Why Roger Ver won't actually push for the hard fork:
https://www.whois.com/whois/bitcoin.com
He owns the domain. If the fork hardens, he will create a massive amount of confusion if he tries to switch all the available information from being "bitcoin" to "Bitcoin Unlimited" related.
I'm all but sure BU's chances for a soft fork are dust in the wind at this point:
https://coin.dance/nodes/unlimited
So if Rog & Co go ahead with the hard fork, it will really be a massive "fuck you" to the entire BTC community.
Topic: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell - page 3. (Read 46265 times)
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
is it possible that onchain transactions become so expensive that we would HAVE to use LN after all?
ding ding ding....we have a winner.
Yes, it is absolutely possible and the way to do that is limit the supply of transactions.
(think: supply and demand).
How do you limit the supply? Cap the blocksize.
You're not paranoid.
Hopefully you're waking up to what we've been screaming about all this time.
Ah. Did you notice, why Jihan is supporting Segwit on LTC, but only after being given the promise that (on LTC!) blocksize will be upped, as soon as it reaches 50% capacity. So the scenario above, will never occur.
He is not quite as evil as I heard
The Chinese miners always agreed to Segwit + bigger blocks as a HF. That was what the infamous "Hong Kong Agreement" was about.
They agreed to this. Then Core backed out. The Core shills will twist this with ridiculous arguments of "welll...core didnt REALLY promise this etc".
Core is too dangerous and too untrustworthy to allow them to have Segwit now without bigger blocks. They will absolutely abuse it and
kick the can down the road..this is why the miners are blocking the "Segwit only" option.
is it possible that onchain transactions become so expensive that we would HAVE to use LN after all?
ding ding ding....we have a winner.
Yes, it is absolutely possible and the way to do that is limit the supply of transactions.
(think: supply and demand).
How do you limit the supply? Cap the blocksize.
You're not paranoid.
Hopefully you're waking up to what we've been screaming about all this time.
Ah. Did you notice, why Jihan is supporting Segwit on LTC, but only after being given the promise that (on LTC!) blocksize will be upped, as soon as it reaches 50% capacity. So the scenario above, will never occur.
He is not quite as evil as I heard
So, we should support Segwit on BTC only under the same condition!!!!!!!!
In the meantime chikun is mooning
So far I was under the impression that LN is voluntary
From a technical standpoint it will be optional however from what I can tell, the ultimate goal is to make it uneconomical to not use LN except for very large (in value) transactions. 
I'm guessing it's all a not-so-subtle pretext to allow whoever gets the desired fork on their terms to call dibs on the mantle of the One True Bitcoin.
Which in itself is silly. That which amasses the preponderance of activity will be the The One True Bitcoin regardless of any other criteria.
BU is up over 50% hashpower today. Sorry bankster trolls, but your precious SegWit is dead.
Actually, I'm not sorry. I'm laughingall the way to at the bank.
Actually, I'm not sorry. I'm laughing
Some people still don't understand that it's not about SegWit vs BU. It's about the protocol. BU is just ONE particular implementation for an upgraded Bitcoin protocol. It is not special in any way. Attacking the idea of a proper protocol upgrade that would increase the max block size by bringing up the fact that BU has had flaws in its implementation is nonsense. You are being utterly stupid if you think that BU wants to become THE Bitcoin. Such an assumption is based on a fallacy that Core IS THE Bitcoin. It's not, it has never been Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a protocol much like HTML. Just because Firefox renders HTML does not mean HTML belongs to Mozilla. The stupidity is sickening.
Agreed to a point. I think a certain level of fervent worship has crept in. People have dubbed it a "civil war", but I'm now leaning more towards a "holy war". Apparently you can't be implementation-agnostic anymore. It's pretty much a case of pick a sect, grab the pitchforks and burn the heathens who go against the will of our lord and saviour, Satoshi. Only one sect truly understands what Bitcoin is and what Satoshi really envisioned. All other ideas are sacrilege. Shun the nonbelievers.
It's all getting a bit farcical, really. Both churches are seemingly praying for the onset of their own preferred End of Days, be it UASF or HF, which effectively boils down to whether the split is on your own sect's terms or the heathen's, even though the result is effectively the same. I'm guessing it's all a not-so-subtle pretext to allow whoever gets the desired fork on their terms to call dibs on the mantle of the One True Bitcoin.
Some people still don't understand that it's not about SegWit vs BU. It's about the protocol. BU is just ONE particular implementation for an upgraded Bitcoin protocol. It is not special in any way. Attacking the idea of a proper protocol upgrade that would increase the max block size by bringing up the fact that BU has had flaws in its implementation is nonsense. You are being utterly stupid if you think that BU wants to become THE Bitcoin. Such an assumption is based on a fallacy that Core IS THE Bitcoin. It's not, it has never been Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a protocol much like HTML. Just because Firefox renders HTML does not mean HTML belongs to Mozilla. The stupidity is sickening.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
is it possible that onchain transactions become so expensive that we would HAVE to use LN after all?
ding ding ding....we have a winner.
Yes, it is absolutely possible and the way to do that is limit the supply of transactions.
(think: supply and demand).
How do you limit the supply? Cap the blocksize.
You're not paranoid.
Hopefully you're waking up to what we've been screaming about all this time.
btw does signing a message reveal pubkey?
ill give you a hint.
ive already last year told rusty russel about the 'address reuse' attack that can happen inside LN
they are still trying to figure out how to get around that issue. bt for now they are just saying use only $60 or less inside LN to reduce risk of desire to perform such attack for such little amount
EG ruin a merchants rep as a hub if they done it for such small amount wont be worth doing it for such small amount
So far I was under the impression that LN is voluntary
If Facebook, Paypal or Satan (or worse, government) supports/owns/uses LN, why should we care? Just ignore and use the blockchain.
Now I have a slight nagging doubt for the first time. If the 4MB limit of Segwit is approached, is it possible that onchain transactions become so expensive that we would HAVE to use LN after all?
We could of course pressure for the 4MB limit to be increased. But Facebook, Paypal or Satan could just say: "Why? Not necessary. Use LN" and then BTC is fucked for good.
Am I paranoid?
If Facebook, Paypal or Satan (or worse, government) supports/owns/uses LN, why should we care? Just ignore and use the blockchain.
Now I have a slight nagging doubt for the first time. If the 4MB limit of Segwit is approached, is it possible that onchain transactions become so expensive that we would HAVE to use LN after all?
We could of course pressure for the 4MB limit to be increased. But Facebook, Paypal or Satan could just say: "Why? Not necessary. Use LN" and then BTC is fucked for good.
Am I paranoid?
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
btw does signing a message reveal pubkey?
LAST 1000 BLOCKS:
Bitcoin-holder vote: https://vote.bitcoin.com/
Miners and Bitcoin holders are both agreeing that bigger blocks are needed now. Core can stay relevant by updating Core to 8MB blocks, or no one will use their client.
Bitcoin-holder vote: https://vote.bitcoin.com/
Miners and Bitcoin holders are both agreeing that bigger blocks are needed now. Core can stay relevant by updating Core to 8MB blocks, or no one will use their client.
That is the real 'economic majority':
https://vote.bitcoin.com/arguments/block-size-limit-should-be-increased-to-8-mb-as-soon-as-possible
68243.74954948 BTC agree that: Block size limit should be increased to 8 mb as soon as possible
That's a bunch of votes from entities who do not care about their privacy. Note that I do not call these entities "users" by any means. That page is 100% astroturf.
I am also not quite sure I follow when you say that site is bad for privacy. The amounts that each address contains is already public on the blockchain, and voting for a particular proposal does not imply that one address is connected to any other address.
LAST 1000 BLOCKS:
Bitcoin-holder vote: https://vote.bitcoin.com/
Miners and Bitcoin holders are both agreeing that bigger blocks are needed now. Core can stay relevant by updating Core to 8MB blocks, or no one will use their client.
Bitcoin-holder vote: https://vote.bitcoin.com/
Miners and Bitcoin holders are both agreeing that bigger blocks are needed now. Core can stay relevant by updating Core to 8MB blocks, or no one will use their client.
That is the real 'economic majority':
https://vote.bitcoin.com/arguments/block-size-limit-should-be-increased-to-8-mb-as-soon-as-possible
68243.74954948 BTC agree that: Block size limit should be increased to 8 mb as soon as possible
That's a bunch of votes from entities who do not care about their privacy. Note that I do not call these entities "users" by any means. That page is 100% astroturf.
I'm already running a BU node and an XT node. They work just fine..
I know, just wait untill BU gets open again. Fingers crossed.
"Gets open"? What are you talking about? BU isn't "closed"
gold is not valued simply because its valued.
gold is valued because it has UTILITY
lets halt golds utility and make it so its only useful as jewellery.. thats right no electronic component utility because thats outside of its original utility. so lets limit it to just jewellery like it used to be
then go check your value because it has value stupid reasoning
gold is valued because it has UTILITY
lets halt golds utility and make it so its only useful as jewellery.. thats right no electronic component utility because thats outside of its original utility. so lets limit it to just jewellery like it used to be
then go check your value because it has value stupid reasoning
I'm already running a BU node and an XT node. They work just fine..
I know, just wait untill BU gets open again. Fingers crossed.
SegWit is like letting Facebook adjust the Bitcoin's protocol "a bit" so that they could open their own payment channel of facebook money on the Bitcoin network. Yes, it's that bad, and so many brainwashed obedient sheeple just don't see it. It's just sad. We have one great thing that truly empowers personal freedom and belongs to the people and we're going to let the same old same old banksters infiltrate and corrupt it. With the same old techniques.
Let them do their bitcoin-based Paypal system.
Here's what will happen. Blockstream is going to stick to their guns and Bitcoin will fork. Both sides will make money as the sum of the forks will be a price increase. After the fork, regular users will see that they can't get any transactions done on the SegWit chain because of only having half (or less) of the hash rate and only 1MB blocks. Then people will start selling off their SegWit coins for 'big block' coins, and we'll eventually be back to one bitcoin again.
I'm for forking to big blocks right now, but I can understand why miners want to wait.
That's good reasoning. I also think that ethereum classic is the one that eventually gets more popular. so even if in the beginning segwitcoin generates more media and might even trade on pretty decent prices it is the losing fork in the long run. and then all those whiners who are still butthurt for not buying bitcoin "when it was cheap" miss the train again by not buying into the big blocks bitcoin when it was cheap.
When the fork happens, it might become hard to withdraw or exchange the SW/Core-Bitcoin because the TX times/fees will be ridiculous. I would switch them out right away.
That will not happen, the switch will add a decent hit in price and hash power but after 10 min BU miners will flow back ore they go bankrupt. The users are still secured enough during the process.
I wonder, do you really trust BU software and nodes? well, i dont anymore they had there shot and blew it. Segwitt might not be 'perfect' but it is still the best possible update Bitcoin can have. You need to make consessions i strongly advice to pick SW.
I'm already running a BU node and an XT node. They work just fine..
SegWit is like letting Facebook adjust the Bitcoin's protocol "a bit" so that they could open their own payment channel of facebook money on the Bitcoin network. Yes, it's that bad, and so many brainwashed obedient sheeple just don't see it. It's just sad. We have one great thing that truly empowers personal freedom and belongs to the people and we're going to let the same old same old banksters infiltrate and corrupt it. With the same old techniques.
Let them do their bitcoin-based Paypal system.
Here's what will happen. Blockstream is going to stick to their guns and Bitcoin will fork. Both sides will make money as the sum of the forks will be a price increase. After the fork, regular users will see that they can't get any transactions done on the SegWit chain because of only having half (or less) of the hash rate and only 1MB blocks. Then people will start selling off their SegWit coins for 'big block' coins, and we'll eventually be back to one bitcoin again.
I'm for forking to big blocks right now, but I can understand why miners want to wait.
That's good reasoning. I also think that ethereum classic is the one that eventually gets more popular. so even if in the beginning segwitcoin generates more media and might even trade on pretty decent prices it is the losing fork in the long run. and then all those whiners who are still butthurt for not buying bitcoin "when it was cheap" miss the train again by not buying into the big blocks bitcoin when it was cheap.
When the fork happens, it might become hard to withdraw or exchange the SW/Core-Bitcoin because the TX times/fees will be ridiculous. I would switch them out right away.
That will not happen, the switch will add a decent hit in price and hash power but after 10 min BU miners will flow back ore they go bankrupt. The users are still secured enough during the process.
I wonder, do you really trust BU software and nodes? well, i dont anymore they had there shot and blew it. Segwitt might not be 'perfect' but it is still the best possible update Bitcoin can have. You need to make consessions i strongly advice to pick SW.
SegWit is like letting Facebook adjust the Bitcoin's protocol "a bit" so that they could open their own payment channel of facebook money on the Bitcoin network. Yes, it's that bad, and so many brainwashed obedient sheeple just don't see it. It's just sad. We have one great thing that truly empowers personal freedom and belongs to the people and we're going to let the same old same old banksters infiltrate and corrupt it. With the same old techniques.
Let them do their bitcoin-based Paypal system.
Here's what will happen. Blockstream is going to stick to their guns and Bitcoin will fork. Both sides will make money as the sum of the forks will be a price increase. After the fork, regular users will see that they can't get any transactions done on the SegWit chain because of only having half (or less) of the hash rate and only 1MB blocks. Then people will start selling off their SegWit coins for 'big block' coins, and we'll eventually be back to one bitcoin again.
I'm for forking to big blocks right now, but I can understand why miners want to wait.
That's good reasoning. I also think that ethereum classic is the one that eventually gets more popular. so even if in the beginning segwitcoin generates more media and might even trade on pretty decent prices it is the losing fork in the long run. and then all those whiners who are still butthurt for not buying bitcoin "when it was cheap" miss the train again by not buying into the big blocks bitcoin when it was cheap.
When the fork happens, it might become hard to withdraw or exchange the SW/Core-Bitcoin because the TX times/fees will be ridiculous. I would switch them out right away.
Jump to: