Topic: Happy Anniversary, SEGWIT! - page 2. (Read 1358 times)

so khaos and you were talking about IOU. and you rebuttled with a quote about capacity.

thats like having a conversation about describing beef. and then you start talking about orange juice

as fr the bit where u were quoting carltons flop whn describing the iou's
1. LN is iou system and yes pople can be 'stiffed' by their counterpart. even LN devs lost funds
2. LN is a different network, msats are not btc. LN is a pgged network to let users write iou's to each other and then settle the debt at a later date
3. alex's flip flop tweet about decreasing capacity actually increases capacity. is actually false. the btc network and its token do not increase capacity due to LN. it diverts users off the network so that other users can fit into the same capacity.

EG
btc is capable of ~600k tx a day
a bus is cable of60 passengers

take users off the btc network to use LN
take people off the bus to use a train

does not increase btc capacity
does not increase the bus capacity

btc remains at ~600k capacity
bus remains at 60 seat capacity

again the bus still has 60 seats and btc still can only do ~600k tx a day

Sorry franky1, we have debated about that many times. I cannot accept something wrong as something right. Read this if want to criticize Lightning, https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.52165227

That's what I dislike in blockchain. Developers would say something, get criticized, and then declare that something else was their original intention.

if you want token A on network A to be a good medium of exchange. then pegging off and using token b on network b is not, again NOT IN ANY WAY making token A a better medium of exchange. because token A is not even used.
(and before you start saying an LN payment is a btc tx.. no.. Msats are not a token that exists in btc)

if you want to keep going down the route of saying btc can exist on other networks. then you have shoot self in the foot in regards to the bch debate about brand identity

plus dont continue on about how LN is a btc layer that will make btc great. because LN is muticurrency independant network. not a feature solely offered to btc to make btc greater than others

its becoming too apparent that some pople believe th flufffy promotional material and dont even dare to look beyond it and actually read code speak to devs or just use it abuseifly to see if it breaks (bug fix tactic)

franky1, stop.

I want to respect you, and the people like you from the "other side" of the debate.

You can support/use/HODL a cryptocurrency that has lesser security model in exchange for making it more suitable as a medium of exchange. But you don't have to lie, or misinform, or attack other people who don't share your opinion/support.

they are iou's.. its the same as bank notes that were pegged to gold. are you that naive about the fiat system too.
the settlement (hint is in the name settlement) is where funds that are owed are shared with those in the multisig, in amounts those in the multisig agree each owe and are owed.

LN is not moving real bitcoin, like century old bank nots were not moving real gold.
understand the vaulting mechanism of segwit and you will understand bitcoin stays locked up. and that a pegged token is then used on another network to represent what share of the vaulted coin is owed and who to.

seems your so unresearched that you have not even looked into other sidenetworks pegged to bitcoin. devs even admit that things like LN and Liquid are not moving bitcoin or settling funds, but just making gestures as to who owes what. not who actually holds and fully owns securely what.

if you have not understood the fiat 'debt system' to realise why fiat is so flawed. even though fiat has ben around all your life to have had time to understand it and research it.. then i am not surprised that you cant grasp aspects of things that are less than a decade old

Do my research? What are you talking about? You told everyone that Lightning transactions are made of IOUs. I did my research, it's NOT made of IOUs.

What you should do is stop the lies and misinformation, and stop acting like you know more than everyone, "because you can read the code". But you're trolling. OK.

It has been 2 years since SegWit was activated. And it's almost 2 years since SegWit2x failed to replace SegWit. Both are a big history in the world of Bitcoin. Where every SegWit has a good destination for Bitcoin. And it also benefits users and Bitcoin miners.

I can only hope that in the future there is a better solution for Bitcoin users to speed transactions, We know that a block of 1MB can still accommodate all Bitcoin transactions every day. At least we need a slightly larger block to accommodate the needs of Bitcoin transactions.

[✓] Doomad still highlighting tat devs should do as thy please to the network, unprovoked
[✓] Doomad cant explain a thing but just turns it into an insult attempt
[✓] Doomad still not open minded to think outside the core fangirl box

any orders? yep.
1. if you dont likewhat i have to say, hit the ignore button
2. do some research
3. actually try point 2 for once.

So, not content with wanting to tell Sipa what they can and can't code, you also want to bitch about where they do or don't keep their funds?  Nazi much?  Any other orders, mein fuhrer?

windfury. do proper research
read the code... not your buddies interpretation.

oh and while your at it, if you really want to know about segwit. ask Sipa.. and while asking him, askwhy he does not trust his own donations to be secured by segwit

he seems to prefer legacy..
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/  bottom right of page
" Tips and donations: 1Nro***
bitcoin-stats on GitHub "

its been 2 years and he still aint ready to put his own income on hi own invention

oh, then go speak to samson mow. ask about his previous job and how one moment they were supporting segwit, but when activated the pool he was employed by didnt even trust segwit to put its blockreward onto segwit. go ahead ask about it

There's a reason why we use the term consensus -- not majority rule or democracy or any other such nonsense. This is not a vote. You either join the existing consensus or leave it.

This is free open-source software. Nobody can stop anyone else from splintering off. That's their free choice.

No, but you "seem" to reject history, and what really happened, and try to be on a misinformation rampage again. It's YOU who's trying to rewrite history, or should I say gaslighting again.


Not according to history. Research UASF.

seems you have not read the code, nor stats, nor even looked beyond the preaches of your buddies.
1. UASF is just a buzzword. you seem to take the acronyms meaning on face value to think it actually meant USERS(whole community) HAD TO participate to assist.
what you do not realise is that it only required the core devs with control of the networks dns seed nodes, the 'fibre' nodes to ban(disconnect) nodes to throw them off the network. this included pools nodes

2. if you talk to your buddies about the backward compatibility code, they will tell you core fangirl USER(community) nodes didnt need to upgrade to be on the network.. it just needed the important infrustructure nodes

3. as august 1st shown by pushing off the opposition, and getting MERCHANT nodes and POOL nodes to be armtwisted or bribed by investers to accept segwit, that it caused segwit to activate as it appeared there was no opposition because opposition and user(community) nodes did not get counted.

4. even speak to doomad your girlfriend, doomad has been endlessly stating that devs dont need users permission.

actually do some proper deep research and ask questions rather than just listen to your buddies stories and take it on face value.
UASF did not mean the community had a vote and assisted in the soft fork.. it was just the prime important nodes of mainly the pools and merchants

if you dont want to do indepth research, then atleast take a step back from discussing things you dont know, but pretend to know

5. the important part is. that core now can use a trojan horse network to change the network. and any future forks will mainly be just them giving a pitty illusion of community participation in devs decisions. as doomad says devs can do what they like and no one can stop them

....
doomad keeps on saying how user nodes validate all blocks and important to the network. yet the validation which usernodes do is just for self certification of what the node stores themselves.. usernodes no longer are important to upgrade decisions.

Nodes were DISCONNECTING other nodes, not banning them.  You are the master of trying (and failing) to rewrite history.  Troll harder.

Haha. It's only a debate they use to trick newbies into believing their narrative, and to prevent the said newbies from studying, and going deeper.

Fees are definitely improved. They are not perfect but they are currently less than they were 2 years ago, even though the price has increased significantly and blocks are near full, at about the same size they were in January 2018. That's a drastic improvement.

Just compare the 2 charts and see for yourself:

https://bitcoinfees.info/
https://www.blockchain.com/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=2years

Look at the satoshis per byte fee chart. Definitely reduced.

Doomad was only pointing out the facts. You cannot debate that. I can respect your opinion on the Bitcoin Core developers, but I cannot accept misinformation. It's simply wrong.

UASF less impactful? It actually opened everyone's eyes that it's more impactful.


What do you propose?

seems those that are 100% fangirling over certain devs instead of the network seem to be twisting the narative to explain consensus to b about AFTER the activation. the issue i keep addressing and informing factually is about how devs should achieve consensus to cause an activation.

banning nodes for not accepting rules before the rule even activated, is like throwing election votes in the trash that didnt vote for trump, BEFORE the election votes were counted, to ensure trump won.

what devs should do is not just push their idea of what they want. but listen to the community. and then make a feature that the community can accept. devs ignored and avoided the 2015 segwitx2 and the 2017 2mbsegwit. there was no consent, agreement on august 1st of the community... because if there was an agreement. there would not have been a split

its really revealing when the cor fangirls say things like "we dont ned your permission" as that is an admission that user nodes dont count. even ETFbitcoin and others subtly state that only merchant and mining pools count. but even then. forcing such merchants/pools to accept something before its activated or get banned off the network, is still not the right way to achieve consensus.

again if devs cant offer a feature that the majority can agree on. then devs should re design the feature into something that can get the community to back. NOT throw objectors off to fake a vote

i again will pre-empt the usual insults and flip flops and fangirling to say core are gods.. ill just say to those.. that caring for the network and wanting to avoid trojan risks should be higher priority than dev love, especially when devs ARE NOT IMMORTAL. they WILL move onto different projects, retire, or eventually die. so no point protecting a few temporary entities that are currently putting the network at risk

risk: did you know that devs can implement new tx formats that bypass signature approval requirements and also reintroduce malleability, and even allow randoms to sign on behalf of others without the others knowing who signed the tx.. and all this can be done without the nodes having to form a united community of agreement

do not reply if your mindset is still to fangirl a dev. if you dont like what i say. hit the ignore button on the left

seems your re-writing history... funny that.
simple english
BEFORE the consensus activation. nodes were BANNING other nodes and REJECTING blocks.
again.. incase you dont get it
before even having a chance to form the consensus to activate segwit. nodes were set to push objecting nodes off the network, to then fake a majority vote by not counting part of the community.

it was core devs that split the network. by pushing objectors off before consensus was reached

i think maybe doomad and 'figmentofmyass' still want to forget history to favour their idolism of devs. so for a third time

the DEVS THEMSELVES released code that without consensus, at a specific date of august first. anyone objecting to segwit wont be counted. yes the devs themselves done it.

consensus is a vote to cause software new feature upgrade. it is not a power tool of tyranic 'accept feature of fuck off'
consensus: :   agreement, harmony, concord, like-mindedness, concurrence, consent, common consent, accord, unison, unity, unanimity, oneness, solidarity,

so a mandated aparthied execution of code is not 'consent', nor harmony, nor solidarity or unity.

but ht basic point being. now there is a backdoor in the network for devs to add new features without needing consnsus from now on.. guess what: TROJAN RISK

if you cant grasp the negatives of such then seriously just admit you care not about the network and only care for the devs to have free reign over the network.. just be a man and admit it

A large percentage ?

Current hashrate of BTC: ~ 78 EH/s
Current hashrate of BCH: ~ 2 EH/s

A small percentage decided to support BCH, instead of BTC (including segwit).




It is consensus.
Just because a very small minority decided to do something else, it doesn't mean that no majority was achieved.




Not really, the difference is marginal.
BCH's hashrate currently is roughly 2.5% of BTC's. This doesn't influence the security/strength of BTC at all.