Topic: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell - page 36. (Read 46265 times)

The "They sat on their fat asses for a year, making promises after promises on some ideal vision, while there is a huge tx backlog on ground floor" is really one
of THE main points here, and everytime that a core supporter says something like Ekonom is saying here, they are ignoring or sidestepping this critical point.

Even if Segwit was a panacea, so far its delivered zero scaling because it hasn't been activated!  Hello...mcFly... anybody home mcFly?
 
https://youtu.be/ilcRS5eUpwk

P.S. -- OP, can you paste the 'email from Satoshi to Greg' , I would like to see that.

I suggest taking a moment to actually analyse the data available, rather than what you are currently engaged in.

Ditching his bitcoins, but not his posts.

The lesson here is "don't use Roger Ver as a role model"

Yes it was obvious to everyone that Blockstream didn't take anyone else seriously.


It doesn't, stop lying, it was clearly explained by franky1 why it doesn't.
Core assumes attackers are going to spam LN instead of the main chain, are you telling me you actually believe in that?

That alone tells me Core is either flat out lying or has absolutely no clue what they're doing.
Like I said don't treat your users like they are idiots.

This is the real reason Satoshi walked away - because his vision for, and hard work towards, buying coffee with bitcoin (as stated in the whitepaper) was being threatened.

It's also the reason his coins have never moved.  No one sells a frappasushi mocha supreme.

NOT a newly created account here, every inch a bigger blocks supporter.

I'm happy to support BU since they look to be the best chance at bigger blocks this year.  I was happy to support the simple short term fix that was Classic but BU is so much better as after it goes live the blocksize is "fixed" for good and we don't have to come back to this god awful debate in another couple of years.

Also I'm sick of SW being touted as this magical 2.1Mb fix. A "effective" 2.1Mb blocksize is only an estimate and only if all transactions convert to the new transaction format. That could take years.  This "effective blocksize" estimate has varied too, I'm sure it was 1.7Mb at one point.

They are not expert programmers, they are take-over artists.  Nothing at all will prevent a LN inserted onto 8MB blocks.  If LN is so good, go build it.  Surely when heavy Bitcoin use comes in a few years when LN is ready even 8MB will be too small.

1MB limit only does one thing, drives and artificial need for LN.

Another major problem with LN is one-time low value transactions are not supported.  MOST low value transactions are not repeat-many type.  Rather, buying coffee is can be one time - never see you again transaction.  MOST small transactions will be one-time, never see you again.  LN is only good for low value when there is a repeat many relationship between two parties.  One-time low value is still not served.

Exactly.

Lauda is biggest joke on this forum.  

Jihan Wu isn't trying to limit capacity and introduce his custom solution that diverts fees into private enterprise.  Jihan Wu doesn't propose breaking the system in order to introduce a radically different alt on top of the old blockchain.  

Blockstream are fucking assholes trying to push their garbage SegWit and LN onto our good Bitcoin blockchain.  They are trying to take over.  8MB is tiny.  8MB is safe.  The only reason to prevent blocks going to 8MB is to make a need for LN.  

How did you become such a Core butt-licker?

Alex.BTC you sure look like any other BU supporter to me. Newly created account  

Segwit offers the fees relief every BU supporter is asking for. And much faster than any BU hardfork would have. Scaling will be moving forward. BU has no chance at adoption whatsoever why not just accept this ? Everybody makes mistake, you can't force other people to think like you. Roger and a few mining pools is not going to be enough to overpower the majority of users and devs. Did you read the exchanges letter? This delusion is madness. Even if you could, is that the Bitcoin you would want to be in ? Because today it's you, tomorrow it will be a government trying the same thing on you if they see it's doable.

Delay SW longer in the hope to prop a deadman walking BU or get what you say you want (cheaper fees). Hard choice? I don't think so. It's a simple matter of humility and clear-thinking at this point.

In the future we would really benefit from some coin signalling tools at the protocol level so people can't be mistaken about the users wills and dream up phantom majorities.

No, Adam Back changed his position from "President of Blockstream" to "individual", and after complaints from miners it was changed back again, together with the insults from Greg, at that point the trust was already gone.

Lauda, the thing with screaming is that you can't do that all the time, if you do then everything you say simply become white noises. Have more confidence in yourself, you don't have to scream all the time to get your point across, and when you're wrong, you're wrong, regardless of how loud you scream.



That is the problem with Core, they all think they are smarter than Satoshi, but none of them actually are. They talk big and play the act, but their decisions kept running Bitcoin into the ground, then instead of fixing it they act like they're proud of it.


As oppose to what? Random bitches screaming at everyone online thinking she's smarter than Satoshi?
Fact remains Core devs supported block sized increase, but went against if after they joined Blockstream.


You're stuck in some kind of us-against-them mentality, not thinking about the users at all, if you have, you'd see that I am just another digital currency user, disappointed in Core wasting the potential Bitcoin has.

It's ok Lauda, we know you're screaming the loudest here because you're the most insecure, and you haven't been loved for a really long time, so I forgive you.  

Stop with this drama already, you guys are not being helpful at all, let Segwit/Ln done by expert programmers come first, and then we go to HF big blocks if needed, Roger please understand that, we like you and things you have done for Bitcoin, now this is getting just too much, and Bitcoin has grown big and has a big infrastructure and thousands of people jobs are dependent on it. We should get together and not fight, we need to be one. Let us please go with Segwit/ LN softfork first and then see for 3/4 months and go with HF to bigger blocks if still network congestion and high fees persists. Please stop this fight, don't reduce a great revolution of Bitcoin which is a revolution equal to that of Internet and has changed how money works for the past 4000 years to something less. Please get together, we love you both Core and BU. I support both Core and BU, let us first go with Soft Fork and then go with Hard Fork if necessary.

Even if you don't like some Core developers, it should not be a reason to support a broken risky concept "emergent consensus" and to reject Segwit without any proper technical arguments.

Segwit will give us effectively 2.1 MB blocks (if used.) If "Roger Ver" and "Jihan Wu" really cared about "more transactions", they could have Segwit activated in just a few weeks. Any blocksize increase by HF will take much longer than that - especially if you want to have a non-contentious HF (eg no blockchain split.) This should be enough reason to activate Segwit ASAP even if someone hates "Core" so much. We can just focus on a good dynamic blocksize increase with safe thresholds etc after that.

In my opinion second layers like the Lightning Network are very cool too and will be much easier with Segwit too. Buying coffee was never really feasible with bitcoin, not because of the fees, but because of the slow blocks (10 min avg, but frequently 1h.) LN will not just make micro-transactions very cheap, but also allows them to be instant. Of course it would still take years before we can really use this, but if we could at least test it on mainnet already - progress will probably go even quicker. Note that there are already 6 different LN implementations: Amiko-Pay, Eclair (ACINQ), lightningd (Blockstream), lit (MIT Digital Currency Initiative), lnd(Lightning Co), Thunder (Blockchain.info) - some of them work already on testnet. While I still have many skeptical questions about LN, it does seem nice for small (low-value) payments.

The BTC price is dropping. Maybe when the block size is increased as suggested by BTU, the price will rise again.

Well, in my view a more interesting approach would be to buy before a potential split, so that whoever it wins, you win anyway.

Others have said this before, and I think it is worth saying again. The support that BU is getting is not because the ideas behind BU are so great, it is because of the strong opposition to Core and SW.

I don't believe there are any SW features that are *needed* today/now, but are rather features that might be nice to have in the future. Larger blocks on the other hand is something that Bitcoin has needed for years now. I don't see a reason why SW should get implemented prior to larger blocks, especially after what happened with the HK agreement.

This is bullshit. If anyone is trying to take over the chain, and impose centralized cartel control then it is BTU + Jihan Wu.

Wrong. It is you and the scam project called BU (aka BTU) that is driving people away from Bitcoin because of the fear of impending miner cartel control. Nobody in their right mind gives a damn about those scam coins such as ETH and DASH. Your long position in both of those coins (and many others) has created a heavy conflict of interest.

Grow up and get a life. Your post is also factually incorrect about as to who broke the HK agreement first, it was F2Pool.

I highly doubt that more than a minority of the BTU supporters actually care about Bitcoin. They are praising the centralized scam ETH, instamined scam DASH et. al., everyday in their circle-jerk known as r/btc.

Roger Ver, open your eyes please.

The reason why the price is going down is because we don't like the BU threat that will give the power over the blocksize to just 5 mining pool operators (or effectively 1 ASIC manufacturer.) I like bitcoin for it's decentralization properties, not because I trust Jihan Wu so much. I will never accept the idiotic idea called "emergent consensus."

Big blocks are great. I definitely want to see safely planned blocksize increase after Segwit. And if it won't be merged in the beginning in Bitcoin Core, I will just support another client, but emergent consensus is still a joke and Segwit is still the obvious way forward.

If you still care about bitcoin, you should reconsider your perspective and look what is best for bitcoin.

Looking back, the HK agreement was worthless from the get go. Do you remember when Adam Black signed it as "an individual" instead of signing as CEO of Blockstream?

Not long before the HK agreement was signed, Mike Hern rage-quit Bitcoin development, and this gave a lot of momentum away from bitcointalk, r/bitcoin, and most importantly, away from Core. Mike Hern rage-quitting was heavily reported by the Bitcoin related media, was even reported by the MSM, and the general consensus was that Core was standing in the way of Bitcoin development. The way things were going, it would not be very long until Core would lose all control over Bitcoin development, and the users would get what they wanted -- larger blocks that accommodate the growth of Bitcoin transactions. I am not even sure if the HK meeting was even scheduled at this point.

Once the HK agreement was signed, cold water was effectively thrown on the above movement and momentum because the community believed that Bitcoin would have real scaling solutions. Unfortunately, it turned out that the HK agreement was a farce, and every deadline in the HK agreement was missed, and all the promises made by Blockstream, and their devs were broken.

Maxwell is just a dishonest person, and people have been calling him dishonest on these forums for years. He is a very fitting person to be the Chief whatever officer of Blockstream. Not unlike how it is very fitting to have Lauda, who is an extortionist, to be helping with Core development, running a spell checker in-between his scam and extortion attempts.

Bitcointalk has traditionally been very friendly towards core, and it's supporters. I think it is very interesting to see the reaction to nullc posting in this thread.