Topic: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell - page 26. (Read 46270 times)
You are correct that I believe that a block size increase is both necessary and valuable, but that is not what my proposal is based upon nor was it something I said anywhere in the proposal. The proposal is a compromise because the vast majority of Bitcoin users and holders think you are the retarded one, just like you think they are. Regardless of whether you are right or not, they are going to severely damage the prospects of Bitcoin if you do not compromise.
You should probably know that I used to vehemently support your argument, day in, day out. Until I spent a month working out the math in great detail and realized that I was arguing for the wrong thing.
This is the same kind of bullshit mudflinging that needs to stop. First you make an appeal to ignorance and mischaracterize other people's arguments, and then you insult everyone who disagrees with you.
Zero proof, sources cited, or any arguments of substance. Much appeal to authority fallacy, yes.
And while committing logical fallacies and being a jackass, you claim the higher ground. Nice.
I hate to break it to you, but you are acting like the garbage that you proclaim to abhor.
This whole thread is riddled with posts by me that cite and quote objective and founded arguments from great economists and accepted academic theory. That I have pointed out that the vast majority of vocal anti-core proponents do not base on of their opinions in such theory is not mudslinging its observable reality. I cited my sources you have simply ignored all of my posts. And then you have called my cited arguments logical fallacies which is ignoring logic. And then you called me a jack-ass which is an ad hominem. And then you have reasserted that I am not citing my arguments which is again absolutely observably not true. You should probably know that I used to vehemently support your argument, day in, day out. Until I spent a month working out the math in great detail and realized that I was arguing for the wrong thing.
This is the same kind of bullshit mudflinging that needs to stop. First you make an appeal to ignorance and mischaracterize other people's arguments, and then you insult everyone who disagrees with you.
Zero proof, sources cited, or any arguments of substance. Much appeal to authority fallacy, yes.
And while committing logical fallacies and being a jackass, you claim the higher ground. Nice.
I hate to break it to you, but you are acting like the garbage that you proclaim to abhor.
Best for store of wealth as it has the most secure and apolitical value proposition and the longest track record and always will. This is akin to genes which show their relevance and value not by their evolution over time but by the fact that they don't change overtime. This is also a quality of gold which has a market cap in the trillions and is far more expensive and encumbered to transact than bitcoin will ever be. Some things are valued because they change and sometimes are valued because they don't. Bitcoin is the latter.
You are going to so disappointed.
I leave you to your religion.
Later,
You stated BTC would be the Best Forever,
Can you really take yourself seriously after that.
Things I use to hear IBM makes the Best Personal Computer, no one will ever complete,
Until a Little Company called Compaq came along and guess what they made better computers and even they fell in time to HP.
Things change Hard drive tech started with rll, then mfm, then scsi, then IDE, and now SATA and others.
BTC is the rll, it won't last without some serious upgrades.
If a product can hold the market for 10 years , it did really well, expecting it to last forever is religion and you will be disappointed.
Or are you still using that 8 Track tape in your 1970s car.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 278
Bitcoin :open immutable decentralized global fair
You are conflating the usefulness of transacting with money with the usefulness of a store of value. That people will leave bitcoin because it is not useful for the former does not imply bitcoin is not useful for the latter.
Metaplayers waste nothing by using bitcoin, it will always be by far the cheapest more secure/apolitical way to send large amounts of value. Other options will never be able to beat this.
A voice of reason, thank you traincarswreck. Bitcoin has proven to be an amazing store-of-value asset, providing us all an option to beat the rising cost of rent, travel, healthcare, education, etc.
You guys ruined it all. Bitcoin is now fucked and getting more fucked everyday. I think the end in near.
OP, quite the contrary. The integrity of Bitcoin, as it stands in its current form, unchanged, day by day, is getting stronger and stronger. It is virtually flawless. The only thing that can break it, is implementing a change.
To further borrow words of wisdom...
Bitcoin is supposed to be a digital store of value, not some micro-transaction dust coin.
If you modify BTC into an alt-coin it will be susceptible to more bugs, more issues, more security risks, etc...
Bitcoin will gain MORE value over time if people leave it as-is...
Bitcoin will gain MORE value over time if people leave it as-is...
Bitcoin has been transacted globally and has emerged >$15B strong, and has been getting stronger each of these past EIGHT years.
To all, for a better understanding of why bitcoin has emerged as this amazing store of value, please read this post titled "Hacks & puppets & forks - how to destroy bitcoin" https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/hacks-puppets-forks-how-to-destroy-bitcoin-1834310
Your proposal is based on the tacit assumption that increasing the block size is necessary and valuable which is based on the tacitly held assumption that increasing the tps solve a significant problem.
You are correct that I believe that a block size increase is both necessary and valuable, but that is not what my proposal is based upon nor was it something I said anywhere in the proposal. The proposal is a compromise because the vast majority of Bitcoin users and holders think you are the retarded one, just like you think they are. Regardless of whether you are right or not, they are going to severely damage the prospects of Bitcoin if you do not compromise.
You should probably know that I used to vehemently support your argument, day in, day out. Until I spent a month working out the math in great detail and realized that I was arguing for the wrong thing.
Quote
These assumptions are not based on any accepted economic theory, they are simply perpetuated by people that don't understand the foundation for reason.
This is the same kind of bullshit mudflinging that needs to stop. First you make an appeal to ignorance and mischaracterize other people's arguments, and then you insult everyone who disagrees with you.
Quote
The people that are in favor of either very slow scaling or none at all are the ones that are most educated and read on related economic theory. They are the one's quoting peer reviewed papers.
That there is a whole faction of people trying to steer bitcoin in a certain direction does not at all give validity to their argument and there is no reason at all to compromise with such irrational behavior. The system was clearly designed to resist tyranny of the majority.
That there is a whole faction of people trying to steer bitcoin in a certain direction does not at all give validity to their argument and there is no reason at all to compromise with such irrational behavior. The system was clearly designed to resist tyranny of the majority.
Zero proof, sources cited, or any arguments of substance. Much appeal to authority fallacy, yes.
Quote
Core's resistance to hasty scaling and any significant change is simply an extension of Satoshi's designed of a system that cannot be usurped by an ignorant impatient uneducated mob.
And while committing logical fallacies and being a jackass, you claim the higher ground. Nice.
I hate to break it to you, but you are acting like the garbage that you proclaim to abhor.
No coin can have as stable of a value proposition or the empirical evidence of security as bitcoin. The coin's you are quoting are not intended to have these qualities. Ethereum hasn't even decided its inflation schedule as I understand and litecoin has a $200 million cap right now. You are calling me religious for making well reasoned claims but you are simultaneously speaking to future scenario that doesn't exist today.
Bitcoin offers these things that no other proposal can, and an increased transaction capacity and low fees is not a valuable solution as evidenced by the market cap of the many coins that offer it.
Bitcoin isn't valued because its cheap and fast, its valued bitcoin its value proposition is secure in other words its a digital gold/inflation hedge.
Bitcoin offers these things that no other proposal can, and an increased transaction capacity and low fees is not a valuable solution as evidenced by the market cap of the many coins that offer it.
Bitcoin isn't valued because its cheap and fast, its valued bitcoin its value proposition is secure in other words its a digital gold/inflation hedge.
You stated BTC would be the Best Forever,
Can you really take yourself seriously after that.
Things I use to hear IBM makes the Best Personal Computer, no one will ever complete,
Until a Little Company called Compaq came along and guess what they made better computers and even they fell in time to HP.
Things change Hard drive tech started with rll, then mfm, then scsi, then IDE, and now SATA and others.
BTC is the rll, it won't last without some serious upgrades.
If a product can hold the market for 10 years , it did really well, expecting it to last forever is religion and you will be disappointed.
Or are you still using that 8 Track tape in your 1970s car.
How about we break the cycle of mudflinging and insults - against both sides - and go back to searching for a compromise solution.
I proposed one today after days of research and refinement and weeks of toying with the idea. I would like some rational feedback:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/blockchain-size-proposal-very-slow-voted-changes-1844059
The infighting and mudflinging is hurting all of us.
I proposed one today after days of research and refinement and weeks of toying with the idea. I would like some rational feedback:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/blockchain-size-proposal-very-slow-voted-changes-1844059
The infighting and mudflinging is hurting all of us.
Quote
The Bitcoin blocksize debate is giving altcoins their golden opportunity to break Bitcoin's dominance, primarily because several extreme ideological factions are completely unwilling to compromise with the opposing side, and now frequently promote drastic threats against the other side.
1. No Blocksize increases: Those favoring no blocksize increases at all are in the extreme minority. Refusing to compromise may result in even bigger blocks than would be possible by compromising, after significant damage from a contentious hardfork. Refusing to compromise hurts all Bitcoin holders, miners, users, and developers.
I welcome any rational feedback. Thanks.
1. No Blocksize increases: Those favoring no blocksize increases at all are in the extreme minority. Refusing to compromise may result in even bigger blocks than would be possible by compromising, after significant damage from a contentious hardfork. Refusing to compromise hurts all Bitcoin holders, miners, users, and developers.
I welcome any rational feedback. Thanks.
Your proposal is based on the tacit assumption that increasing the block size is necessary and valuable which is based on the tacitly held assumption that increasing the tps solve a significant problem. These assumptions are not based on any accepted economic theory, they are simply perpetuated by people that don't understand the foundation for reason.
The people that are in favor of either very slow scaling or none at all are the ones that are most educated and read on related economic theory. They are the one's quoting peer reviewed papers.
That there is a whole faction of people trying to steer bitcoin in a certain direction does not at all give validity to their argument and there is no reason at all to compromise with such irrational behavior. The system was clearly designed to resist tyranny of the majority.
Core's resistance to hasty scaling and any significant change is simply an extension of Satoshi's designed of a system that cannot be usurped by an ignorant impatient uneducated mob.
No coin can have as stable of a value proposition or the empirical evidence of security as bitcoin. The coin's you are quoting are not intended to have these qualities. Ethereum hasn't even decided its inflation schedule as I understand and litecoin has a $200 million cap right now. You are calling me religious for making well reasoned claims but you are simultaneously speaking to future scenario that doesn't exist today.
Bitcoin offers these things that no other proposal can, and an increased transaction capacity and low fees is not a valuable solution as evidenced by the market cap of the many coins that offer it.
Bitcoin isn't valued because its cheap and fast, its valued bitcoin its value proposition is secure in other words its a digital gold/inflation hedge.
Bitcoin offers these things that no other proposal can, and an increased transaction capacity and low fees is not a valuable solution as evidenced by the market cap of the many coins that offer it.
Bitcoin isn't valued because its cheap and fast, its valued bitcoin its value proposition is secure in other words its a digital gold/inflation hedge.
How about we break the cycle of mudflinging and insults - against both sides - and go back to searching for a compromise solution.
I proposed one today after days of research and refinement and weeks of toying with the idea. I would like some rational feedback:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/blockchain-size-proposal-very-slow-voted-changes-1844059
The infighting and mudflinging is hurting all of us.
I proposed one today after days of research and refinement and weeks of toying with the idea. I would like some rational feedback:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/blockchain-size-proposal-very-slow-voted-changes-1844059
The infighting and mudflinging is hurting all of us.
You are conflating the usefulness of transacting with money with the usefulness of a store of value. The people will leave bitcoin because it is not useful for the former does not imply bitcoin is not useful for the latter.
Metaplayers waste nothing by using bitcoin, it will always be by far the cheapest more secure/apolitical way to send large amounts of value. Other options will never be able to beat this.
Metaplayers waste nothing by using bitcoin, it will always be by far the cheapest more secure/apolitical way to send large amounts of value. Other options will never be able to beat this.
LOL,
You don't know that , and you definitely can't use the scientific method to prove it.
You hold BTC as a religion icon that can not fail,
It is an economic product , it has no magic to resist the real market forces when they appear.
LTC & ETH are both already cheaper to send, especially now that coinbase is no longer paying everyone's transaction fees for them.
If you want a religion , go pick one with some values besides endless selfish greed, BTC is a False Prophet and it is beginning its decline,
due to economic forces nothing else.
The Basis for determination BTC is too young, is simple,
Product Recognition , The Majority of people still don't even know what it is , much less how to use it.
For someone that claims to understand science, you seem to be failing in math.
If I can use a product that is faster and cheaper and provides me with a better service, then that is the coin I would use.
Wasting Fiat on a product that is weaker than the competition , is really foolish.
Only someone believing the Hype would continue using a slower more expensive coin, that is wasting your time and money.
You are acting like BTC is a religious choice not an economic one.
For you it may be a religion , for everyone else it is merely a product or service that has not kept up with the competition.
What makes you think Meta Players like to waste money, the bean counters usually pay attention to fractions of a penny, and the meta players use bean counters.
Metaplayers waste nothing by using bitcoin, it will always be by far the cheapest more secure/apolitical way to send large amounts of value. Other options will never be able to beat this.
In regards to SW, I believe I have read that it is something like 50,000 lines of code, which implies it is horribly complex (I am not 100% sure on this stat, although this fact is given little weight in my opinion), and it leads to things that will change the security model of Bitcoin. As it stands today, the miners receive ~all of the transaction fees, which is what gives them incentives to keep the network secure. By removing revenue from the miners, you are lowering the EV of a $1 investment in mining equipment to use to secure the network, and increasing the EV of a $1 investment in mining equipment to be used to harm the network (currently negative).
This is completely wrong. Segwit does not have 50k lines of code. You are most likely referring to the comparison of Core and BU that was on reddit a few months back. Furthermore, Segwit removes no fees from miners. The claim that LN will steal mining fees is also a huge slippery slope.I can check the numbers and come back here.
Saying the limit is artificial is semantic and subjective at best. The entire set of concensus rules and all of the parameters are "artificial". There is nothing scientific or founded in economics to call a certain parameter that you don't like "artificial". You are implying it is a negative thing but not giving any founded reasoning as to why it is so.
You have no basis or metric for determining whether bitcoin is too young to not increase its capacity and it is therefore only your individual subjective opinion and the opinion of other misinformed persons.
The exodus you speak of is FUD and not a falsifiable conjecture and therefore admittedly not rooted in a scientifically based argument. You speak of an undefined future only, which is your only weapon in the debate.
Many business solutions are being created for bitcoin but bitcoin is not being adopted as a payment method which is not a negative thing like you imply. Bitcoin as a store of wealth serves a great purpose in this world and businesses and citizens using it to transact are not needed whatsoever for this phenomenon to unfold.
You have no basis or metric for determining whether bitcoin is too young to not increase its capacity and it is therefore only your individual subjective opinion and the opinion of other misinformed persons.
The exodus you speak of is FUD and not a falsifiable conjecture and therefore admittedly not rooted in a scientifically based argument. You speak of an undefined future only, which is your only weapon in the debate.
Many business solutions are being created for bitcoin but bitcoin is not being adopted as a payment method which is not a negative thing like you imply. Bitcoin as a store of wealth serves a great purpose in this world and businesses and citizens using it to transact are not needed whatsoever for this phenomenon to unfold.
The Basis for determination BTC is too young, is simple,
Product Recognition , The Majority of people still don't even know what it is , much less how to use it.
For someone that claims to understand science, you seem to be failing in math.
If I can use a product that is faster and cheaper and provides me with a better service, then that is the coin I would use.
Wasting Fiat on a product that is weaker than the competition , is really foolish.
Only someone believing the Hype would continue using a slower more expensive coin, that is wasting your time and money.
You are acting like BTC is a religious choice not an economic one.
For you it may be a religion , for everyone else it is merely a product or service that has not kept up with the competition.
What makes you think Meta Players like to waste money, the bean counters usually pay attention to fractions of a penny, and the meta players use bean counters.
Core has significant influence, a big part of this is because what is merged into the code by Core is advertised on the same website that the Bitcoin whitepaper was originally hosted on, and in the forums that satoshi posted in.
It is quite different to point this out than to imply that Core has control of bitcoin and ability to unilaterally decided its fate. What you are pointing out is effectively part of a check an balance versus dramatic in unfavorable change comparable to the US government system. It doesn't allow Core to take the whole system hostage any more than the different roles exchanges, miners, users etc have.Each group has some ability to veto change, and pointing to only one such group as having such power is to either not understand the system or to speak disingenuously about it.
Not to mention core is a collective of different individuals contributing to an open source project.
In the first issue that you cited, sipa said that the core maintainers do not, and do not want to decide what the network's rules are. By this logic, they would be unable to merge any kind of forks into the Bitcoin Core code at all, including soft forks. Additionally, they seem to be threatening to HF a change in the PoW if the miners do not accept SW, which implies they are both able to change the network's rules in regards to the PoW, and are saying that SW is something that needs to be part of the network's rules.
Are you honestly implying core has a set of magic rings that changes the consensus rules of the network by touching them together?The network has to accept them.
Core can't unilaterally do anything meaningful but accept and reject proposals to the network/system.
I stated my primary concerns about SW (and in turn LN) above.
In 2014, it was generally safe to accept a 0/unconfirmed transaction, as the rules to determine if a transaction would confirm were fairly clear, and would not change (for the most part) from block to block, so you could look at the majority of unconfirmed transactions that you receive and say that it will either confirm within a few blocks, or that it will not confirm at all, and would usually be correct. There were multiple gambling sites that would display the result of an on-chain bet prior to the transaction/bet being confirmed, and the losses due to double spends were low enough so that they continued offering this service. Today, the criteria of if a transaction will be confirmed within the next few blocks changes from block to block and will mostly depend on recent transaction volume and what is in the mempool, however the advent of RBF further complicates this.
Accepting a 0/unconfirmed transaction (assuming there is sufficient block space) is not all that different from accepting a check or a credit card payment, as the risks are very similar. Some people have claimed that transaction fees will move towards zero if the max block size is too large, however this can be resolved by making transactions that include a fee of under x BTC/byte outright invalid, and in order to account that an acceptable fee rate might change over time, this can be done via a series of soft forks (eg have a soft fork that says that any transaction confirmed in blocks 500,000 through 550,000 that contain a tx fee of under 100 sat/byte are invalid, then around block 500,000 a new soft fork could be implemented that says any transaction confirmed in blocks 550,001 through 600,000 that contain a tx fee of under 98 sat/byte are invalid, and so on). If this was implemented, then the block size could be set so that the mempool is effectively cleared when each block is found.
In 2014, it was generally safe to accept a 0/unconfirmed transaction, as the rules to determine if a transaction would confirm were fairly clear, and would not change (for the most part) from block to block, so you could look at the majority of unconfirmed transactions that you receive and say that it will either confirm within a few blocks, or that it will not confirm at all, and would usually be correct. There were multiple gambling sites that would display the result of an on-chain bet prior to the transaction/bet being confirmed, and the losses due to double spends were low enough so that they continued offering this service. Today, the criteria of if a transaction will be confirmed within the next few blocks changes from block to block and will mostly depend on recent transaction volume and what is in the mempool, however the advent of RBF further complicates this.
Accepting a 0/unconfirmed transaction (assuming there is sufficient block space) is not all that different from accepting a check or a credit card payment, as the risks are very similar. Some people have claimed that transaction fees will move towards zero if the max block size is too large, however this can be resolved by making transactions that include a fee of under x BTC/byte outright invalid, and in order to account that an acceptable fee rate might change over time, this can be done via a series of soft forks (eg have a soft fork that says that any transaction confirmed in blocks 500,000 through 550,000 that contain a tx fee of under 100 sat/byte are invalid, then around block 500,000 a new soft fork could be implemented that says any transaction confirmed in blocks 550,001 through 600,000 that contain a tx fee of under 98 sat/byte are invalid, and so on). If this was implemented, then the block size could be set so that the mempool is effectively cleared when each block is found.
It has never been safe to accept Zero Confirmations, considering BTC has on average 3 orphan block per day.
And to Double spend all I have to do is send out the 1st transaction with zero fees to a retail vendor, and then transfer all of my BTC to another address with a high transaction fee.
Sorry BTC requires 3 confirmations to be safe , anything else is just asking to be robbed.
In 2014, it was not trivial to double spend even most 0 fee transactions, and merchants could impose filters to ensure they do not accept a 0/unconfirmed transaction that contains an insufficient fee. By suggestion to make transactions that contain too little of a fee invalid would also solve this issue. Today it is very unsafe to accept a 0/unconfirmed transaction because of the fee market and RBF.
In the first issue that you cited, sipa said that the core maintainers do not, and do not want to decide what the network's rules are. By this logic, they would be unable to merge any kind of forks into the Bitcoin Core code at all, including soft forks. Additionally, they seem to be threatening to HF a change in the PoW if the miners do not accept SW, which implies they are both able to change the network's rules in regards to the PoW, and are saying that SW is something that needs to be part of the network's rules.
Are you honestly implying core has a set of magic rings that changes the consensus rules of the network by touching them together?The network has to accept them.
Core can't unilaterally do anything meaningful but accept and reject proposals to the network/system.
The Artificial Limit of 1MB blocksize is causing an artificial limit of transaction space , this causes the increased fee system and transaction delays.
BTC is too Young of a system to not increase OnChain Transaction capacity,
Offchain systems should happen later , BTC just does not have the market saturation to support these self imposed limitations out of greed.
And this will cause an exodus to cheaper faster Alts, which once someone gets used to a faster cheaper version, they won't go back unless BTC speeds up and cheapens up their fees.
Where are you seeing increased adoption, business have been dropping BTC usage not expanding it.
You have no basis or metric for determining whether bitcoin is too young to not increase its capacity and it is therefore only your individual subjective opinion and the opinion of other misinformed persons.
The exodus you speak of is FUD and not a falsifiable conjecture and therefore admittedly not rooted in a scientifically based argument. You speak of an undefined future only, which is your only weapon in the debate.
Many business solutions are being created for bitcoin but bitcoin is not being adopted as a payment method which is not a negative thing like you imply. Bitcoin as a store of wealth serves a great purpose in this world and businesses and citizens using it to transact are not needed whatsoever for this phenomenon to unfold.
Quote
Users are more content to hold and hope the price goes up , than spend it on a daily basis.
BTC is a speculation, it has failed to be adopted as a currency and unless things change quickly , it is losing that window forever.
Of course they are. Because no one wants to spend a money that is increasing in value versus their other options. And yes bitcoin will lose its option to be scaled in regard to transaction capacity but only because its value rises to the point that meta players are using it for large value settlement/transactions. This means the network will be worth trillions of usd or more, and yes casual users today will stop using it primarily as a payment system. BTC is a speculation, it has failed to be adopted as a currency and unless things change quickly , it is losing that window forever.
But it will still be p2p because a metaplayer/bank (peer1) will be able to send it to another metaplayer/bank (peer2)
Clear evidence of Blockstream controlling the Core code base to prevent block size increase can be seen here, someone offered to help increasing the blocksize, but the issue was closed immediately by sipa (Pieter Wuille, Blockstream co-founder):
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10028
You can see Pieter Wuille closed the issue immediately but then try to justify it with the usual corporate double speak by claiming the issue is up to the community and out of his hand.
This is what we call 'lying'.
If we're talking about increasing block size from 4MB to 8MB, there maybe some room for debate.
But nothing can justify not going form 1MB to 2MB, there is a real backlog and the safety limit is above 4MB.
Blockstream is clearly holding the bitcoin code base hostage.
Here is another pull request for block size increase, closed immediately without any comment:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10014
In the first issue that you cited, sipa said that the core maintainers do not, and do not want to decide what the network's rules are. By this logic, they would be unable to merge any kind of forks into the Bitcoin Core code at all, including soft forks. Additionally, they seem to be threatening to HF a change in the PoW if the miners do not accept SW, which implies they are both able to change the network's rules in regards to the PoW, and are saying that SW is something that needs to be part of the network's rules. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/10028
You can see Pieter Wuille closed the issue immediately but then try to justify it with the usual corporate double speak by claiming the issue is up to the community and out of his hand.
This is what we call 'lying'.
If we're talking about increasing block size from 4MB to 8MB, there maybe some room for debate.
But nothing can justify not going form 1MB to 2MB, there is a real backlog and the safety limit is above 4MB.
Blockstream is clearly holding the bitcoin code base hostage.
Here is another pull request for block size increase, closed immediately without any comment:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10014
Jump to: