Topic: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell - page 16. (Read 46270 times)

iCEBREAKER Fixing malleability is like fixing your cat.

It's the owner that gets to define the problem and it's the cat that gets fixed. (The cat works just fine with it's manhood intact)

Malleable transaction haven't stopped Bitcoin from working. In fact malleable transactions prevent types of applications that move fee paying transactions off the Bitcoin network and onto other networks like the Lightning Network - resulting in less fees to pay for bitcoin security

Let me explain - Malleability is a behavior that encourages network participants using the network in other ways to have functions other than money confirm on the blockchain. Its functions should be defined and agreed before it's classified as something needing a fix, it's not a bug it's not harmed bitcoin, if anything it's been a scapegoat used to arguer fraud and that bitcoin is not broken and works for everyone, fix this and we fix fraud (NOT).

Bitcoin Transaction Malleability puts individual users who want to be their own bank on the same playing field as multinational corporations who want to use bitcoin to build a private banking layer on top of bitcoin, why remove it?



If we activate segwit we get a marginal increase in transaction limit, (the number of transactions obfuscated so you can't do the math but maybe it's a 70% increase) and we move from a 1MB block limit to a 4MB block weight. where a simple 4MB limit would give us a 300% increase in transaction volume.

In the future if we what to increase the transaction limit once segwit is active lets say a 4MB block limit, we would get a 16MB block weight.

So if we compare apples with apples the transaction limit with transaction limits, we get a much higher transaction limit if we move to a 4MB block size than we do if we move to a 4MB block weight. the difference is more profound when you think that moving to an 8MB block limit is equivalent to a 8MB block weight.

with segwit it gets harder and harder to increase the transaction limit

core-fans seems to have no problems with high fees, why?

I would like to understand more about this.  I know that there is a transaction piece and a witness piece, but why can't they simply both be increased
in a linear fashion in the future?  


ahh the old bandwagon... a tried and true propaganda technique.  works every time.  i mean, they can't all be wrong can they?

No, that's wrong.

By fixing tx malleability, segwit enables payment channels like Lightning Network, which may support unlimited numbers of instantly confirmed on-chain transactions.

Its weird how all of the intelligent active devs and educated persons have the same opinion that BU is bad and a limit on the block size is important.

Just a reminder. SegWit is a transaction limit proposal, and if activated it will be much harder to increase transaction capacity on chain knowing that post SegWit increases comes with 4X the block weight. 


here are the economic policies being pushed by incumbent developers - they unanimously support limiting bitcoin transaction:

they are planning on making bitcoin the prunned database of LTXO
(locked transaction outputs)

where LN and altcoins(sidechains) are the payment layer.


sidechains=altcoins. nothing more needs to be said.

LN is a secondary network which would then "settle" back to the main Bitcoin network,
so if widely used, would make the main network a "settlement" network.

the core/blockstream guys like Greg and Pieter say that they want full blocks and
substantial fees on the main network... ostensibly for security reasons (because
miners won't get as much block rewards in the future) and decentralization reasons
(because node costs are rising)  and other good sounding reasons... but when you look
into those reasons, they don't always make sense.  (been argue/debated to death)
What is the real reason they want it?  And how are they
going to recoup the 70M in VC?  
  
I just find it doubtful that their support of smaller blocks has nothing to do with their business plans,
and if I am wrong, why don't they just come out and explain their plans, because
it would help Bitcoin and it would help their company.

Well, I can't speak for Blockstream, but I don't think they are in the business of scaling bitcoin at all, necessarily.  Their business seems to be producing side-chain-based solutions for specific use-cases - like Liquid for example.

Aren't they planning to turn Bitcoin into some payment layer?

I am interested to know their general business plan and how it relates to scaling Bitcoin.

There are multiple open source implementations of Lightning from multiple teams, and there are no commercial offerings.  Anyone who might want to charge for some 'value-added' lightning implementation will have many free competitors.




How much more transparent can you get than publishing everything as open source?

https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning

I dunno... i saw a thread where people are playing around with testnet but i do not know the difference beteween that an what the commercial offerings would be.

I think we would all feel a lot better if Blockstream would be transparent with the community but they have mostly not been.

Do you always hear voices in your head or just when you're on bitcointalk? LOL.

Everyone but you knows what I am talking about.

I have read articles that Bitcoin users buy drugs with cryptocurrency, I didn't believe it. I guess it wasn't completely untrue, I found one such user, LOL.
What are you babbling about? Actually don't mind it. You should be taking drugs that make you sing love is in the air or something, LOL. Seriously, get off that shit, it's harmful to your health.

No the BU supporters are, the BU deceleration that says the President gets to pick everyone and choose the rules and own the mining.

What president? What BU paper? Are you on drugs or something? LOL.

The BU paper give explicate power to the existing president.

Write a new Bitcoin whitepaper.
In the original Bitcoin whitepaper Bitcoin is determined by consensus which is enforced by miners.
Write a new whitepaper and fork Bitcoin to something else. It will not be POW consensus enforced by miners in that case. Which is not necessarily bad.