November 22, 2024, 07:05:34 AM

Welcome, Guest

News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 28.0 [Torrent]

Bitcoin Forum>Bitcoin>Bitcoin Discussion

Pages:

«
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
»

Author

Topic: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell - page 12. (Read 46265 times)

lurker10

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: manselr on April 06, 2017, 07:31:35 AM

MMmm looks like Jihan Wu is going to lose more and more supporters with that covert patented anti segwit tech on the ASIC machines he sells... he was ripping off people basically.

Ripping people off how? Why does it matter what any miner does as long as they do the hashing?

DGulari

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1000

KawBet.com - Anonymous Bitcoin Casino & Sportsbook

Quote from: cryptoanarchist on April 06, 2017, 09:35:02 AM

Finally, Core is dying. I've been waiting for 5 years. Cheesy

Cheesy

Me too. Core and Blockstream need and deserve nothing less than a sure and miserable death. Yesterday wouldn't be soon enough.

cryptoanarchist

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1003

Finally, Core is dying. I've been waiting for 5 years. Cheesy

Cheesy

aarturka

sr. member

Activity: 277

Merit: 250

Quote from: Hyena on April 06, 2017, 07:16:43 AM

I've been programming in C++ for the past 12 years, and yes the situation is evolving to the direction where I would make my own branch of the Bitcoin's reference client if no established party is willing to implement a plugin system.

The reference client should not have any soft-forky constraints to neither the block size nor dust threshold nor anything. It should just have a script engine for easily developing and adding soft-fork plugins. For example, let's say I don't want my node to relay TXs that have more than 100 inputs to solve the quadratic hashing problem as a soft fork. I would quickly slap together some Lua script that works as a transaction filter between the wallet server's mempool and the p2p network. With such a filter system full nodes could already gain enormous power that they currently don't have because Core refuses to give this power to the full nodes.

Get er done, till then bitcoiners stick to Segwit and not communist china coin

manselr

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 868

Merit: 1006

MMmm looks like Jihan Wu is going to lose more and more supporters with that covert patented anti segwit tech on the ASIC machines he sells... he was ripping off people basically.

Hyena

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 2114

Merit: 1015

Quote from: aarturka on April 06, 2017, 06:58:25 AM

Quote from: Hyena on April 06, 2017, 06:44:38 AM

Quote from: aarturka on April 06, 2017, 06:35:19 AM

Quote from: Hyena on April 06, 2017, 06:11:48 AM

Hypocrisy overload. Come on, this is hilarious, you see a threat to decentralization in mining but you don't see it in reference client implementation.

What don't you like about client implementation? are you a cool programmer? or just fart in a puddle

The more independent wallet implementations the better because it will dramatically reduce the attack surface of the network as a whole.

OR, alternatively I would be very happy if the Bitcoin's reference implementation had a convenient way for independent developers to add plugins. SegWit would then be a plugin instead of an intrinsic part of the reference client implementation. And I would be very happy to disable that plugin.

Ok, learn some C++ create your implementation and people will see if it's worth considering. Now I see what suggest Core - complete exquisite technological sollution on scalling and some others problems, from very proficient devs on one side and buggy incompetent dumb block increase from some lamers pushed only for political reasons by greedy Wu and Vermin

I've been programming in C++ for the past 12 years, and yes the situation is evolving to the direction where I would make my own branch of the Bitcoin's reference client if no established party is willing to implement a plugin system.

The reference client should not have any soft-forky constraints to neither the block size nor dust threshold nor anything. It should just have a script engine for easily developing and adding soft-fork plugins. For example, let's say I don't want my node to relay TXs that have more than 100 inputs to solve the quadratic hashing problem as a soft fork. I would quickly slap together some Lua script that works as a transaction filter between the wallet server's mempool and the p2p network. With such a filter system full nodes could already gain enormous power that they currently don't have because Core refuses to give this power to the full nodes.

aarturka

sr. member

Activity: 277

Merit: 250

Quote from: Hyena on April 06, 2017, 06:44:38 AM

Quote from: aarturka on April 06, 2017, 06:35:19 AM

Quote from: Hyena on April 06, 2017, 06:11:48 AM

Hypocrisy overload. Come on, this is hilarious, you see a threat to decentralization in mining but you don't see it in reference client implementation.

What don't you like about client implementation? are you a cool programmer? or just fart in a puddle

The more independent wallet implementations the better because it will dramatically reduce the attack surface of the network as a whole.

OR, alternatively I would be very happy if the Bitcoin's reference implementation had a convenient way for independent developers to add plugins. SegWit would then be a plugin instead of an intrinsic part of the reference client implementation. And I would be very happy to disable that plugin.

Ok, learn some C++ create your implementation and people will see if it's worth considering. Now I see what suggest Core - complete exquisite technological sollution on scalling and some others problems, from very proficient devs on one side and buggy incompetent dumb block increase from some lamers pushed only for political reasons by greedy Wu and Vermin on the other

Hyena

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 2114

Merit: 1015

Quote from: aarturka on April 06, 2017, 06:35:19 AM

Quote from: Hyena on April 06, 2017, 06:11:48 AM

Hypocrisy overload. Come on, this is hilarious, you see a threat to decentralization in mining but you don't see it in reference client implementation.

What don't you like about client implementation? are you a cool programmer? or just fart in a puddle

The more independent wallet implementations the better because it will dramatically reduce the attack surface of the network as a whole.

OR, alternatively I would be very happy if the Bitcoin's reference implementation had a convenient way for independent developers to add plugins. SegWit would then be a plugin instead of an intrinsic part of the reference client implementation. And I would be very happy to disable that plugin.

aarturka

sr. member

Activity: 277

Merit: 250

Quote from: Hyena on April 06, 2017, 06:11:48 AM

Hypocrisy overload. Come on, this is hilarious, you see a threat to decentralization in mining but you don't see it in reference client implementation.

What don't you like about client implementation? are you a cool programmer? or just fart in a puddle

DGulari

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1000

KawBet.com - Anonymous Bitcoin Casino & Sportsbook

Quote from: aarturka on April 06, 2017, 05:25:07 AM

All bitcoiners support Segwit

Typical Blockstream flunky moron.

Hyena

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 2114

Merit: 1015

Quote from: aarturka on April 06, 2017, 06:00:07 AM

Quote from: kiklo on April 06, 2017, 05:33:59 AM

Guess the majority of the Bitcoin miners are not bitcoiners then. Cheesy

Cheesy

you mean stupid greedy Wu and his puppets? I can't call them solid bitcoiners, obviously they think only about their income and not about essential Bitcoin value like decentralization, they are using their hash advantage to break and hinder bitcoin progress, they may short bitcoin and pump some alts like Roger Ver does.

Hypocrisy overload. Come on, this is hilarious, you see a threat to decentralization in mining but you don't see it in reference client implementation. I'll bet there's a documented mental pathology to describe your condition ... probably something to do with the frontal lobe.

aarturka

sr. member

Activity: 277

Merit: 250

Quote from: kiklo on April 06, 2017, 05:33:59 AM

Guess the majority of the Bitcoin miners are not bitcoiners then. Cheesy

Cheesy

you mean stupid greedy Wu and his puppets? I can't call them solid bitcoiners, obviously they think only about their income and not about essential Bitcoin value like decentralization, they are using their hash advantage to break and hinder bitcoin progress, they may short bitcoin and pump some alts like Roger Ver does.

kiklo

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: aarturka on April 06, 2017, 05:25:07 AM

Quote from: DGulari on April 06, 2017, 05:16:49 AM

I am pretty sure that will be fixed real fast.

SegWit is junk and people figured it out.

You are lunatic. There's no more than doz of morons that shill for BTU. All bitcoiners support Segwit

Guess the majority of the Bitcoin miners are not bitcoiners then. Cheesy

Cheesy

Cool

FYI:
Segwit is for NITWITS. Wink

Wink

aarturka

sr. member

Activity: 277

Merit: 250

Quote from: DGulari on April 06, 2017, 05:16:49 AM

I am pretty sure that will be fixed real fast.

SegWit is junk and people figured it out.

You are lunatic. There's no more than doz of morons that shill for BTU. All bitcoiners support Segwit

DGulari

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1000

KawBet.com - Anonymous Bitcoin Casino & Sportsbook

Quote from: Hyena on April 06, 2017, 03:33:56 AM

SegWit you are a sore loser and I laugh into my palm as I write.

Amen brother. Nodes can just ignore that SegWit crap and push down their bullshit soft fork.

Core got out of control and drunk on their own power kool aid thinking they can take over the network to please $70million investment. They need to be kicked out permanently. Take away their commit access. Surely there are enough people with enough talent not on the Blockstream payroll that we will be able to continue. So BU is a little balky in the early days. I am pretty sure that will be fixed real fast.

SegWit is junk and people figured it out. Time to move on.

Hyena

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 2114

Merit: 1015

Quote from: traincarswreck on April 06, 2017, 03:18:14 AM

Quote from: Hyena on April 06, 2017, 03:15:33 AM

So if every full node operator is allowed to define their own maximum block size limit then it's good.

Centralization is bad, right?

So when Core forces their block size on every full node operator then it's bad.

Yup perfect roger ver logic. "bitcoin is like starbux, therefore...."

You would get a C in an 8th grade class for your asinine rhetoric.

Hey go ahead and use whatever wallet software you want. I don't give a shit. And let me choose my own.

Bitcoin's protocol is not as rigid as Core wants people to believe. Full node operators have much more power than they think they have and Core does not want this knowledge to spread because they will lose everything if people just woke up to the truth.

Let's take SegWit, for example. Let's say it gets somehow activated. You think you have won? Nope. It's because full node operators who don't want SegWit can configure their full nodes so that SegWit transactions are not relayed. As a result SegWit transactions propagate at a slower rate making LN services that depend on SegWTF suffer losses. You see, soft fork does not save you. Have a taste of your own medicine. You soft fork BTC to activate SegWTF and I will soft fork BTC to blacklist SegWTF transactions. In the end miners get to choose which TXs go to blocks and you can't weed out miners, can you? You could propose switching Bitcoin to PoS but you don't even have stakeholder majority (80% of bitcoin holders think BU is better than SegWit), you are a sore loser and I laugh into my palm as I write.

traincarswreck

sr. member

Activity: 532

Merit: 251

Quote from: Hyena on April 06, 2017, 03:15:33 AM

So if every full node operator is allowed to define their own maximum block size limit then it's good.

Centralization is bad, right?

So when Core forces their block size on every full node operator then it's bad.

Yup perfect roger ver logic. "bitcoin is like starbux, therefore...."

You would get a C in an 8th grade class for your asinine rhetoric.

Hyena

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 2114

Merit: 1015

Quote from: X7 on April 06, 2017, 02:53:47 AM

Either you fundamentally do not understand what you are speaking about, or you are a BU shill.

Sure, let's define our centralised block limit under the benevolent reign of our elected BU president.

Gimme a break...

You don't have the faintest idea what is the definition of centralization. When a person fails to understand the definition of the term they use then there is no point in further argument until definitions have been clarified.

But ok let me babysit you through this.

Decentralization is good, right?

So if every full node operator is allowed to define their own maximum block size limit then it's good.

Centralization is bad, right?

So when Core forces their block size on every full node operator then it's bad.

X7

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1009

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone

Quote from: Hyena on April 06, 2017, 02:37:00 AM

Quote from: andron8383 on April 05, 2017, 03:55:04 PM

Segwit is good technology it allows to make changes without making hard fork.
If miners were smart enough they could have make own versions of segwit.

What is fun free market will push LN with lover quality version on BTC because of BTC bugs.
Miners won't stop LN on bitcoin because they will block LN.
Etherum is perfect exaple of 2nd layer of BTC once BTC stuck their traction started rissing dramatically.
Same time LTC stagnated and only segwit shows some love to LTC before it looked as abandoned product.
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-eth-dash-ltc.html

look like nicely ETH is getting traction.
I am sad because hard data shows that ETH is getting into race more than LTC people are value technology more than "Bitmain miners".

If people are so blind that ONE central miners Bitmain can control bitcoin evolution it looks like BTC have lost their decentralized character somewhere. When i look at BU features that is bigger block this is FUCKING joke to me .
BU client have 0 improvements to network or bug fixes. Same time it have own bugs...
Market will move price ETH after segwit LTC up.
Today ETH miners are earning 80% of BTC ^^.

I believe that to spam network with transaction is bitmain miners job same time they were mining empty blocks,
they have risen transaction fees but instead of LTC booming in transaction number ETH is booming this is so nice to see as lesson for bitmain .
This shows how central planers from bitmain can fuckup

...

Kind of dumb to be mad on BU because of "no tech improvements". The way I see BU is that they allow me to define my own maximum block size limit. I would happily use Core or Classic or whichever wallet implementation if they allowed me as a full node operator to define the maximum block size limit I am comfortable with. Bitcoin wallet should actually have some plugin system instead of so many different dev teams trying to develop the "real" Bitcoin wallet. If Bitcoin's reference client had a plugin system I would download and install these two plugins:
* Maximum Block Size Configuration Plugin
* SegWit Transaction Rejection Plugin

Either you fundamentally do not understand what you are speaking about, or you are a BU shill.

Sure, let's define our centralised block limit under the benevolent reign of our elected BU president.

Gimme a break...

Hyena

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 2114

Merit: 1015

Quote from: andron8383 on April 05, 2017, 03:55:04 PM

Segwit is good technology it allows to make changes without making hard fork.
If miners were smart enough they could have make own versions of segwit.

What is fun free market will push LN with lover quality version on BTC because of BTC bugs.
Miners won't stop LN on bitcoin because they will block LN.
Etherum is perfect exaple of 2nd layer of BTC once BTC stuck their traction started rissing dramatically.
Same time LTC stagnated and only segwit shows some love to LTC before it looked as abandoned product.
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-btc-eth-dash-ltc.html

look like nicely ETH is getting traction.
I am sad because hard data shows that ETH is getting into race more than LTC people are value technology more than "Bitmain miners".

If people are so blind that ONE central miners Bitmain can control bitcoin evolution it looks like BTC have lost their decentralized character somewhere. When i look at BU features that is bigger block this is FUCKING joke to me .
BU client have 0 improvements to network or bug fixes. Same time it have own bugs...
Market will move price ETH after segwit LTC up.
Today ETH miners are earning 80% of BTC ^^.

I believe that to spam network with transaction is bitmain miners job same time they were mining empty blocks,
they have risen transaction fees but instead of LTC booming in transaction number ETH is booming this is so nice to see as lesson for bitmain .
This shows how central planers from bitmain can fuckup

...

Kind of dumb to be mad on BU because of "no tech improvements". The way I see BU is that they allow me to define my own maximum block size limit. I would happily use Core or Classic or whichever wallet implementation if they allowed me as a full node operator to define the maximum block size limit I am comfortable with. Bitcoin wallet should actually have some plugin system instead of so many different dev teams trying to develop the "real" Bitcoin wallet. If Bitcoin's reference client had a plugin system I would download and install these two plugins:
* Maximum Block Size Configuration Plugin
* SegWit Transaction Rejection Plugin

Pages:

«
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
»

Bitcoin Forum>Bitcoin>Bitcoin Discussion

Jump to: