November 25, 2024, 03:07:49 AM

Welcome, Guest

News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 28.0 [Torrent]

Bitcoin Forum>Bitcoin>Bitcoin Discussion

Pages:

«
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
»

Author

Topic: Fuck: SegWit, LN, Blockstream, Core, Adam Back, and GMazwell - page 4. (Read 46265 times)

Hyena

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 2114

Merit: 1015

Quote from: cryptoanarchist on April 20, 2017, 10:29:33 AM

Quote from: Hyena on April 20, 2017, 01:14:46 AM

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.

cryptoanarchist

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1003

Quote from: Hyena on April 20, 2017, 01:14:46 AM

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.

Hyena

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 2114

Merit: 1015

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.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: Darkbot on April 19, 2017, 09:03:40 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 19, 2017, 08:55:12 AM

https://medium.com/@ViaBTC/why-we-dont-support-segwit-91d44475cc18

Quote

Second-tier networks such as Lightning Network (which relies on SegWit) cannot be considered as a block scaling solution. LN transactions are NOT equal to Bitcoin’s peer-to-peer on-chain transactions and most Bitcoin use scenarios are not applicable with Lightning Network. LN will also lead to big payment “centers”, and this is against Bitcoin’s initial design as a peer-to-peer payment system. It can be a good method though for frequent and small Bitcoin transactions in certain cases. But we cannot rely on it as a cure for Bitcoin scaling.

Noob Jonald Fyookball, he still doesn't understand that Bitcoin cannot go mainstream with only bigger blocks.

FUD article.

FUD article? No its a major pool explaining their reasons.

All the arguments against bigger blocks have been debunked/debated already but if you want
to go again, I'm game. Give it your best shot.

Darkbot

newbie

Activity: 59

Merit: 0

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 19, 2017, 08:55:12 AM

https://medium.com/@ViaBTC/why-we-dont-support-segwit-91d44475cc18

Quote

Second-tier networks such as Lightning Network (which relies on SegWit) cannot be considered as a block scaling solution. LN transactions are NOT equal to Bitcoin’s peer-to-peer on-chain transactions and most Bitcoin use scenarios are not applicable with Lightning Network. LN will also lead to big payment “centers”, and this is against Bitcoin’s initial design as a peer-to-peer payment system. It can be a good method though for frequent and small Bitcoin transactions in certain cases. But we cannot rely on it as a cure for Bitcoin scaling.

Noob Jonald Fyookball, he still doesn't understand that Bitcoin cannot go mainstream with only bigger blocks.

FUD article.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

https://medium.com/@ViaBTC/why-we-dont-support-segwit-91d44475cc18

Quote

Second-tier networks such as Lightning Network (which relies on SegWit) cannot be considered as a block scaling solution. LN transactions are NOT equal to Bitcoin’s peer-to-peer on-chain transactions and most Bitcoin use scenarios are not applicable with Lightning Network. LN will also lead to big payment “centers”, and this is against Bitcoin’s initial design as a peer-to-peer payment system. It can be a good method though for frequent and small Bitcoin transactions in certain cases. But we cannot rely on it as a cure for Bitcoin scaling.

Hyena

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 2114

Merit: 1015

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 13, 2017, 03:20:24 PM

Quote from: cryptoanarchist on April 13, 2017, 02:30:01 PM

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.

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

You are being trolled, 8 mb is approximately 1 MiB because capital B stands for byte but smaller case b stands for bit. 1 byte = 8 bits. Thus 8 mb = 8000000 bits = 0.953674316 MiB
so if you agree with this you are actually voting for smaller blocks!!!!!!!!!!

edit:
even worse, smaller case m stands for milli and upper case M for mega. so you are voting for 8 millibits which does not even exist as a sensible unit in informatics Grin

Grin

Alex.BTC

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 13, 2017, 03:25:55 PM

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 13, 2017, 03:20:24 PM

Quote from: cryptoanarchist on April 13, 2017, 02:30:01 PM

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.

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

Well its more real than a random claim on a forum, that's for sure.

But this too is spoofable. Easy for someone with big pockets to vote,
move their coins, vote again, etc...

Greg Maxwell is technically correct when he says UASF needs "very very broad"
acceptance to be considered... but clearly the scaling debate is not
the right place for it. Unfortunately, he is tacitly condoning by not stating this fact,
because it is an intimidation tactic.

Blockstream shills kept throwing that word around, that's why it's in quotes.
It's hilarious that when it comes to actual vote-with-your-money, big blocks get most of the vote.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 13, 2017, 03:20:24 PM

Quote from: cryptoanarchist on April 13, 2017, 02:30:01 PM

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.

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

Well its more real than a random claim on a forum, that's for sure.

But this too is spoofable. Easy for someone with big pockets to vote,
move their coins, vote again, etc...

Greg Maxwell is technically correct when he says UASF needs "very very broad"
acceptance to be considered... but clearly the scaling debate is not
the right place for it. Unfortunately, he is tacitly condoning by not stating this fact,
because it is an intimidation tactic.

Alex.BTC

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: cryptoanarchist on April 13, 2017, 02:30:01 PM

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.

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

cryptoanarchist

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1003

LAST 1000 BLOCKS:

Bitcoin Unlimited blocks: 367 ( 36.7% )
Bitcoin Classic blocks: 3 ( 0.3% )
SegWit blocks: 278 ( 27.8% )

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.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: Lauda on April 13, 2017, 11:30:56 AM

Quote from: pereira4 on April 13, 2017, 08:19:18 AM

Protocols only scale worldwide by adding additional layers on top. You are the same kind of idiot that was saying TCP/IP would never scale and was against adding additional layers such as HTML and so on.

Please refrain from posting technical nonsense and support segwit + LN if you want bitcoin to be more than a coin for rich people to move big amounts of money.

pereira4, that is one of the dumbest things that I've read these days and I've read a lot of shit from the BTU fanatics and the paid shills. Cheesy

Cheesy

Maybe you should not be attempting to pin-point what "technical nonsense" is or isn't, even to the likes of jonald.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 13, 2017, 09:30:43 AM

I'm thinking 5% chance you would be interested in having a genuine conversation about the LN and being open to learning some things and maybe be wrong on a few points. 95% chance you just want to troll, promote the Core roadmap and try to win the argument at all costs.

If you really want to debate about LN, then you'd go talk to one of the development team working on their implementations of it. However, in reality you don't really want to have a 'genuine conversation'. You want to repeat the same debunked nonsense over and over again (see how 'Roger Ver' "debates" in pretty much any interview).

Actually I did. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1860165.0

As soon as I started asking how LN could be done p2p, the only response I got was Carlton Banks trolling. Roll Eyes

Roll Eyes

And even he seemed to be saying "you can't do p2p with LN, deal with it". I assume no one has figured this out just yet...

Point is, at least I am thinking about these things and willing to have a serious conversation
vs trolls that don't even know what they are talking about. Even you seem to agree with me that, based on your comment above about pereira4.

Lauda

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: pereira4 on April 13, 2017, 08:19:18 AM

Protocols only scale worldwide by adding additional layers on top. You are the same kind of idiot that was saying TCP/IP would never scale and was against adding additional layers such as HTML and so on.

Please refrain from posting technical nonsense and support segwit + LN if you want bitcoin to be more than a coin for rich people to move big amounts of money.

pereira4, that is one of the dumbest things that I've read these days and I've read a lot of shit from the BTU fanatics and the paid shills. Cheesy

Cheesy

Maybe you should not be attempting to pin-point what "technical nonsense" is or isn't, even to the likes of jonald.

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 13, 2017, 09:30:43 AM

I'm thinking 5% chance you would be interested in having a genuine conversation about the LN and being open to learning some things and maybe be wrong on a few points. 95% chance you just want to troll, promote the Core roadmap and try to win the argument at all costs.

If you really want to debate about LN, then you'd go talk to one of the development team working on their implementations of it. However, in reality you don't really want to have a 'genuine conversation'. You want to repeat the same debunked nonsense over and over again (see how 'Roger Ver' "debates" in pretty much any interview).

cryptoanarchist

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1003

Quote

'Please refrain from posting technical nonsense'.

Technical nonsense is a large part of this forum!

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: pereira4 on April 13, 2017, 08:19:18 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 12, 2017, 01:41:30 PM

Quote from: DooMAD on April 12, 2017, 01:23:38 PM

The only person I've seen pushing the "fractional reserve" myth is kiklo, but I can understand how it might have easily spread. Since the total sum of BTC being transacted is still locked in place on the main Bitcoin blockchain, no more and no less can be transacted on LN. Whichever amounts are being transacted on Lightning, they are always "backed" by an equal amount of bitcoin. No coins can be created out of thin air.

It all depends on how far we deviate from the original P2P cash system.

The more complicated and layered it gets, the more potential for all kinds of schemes and shennanigans.

As it is now, even with LN, the fact that people could settle their transactions anytime makes it hard
to get around the fact that Bitcoin is a digital asset, not a debt instrument.

Still, even now, lets say there was a big company "petty cash quick payments" where you kept
a channel open for a long time and used it like a credit/debit card.... the longer you go without
closing the channel, the more room there is for abuse and owing more money than you have.

Protocols only scale worldwide by adding additional layers on top. You are the same kind of idiot that was saying TCP/IP would never scale and was against adding additional layers such as HTML and so on.

Please refrain from posting technical nonsense and support segwit + LN if you want bitcoin to be more than a coin for rich people to move big amounts of money.

I'm thinking 5% chance you would be interested in having a genuine conversation about the LN and being open to learning some things and maybe be wrong on a few points. 95% chance you just want to troll, promote the Core roadmap and try to win the argument at all costs.

Alex.BTC

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: pereira4 on April 13, 2017, 08:19:18 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 12, 2017, 01:41:30 PM

It all depends on how far we deviate from the original P2P cash system.

The more complicated and layered it gets, the more potential for all kinds of schemes and shennanigans.

As it is now, even with LN, the fact that people could settle their transactions anytime makes it hard
to get around the fact that Bitcoin is a digital asset, not a debt instrument.

Still, even now, lets say there was a big company "petty cash quick payments" where you kept
a channel open for a long time and used it like a credit/debit card.... the longer you go without
closing the channel, the more room there is for abuse and owing more money than you have.

Protocols only scale worldwide by adding additional layers on top. You are the same kind of idiot that was saying TCP/IP would never scale and was against adding additional layers such as HTML and so on.

Please refrain from posting technical nonsense and support segwit + LN if you want bitcoin to be more than a coin for rich people to move big amounts of money.

You started off kind of good, the emotional energy was there, so I had my hopes up for a second, but then you ended up with 'layers such as HTML', what a let down.

HTML isn't even a 'scaling layer' for TCP/IP.

'Please refrain from posting technical nonsense'.

pereira4

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 1610

Merit: 1183

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 12, 2017, 01:41:30 PM

Quote from: DooMAD on April 12, 2017, 01:23:38 PM

The only person I've seen pushing the "fractional reserve" myth is kiklo, but I can understand how it might have easily spread. Since the total sum of BTC being transacted is still locked in place on the main Bitcoin blockchain, no more and no less can be transacted on LN. Whichever amounts are being transacted on Lightning, they are always "backed" by an equal amount of bitcoin. No coins can be created out of thin air.

It all depends on how far we deviate from the original P2P cash system.

The more complicated and layered it gets, the more potential for all kinds of schemes and shennanigans.

As it is now, even with LN, the fact that people could settle their transactions anytime makes it hard
to get around the fact that Bitcoin is a digital asset, not a debt instrument.

Still, even now, lets say there was a big company "petty cash quick payments" where you kept
a channel open for a long time and used it like a credit/debit card.... the longer you go without
closing the channel, the more room there is for abuse and owing more money than you have.

Protocols only scale worldwide by adding additional layers on top. You are the same kind of idiot that was saying TCP/IP would never scale and was against adding additional layers such as HTML and so on.

Please refrain from posting technical nonsense and support segwit + LN if you want bitcoin to be more than a coin for rich people to move big amounts of money.

Alex.BTC

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 12, 2017, 02:11:50 PM

Quote from: traincarswreck on April 12, 2017, 02:10:11 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 12, 2017, 02:06:51 PM

whatever you want it to mean. I wasn't addressing you.

You weren't addressing anyone with anything. There was no argument you put forth and it wasn't based on anything. You literally FUD away any reasonable argument.

"lightning is bad because I don't understand it and I refuse to consult and research expert explanations and therefore it is complex and will be bad".

WTF do you think you are a fooling?

Won't be baited into a false debate with you... all you're doing is proving again your trollishness and bumping the thread.

There are generally two types of trolls here:
1. troll by misinfo: Repeat the same lies over and over again, these ones are fun to pick apart.
2. troll by volume: These ones don't even have the intelligence to form coherent thoughts, they are paid only by volume so they have to troll by volume, their strategy is to post as much as possible to get as much reply as possible, their flaws are too obvious, it's not even worth the effort to respond, they just want volume, so just ignore them and watch them beg for your attention like little puppies.

traincarswreck

sr. member

Activity: 532

Merit: 251

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on April 12, 2017, 03:48:15 PM

I'm just going to leave this link here so everyone can judge for themselves
whether your views are sane or insane. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1809999.msg18079053#msg18079053

do you have any knowledge to contribute to the discussion or just ad hominemy stuff directed at me and fud after fud after fud? You are linking to my explanation of how markets work and I do understand how they work and you do not, and you don't claim to, so what do you think you are showing people?

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Legendary level

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: traincarswreck on April 12, 2017, 03:19:16 PM

Every-time you post bullshit, I'm going to call you out for having no knowledge on the subject of bitcoin or economics

you have fun with that. knock yourself out.

I'm just going to leave this link here so everyone can judge for themselves
whether your views are sane or insane. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18079053

Pages:

«
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
»

Bitcoin Forum>Bitcoin>Bitcoin Discussion

Jump to: