Topic: If you were in charge of Bitcoin 2.0 what would you change? - page 2. (Read 1033 times)

This is what you quoted from my post when you were barking about your so-called "dev-state", and the Byzantine generals, which I do not get the connection,


How did you arrive from the "dev-state" to the Byzantine generals? Is it because there was a word "king"? Haha.

show me my undermining code that will make unilateral changes..

also read my footnote
"Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at"

im not the dictator here. but your anger, hostility, swearing, curcing and trying to say i should leave the community. and your desire to REKT anything not core.. are very very revealing of what your desires are.

if you dont like what people discuss. then maybe you should b the one that avoids a discussion forum.. or atleast

if you dont like what i have to say. hit the ignore button

anyway putting aside mr meanders personal attacks yet again.

back to the topic at hand
summary of my opinion
1. not bloating the blockchains with smart contracts aimed to push people off network will strengthen utility on network because it keeps people on network.(pushing people offnetwork is not scaling bitcoin. its like telling americans to use canada's payment system due to american system limitations is not increasing USD usage)

2. making transactions lean (hard drive real byte storage for full validatable tx data) would allow the transaction count to not decline (making smart transaction formats more popular REDUCES tx count byte per byte as they are heavier)

3. not having wishy washy code that forgets to count bytes in code, to bypass hard drive byte storage rule, (witness scale factor is just partly it)
or
4. simply remove the rule if the hard drive ends up storing more bytes than the rule imposed is meant to prevent.(because the rule is then redundant anyways)

5. removing the witness scale factor allows full 4mb utility, and removes the fake tx fee promotion. as witness scale factors doesnt actually discount segwit users. it actually just makes legacy 4x more expensive.(code shows legacy fee as *4... it does not show segwit fee / 4)

6. make transactors who wish to bloat/spam the blockchain be the ones punished by costing that bloater/spammer more. rather than making the average transactor pay more due to one persons actions

yes i do expect a certain meander object that any idea's of change not advocated by "dev state" are wrong/bad/should not be allowed to even be discussed because it doesnt fit the "dev state" roadmap
but there lays issue which number 6 should address.

7. have a network of independant teams that dont get rekt for opposing a "dev state" by there not being a "dev state". instead have it so anyone can propose anything. and it only activates if there is true consensus (2009-2013 consensus)

as for your UNRESEARCHED fake beliefs that 95% are core loyal

https://bitnodes.earn.com/nodes/?q=1037
only 65% are full nodes
majority of that are actually not run by humans at home independantly but are sybil nodes on amazon, hertsner, digital ocean

and as you keep on promoting people dont vote, people dont need to upgrade as they are "compatible"
so people are not 95% loyal.

now have a coffee relax for a while, destress yourself and self rview if your foing to flip or flop.
or you can just ignore my opinion and hit the ignore button

again for emphasis. i have not and have have nor ever will be trying to sway people into a authoritarian regime. i simple desire to wake people up to the one that already exists since 2013. so that people can see how things have changed since 2013

i have made no code demands of people. nor have i mandated change. i just openly offer my opinion and tell people to go do some independant research

you dont like it? hit the ignore button.

and stop telling people if they dont like the authoritarian regime they can simply "f**k off".. as thats just soo anti freedom

users have a choice :: there is no voting
                        flip :: flop

make up your mind
your confusing people running a node because there its the only way to not use a custodian for coin storage.. with the consensus vote of being able to activate/object to activating new features(which has slowly been diluted and lost)

people dont run core to have a free will independant choice of what features the network should/shouldnt have.
people run core just to not have to use a custodian for their coins

core are very much in control of the features and rules of the network. not by user choice. but by actions done by the "dev state" over the years

as for your personal attacks.. you make me laugh.
i dont want people to follow me.. show me some code i made that people should follow
show me some code that has mandated activations.

its also why. i say to people to do their own research. i even say that its best not to just be spoonfed from their social buddy/chum groups but do independent research
but you have been adamant you would prefer to argue and tell me i should leave the community, rather than actually recognise what independant thoughts, opinions and open community are really about.

if you dont like my open thoughts and opinions. hit the ignore button. its simple

now, how about you look passed your love and adoration of "dev state" and notice their actions which you keep trying to deny, even when they fully admit it. as that is the biggest flaw in your rebuttals. they are happy with their "dev state" status.
im not sure why you defend them by denying the actions they are happy to admit

as for saying the community run the code that enforces their will.
you yourself have been promoting the non vote/ compatibility of where users dont get to tell devs what devs can and should do

maybe best you really did take some time and research.. or atleast have a coffee and think about are you flipping or flopping. choose one and stick with it.

you are soo in the authoritarian mindset of wanting "dev state" to reign supreme. you have even admitted that even before i write any code for anyone to review/use you will REKT it.. simply because it opposes "dev state"

also your soo stuck in the authoritarian mindset that you believe that those not wanting core to be the "dev state" authoritarian, must mean the opposer wants to be an authoritarian
yet you cannot actually understand a system of multiple teams on an equal level play ground that all dont use mandated crap, and instead let consensus play out.

you only reside leadership, a dominant brand. where they set their agenda and no one can tell them what to do or not do.
its like you dont understand true freedom. but only recognise a tory/monarch empire as being "freedom"

you call that being "open to freedom"... pfft

How you could derive such utter falsehoods from my words is beyond comprehension.  Once again, you're literally just making shit up.  I prefer freedom.  I will continue to defend that preference against your incessant lies and manipulations.  Users have a choice.  They're making that choice right now.  You just don't like it.  Your idiotic notions of "voting" are worthless.  Here, we run code.  That's all that matters.



My mindset is that I respect the decisions which those securing this chain have made.  You want to undermine those decisions and make unilateral changes.  That's not how consensus works.  

You want everyone to follow you, but no one is, so you pretend something must be wrong with how things work.  Why wouldn't everyone naturally want that things you want?  Oh right, it must be a conspiracy.  An all-powerful cabal of developer overlords preventing users from making decisions for themselves.  Clearly everyone has been brainwashed into downloading and running their software.  They don't have the free will or self-determination to do anything else, such as run the client you're running, for example.  It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact your ideas are stupid and no one cares about them.  Yep, definitely a conspiracy.  

Stop pretending you speak for the community.  They speak for themselves by running the code that enforces their will.  All you speak is a total load of bollocks.  

1. users will have to think about it becaus users (99% of people) will be using cellphone apps.. thus trusting the 'significant nodes(factories)/hubs (who is the app creator)*
2. quickly outed? the significant nodes/ will be the ones holding users funds. and needing their signature.*
3. by a user trying to broadcast a tx from a cellphone app. guess who they API send it through... yep the server (app company) who are the factory/significant node of concern*
 
its like having a payment dispute over an applepay tx. but your using apples app. and they have 2 signature authority vs your 1 signature in a 2-of-3 signature scheme, which under schnorr you will not realise its a 2-of-3, you will be optimistic that its a 2-of-2, and have to trust that is the case.. until its too late


your link is an example concept where a blockchain confirmed tx used as the peg for a inchannel open session.. thats like an outdated concept from 2017.
the concept is now you blockchain confirm and lock with a factory.
the factory then sends out unconfirmed non blockchain 'balance' to your wallet. and then you use that balance to open channels
making you 2 hops separated away from the blockchain proven tx

seems you trust things too much.. optimism about utopia vs critical thinking is where optimism is the flaw of trust
LN does not use bitcoin for byzantine fault tolerance. bitcoin does not stop a factory from altering its code at a whim.
users cellphone app is at the mercy of the factories whim

what your saying about LN is like saying bitcoin solves the issues of coinbase.com
oh and if you do manage to get a raw tx and broadcast it without cellphone API to your factory(because they wont relay if they are malicious)
they will simply treat you as the one in the wrong and thus send out their own tx revoking you.
yes its possible..
.. and yes you end up having to trust that they wont. and trust that because there isnt any scam accusation posts about certain factories that the factory/cellphone app company you use is trustable*

i guess you really havnt used/testd LN. or if you have you only used it under th limited 'ill stay in the only use as intended' remit.. and not been critical to bug test it via the 'play around swing a bat around and see what breaks' remit

sometimes optimism(trust and dreams) are not good. yes they feel good. but when it comes to securing funds. not good

*i know what you are thinking.. the old 2017 concept (pre factory) of be your own node.
well you do realise that LN concepts are now master nodes monitoring multiple chains like vertcoin, lightcoin and bitcoin..
which if you were a critical thinker rather than an optimist of trust. will make you realise this:
1. when your at a coffee shop will you be bringing your laptop/desktop with you running a masternode to buy coffee?
2. if your computer is ok to run a masternode of several blockchains. then its man enough to just run one blockchain of larger scale, so why debate that bitcoin cant scale due to home computer limitations if your home computer isnt as limited as you care to admit by saying you can run a masternode for several blockchains
3. 99% of people wont be masternodes.

It is always like this – common people know what should be done better than developers. I am not sure that my recommend will work.

There are obviously security trade-offs when you compare to Bitcoin. That's to be expected when you're getting nearly free and instant transactions using a trustless protocol.


This can easily be prevented at the wallet level. It's trivially easy to prevent and isn't an effective mode of attack. Users won't have to think about this and significant nodes/hubs engaging in that sort of behavior would be quickly outed and ostracized.


It's not based on trust. You just keep repeating that. All parties connected to the "factory" can see its commitments on chain. Everything is "audited." See here for a simple explanation.


Trust is not required because 1) the Bitcoin blockchain arbitrates disputes among channel participants and 2) LN punishes dishonest participants by allowing the other party to take the offenders' coins from the channel.

LN uses Bitcoin for Byzantine fault tolerance.


It's not entirely clear what you're saying. LN nodes need to be online to update channel state but failing that, channels can just be closed based on expiration of locktime.

Lightening network and fees of transactions these are the major concern for new bitcoin version hopefully we will see these two important factors in upcoming versions

now that the social drama of insults is put aside.

letss concentrate on the topic.

how would a rebirth of bitcoin look if the community got all the things they wanted.
1. multiple dev groups of independence who could all offer new features without REKT/mandated dilution efforts, but instead true consensus
2. concentrating on lean thin transactions of pushing funds to others without bloating via smart contracts(visa doesnt do smart contracts after all)
3. the limitation of transactions per block would be more of a demand/growth dynamic. rather than a reduce usage by moving offnetwork
4. not letting users have so much tx bloat that they could fill any block/sig limit with just 5 transactions
5. a fee mechanism that does not cause network wide increase in fee's for everyone due to one person spamming..
but instead causes the spammer to spend more if the spammer wants to bloat a block or spend every 10 minutes

the silly thing is the whole "cant buy coffee with bitcoin"
using the LN network involves locking funds . opening several channels, thereby splitting up the value into different channels just to HOPE for good connectivity. then HOPE the channel partners are online to authorise the funds hops. and hope other people dont route through you and take your balance before you get to spend it yourself.
OR
if you plan to deposit $60 worth of btc to cover a fortnight of coffee and a few sandwiches in LN.. just use BTC to buy $60 of giftcards

describing the easy solution to coffee and also raising point 2.. over complicating and adding bloated features doesnt help. its easier to just keep things lean and simple and just have a open payment network that just openly pays.

the silly thing about the whole "energy consumption"
more energy is wasted keeping bottles of coca-cola chilled, than bitcoin. bitcoin miners have already made the watts per hash very very efficient.
if w were to CPU mine bitcoin at todays hashrate. it would require TRILLIONS of cpu's, billions of GPU but only a few million ASICS. and the power consumption of an ASIC is only ~3pc's
millions*3 is better than trillions
i can guarantee you that the number of computers in bank cashier counters, ATMS, bank call centres, Visa warehouses, bank HQ, wall street surpasses bitcoins electric utility

There is a lot to be improved, of course, but how much of the community have to think about it. For example energy consumption? It would be nice if there was something about it. But this is unfortunately not about the Bitcoin community.

so instead you prefer having one puppet.. ok got that
so instead you prefer no choice... ok got that
so instead you prefer that no one can put their hand up that puppets ass and make it dance.. ok got that

again your advocating tyranny where you just want that sngle puppet to do what it wants and not have to listen to the community..
.. yep i got that

i know your mindset. i understood your mindset months ago.
the thing is.. your flip flops show you have not yet either:
admitted your own desire to yourself consciously
or you really do want tyranny but you dont want the sheep waking up and uprising

well goodluck

if you dont understand then you have no clue about what blockchains solved in regards to decentralised money.
by not understanding the importance of byzantine generals theory in regards to bitcoin. then your other topic about "what bitcoin gave us".. is a hollow topic you started, because it seems you have not grasped it enough

by your preference of control and centralised groups, and non blockchain networks. its pretty clear you have not really looked into what bitcoin and blockchain is really about.

but i guess your chums never wanted to tell you about the whole history of bitcoin/blockchain and what bitcoin solved.. because your chums wanted you to concentrate on the centralising move people off the network mindset of recent years

and by the way before you have your predictable rebuttal.. distribution of compatible loyalty is not the same as decentralised consensus

but if you really at all care about bitcoins security. you will find doing some independent research outside of your buddy group will benefit you.

and the reason i kep saying do your own research is purely so that you cant claim i am spoon-feeding you biases..
its up to you to decide if you care/desire want to know whats real.
and best way to do that is do your own research independently without buddies with spoons feeding you

Byzantine generals? How did we get there? Hahaha.

Bitcoin's development would not have reached where it is today if it wasn't organized. What you propose is chaos. Try running a project without an group of competent, lead developers. See how far that project will go.

here is the devs themselves. straight from the horses mouths
https://youtu.be/8lMLo-7yF5k?t=570

1. locking funds into a factory. is a smart contract involving trust that the factory didnt make a 2-of-3 smart contract with users under the pretence of it seeming as a 2-of-2 smart contract (trusting the factory doesnt hold 2 keys). as even schnorr is designed to hide how many are involved

2. the non blockchain 'payment' a factory then gives to a users channel is then done on trust. that while the user then plays with the channel payment which as a opening channel, but unaudited tx. the channel partner has to hope the factory is not also offering the same locked funds to another channel

3. channels have to trust that users wont play around because LN is not a byzantine generals solution network. people can play around with the nodes as there is no community to orphan/reject payments.

4. channels have to trust once closing session to get a factory to aggregate channels and eith broadcast out(unlock) or re-payment new open sessions.. that they will do. (LN operates as a need to be online and a need to sign for acceptance)
LN is not just a PUSH tx model.

...
anyone that only wants to view the utopian hope. and not critically scrutinise the reality. is not a person that cares about security. but just views things on trust

hmm maybe if bitcoin 2.0 gibe us many many benefit i think it will be more good for us to make it happen. but if they dnont give us any benefit i think we can't do that

We get it -- LN is a different protocol. What's wrong with that?

Coins are locked up with a smart contract. You're trying to imply LN involves trust when it doesn't in any way whatsoever. The whole point is to leverage Bitcoin's blockchain without bogging it down with unnecessary throughput. I haven't seen a compelling argument as to why the security model isn't sound.


Not true at all. Banks and promissory notes involve trust. LN doesn't.

the lightning network is about as much a "bitcoin feature" as coinbase.com is.
its a separate system for multiple coin utility involving vaulting up funds with another entity to then use a payment system of 12 decimal values, in an unaudited, non blockchain, non byzantine generals solving dataset system.

its not a bitcoin scaling solution, its a take user utility of the bitcoin network away from the bitcoin network and let users use another network.
much like how 19th century gold got vaulted up and people ended up playing with promissory notes that were redeemable by the co-signer that created the promissory note(know known as banks)

LN will end up requiring factories to both be watchtowers of channels and masternodes monitoring SEVERAL chains
which does not actually solve the issues of fullnodes.
also while average joe people are playing with 12 decimal payments on cellphone lite wallets, hoping to get rich routing thier own funds as a hotpotato game. in exchange for millibit income. will end up having to pay factories to be the entry/exit node.
and if you think average joe will be the full node factories. well goodluck with that hope.

the "dev state" know of LN issues and are happy to admit it has problems
https://youtu.be/8lMLo-7yF5k?t=570
problems which are mentioned in the first few sconds as problems they cant/wont find solutions to

we need to concentrate on bitcoins network utility, not creating side-gates to push people off network.
pushing people off network is the opposite of what bitcoiners should be doing. but as a few "dev state" supporters are showing, thats the agenda. dont like what "dev state" do F**k off, seems to be the mantra

A lot of the time that's because they're less secure and less stressed.

I'd be more inclined to buy into all of these claims once they'd been maxed out for months without buckling while countless vultures circled. They may look rather less convincing then.

And you can't really get any faster than a lightning network. The question is how usable it's going to be and how many people use it.