hell are you talking about with these
accusations of me being 'delusional' or 'misleading'?

There's people I disagree with but still respect (like Holliday and AgentofCoin)
and then there's people that continually spin, twist, distort, divert, and scream.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2970

Terminated.

Quote from: Kprawn on March 29, 2017, 10:01:49 AM

Was the due date for signalling for SegWit not shortened to 1 Aug 2017?

No. That is BIP148, which is not added into Core.

Quote from: Kprawn on March 29, 2017, 10:01:49 AM

If BU were not in the picture, this would have been implemented months ago.... but they are stalling this with the introduction of BU to give OpenLedger and Ethereum and Dash a chance to catch up with Bitcoin. Roll Eyes

BU brought nothing good to Bitcoin if you really look at it. Segwit would have been activated by now; no 'divide and conquer', no HF propaganda (which caused the price drop). Who knows where we would have been. Lips sealed

Kprawn

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1074

Was the due date for signalling for SegWit not shortened to 1 Aug 2017? You cannot blame Core devs for the "blocking" of the Block size upgrade, if

they incorporated a Block size upgrade in SegWit and LN. If BU were not in the picture, this would have been implemented months ago.... but they are

stalling this with the introduction of BU to give OpenLedger and Ethereum and Dash a chance to catch up with Bitcoin. Roll Eyes

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2970

Terminated.

Jeesh jonald, what has gotten in to you? Assuming you are not a paid shill, you seem to be very anxious/in panic mode. You've never been creating so many threads in a short time span.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 28, 2017, 09:31:30 PM

Are we really going to wait another year for the core devs to 'allow' us to
upgrade? Or for the miners to reach consensus?

What are you talking about? The Core developers have given you a compromise, Segwit. Segwit will create 2-4 MB blocks. Stop with these delusional and misleading statements.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: spartacusrex on March 29, 2017, 09:38:17 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 29, 2017, 09:23:14 AM

I'm sorry, but you are wrong: we do need bigger blocks right now.
Bigger blocks are the ONLY way to protect from spam. If you know another way, let me know.

FFS..

Jhonny - I don't get it - you're obviously not a moron.. BUT you're becoming MORE ignorant as your incessant ranting continues !?. You've got to stop listening to Franky1. He is a moron.

BIGGER BLOCKS = LOWER FEES = MORE CHEAP SHITTY SPAM IN BLOCK.

SMALLER BLOCKS = HIGHER FEES = LESS/NO CHEAP SHITTY SPAM IN BLOCK. (hint: Because it's not cheap)

please..

I appreciate that...you're not a moron either.

But here is your mistake: You are ignoring half of the supply/demand equation.

You are saying: bigger blocks have lower fees, and lower fees is lower cost to the spammer,
while completely ignoring the fact that there's a lot more of them they would have to pay
to fill up the block...and this is especially true if the blocks are mostly full already because
then there's only a small amount of transactions the spammer needs to overfill the blocks,
whereas conversely: when blocks are big (supply is bigger than demand), the spammer needs
to fill ALL that extra space up.

Also, Alex points out another aspect of this that I hadn't even considered, which is that
spammers can pay ZERO fees once the mempool is full , just to keep the attack going.
his post here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18377356

K128kevin2

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 29, 2017, 09:23:14 AM

Bigger blocks are the ONLY way to protect from spam.

That's not protecting from spam, that's making it even easier for spammers.

spartacusrex

hero member

Activity: 718

Merit: 545

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 29, 2017, 09:23:14 AM

I'm sorry, but you are wrong: we do need bigger blocks right now.
Bigger blocks are the ONLY way to protect from spam. If you know another way, let me know.

FFS..

Jhonny - I don't get it - you're obviously not a moron.. BUT you're becoming MORE ignorant as your incessant ranting continues !?. You've got to stop listening to Franky1. He is a moron.

BIGGER BLOCKS = LOWER FEES = MORE CHEAP SHITTY SPAM IN BLOCK.

SMALLER BLOCKS = HIGHER FEES = LESS/NO CHEAP SHITTY SPAM IN BLOCK. (hint: Because it's not cheap)

please..

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: Darkbot on March 29, 2017, 08:44:13 AM

Poor Franky1, another day spewing out his daily FUD. How much are you going to earn today with all that trolling? Dont you got nothing better to do than sitting behind youre pc with youre fat ass making troll post after troll post? Youre noob ass will be raped at Github when they see all this bullshit.

all i hear is whistles in the wind

Topic: even r/bitcoin admits, LN still requires huge blocks to scale (Read 1137 times)