Topic: Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst? - page 3. (Read 2731 times)

No! Sorry but you can't give any credit to SegWit by refuting @anunymint's hypothetical attack.

SegWit and LN are the worst things happened to bitcoin not because of vulnerabilities guys like him suggest or the possibility of a crazy fork in the name of Satoshi.

SegWit is evil because of its complexity and anomaly in design and Ln is evil because, besides its dependency on SW and its stupid target service(recurring transactions), it is a second layer protocol.

As of SW, Bitcoin deserves more! Its code shouldn't be obfuscated and ruined with such a childish mind. It should be elegant and clean, junior hackers who feel genius and become excited about their ability to find weird techniques to "solve" problems and at the same time remain careless about obfuscating and complicating the code and making it practically unmaintainable, are not the best candidates for the job.

Plus, LN as a second layer protocol is a curse. It alienates users from what bitcoin really is and how it should be understood and experienced.

Neither scalability nor any other problem in bitcoin should be projected to second layer protocols, it is a dangerous move that discourages mass adoption of bitcoin because it hides bitcoin and all its beauty under a pile of garbage and nonsense.

It was how "genius" programmers ruined internet in the last few decades and made it an unsecure, theft friendly environment.
Fuck second layer protocols, they do nothing other than fooling people and making them both slaves of rich and victims of thieves.

Your idea of a "debate" is that everyone has to accept your insane doomsday theories as fact.  The onus is on you to provide a compelling argument.  You have failed.  Maybe stop repeating the same drivel if it's clearly proving ineffective.  We assimilate what you're saying just fine.  You don't assimilate that we still think you're unhinged and your words carry all the weight of someone who wriggled out of their straightjacket and scrawled some nonsense on the wall in their own excrement.  Maybe I need to point out again the sheer volume of 'The end is nigh', 'The sky is falling', 'The anonymint who cried wolf' FUD BS you've spouted in the past that turned out to be nothing other than a fevered dream on your part.  You have ZERO credibility.  You are synonymous with FUD at its most ludicrous peaks.  If I don't believe what you're telling me, you only have yourself to blame for that.



People have also used Gresham's law to "assure us" that all of Bitcoin will die, not just the particular "brand" of code you've taken a personal disliking to.  I don't give their argument any greater credence than yours.  Again, debate does not mean we have to automatically believe your far-fetched premise as fact.  Your argument is in no way, shape or form convincing.  Troll harder.



Also Anonymint:

hypocrite

Also, I don't know what forums you've been reading, but many of the most vociferous supporters of Core hate my guts and think I'm some sort of Communist.  I don't think they'd appreciate me being lumped in with them, heh.



I'm sure from the perspective of a crazy person, you might genuinely believe I'm lying.  Just like I'd be lying if I said "the sky is blue", when you clearly perceive it to be on fire and hurtling towards us at an alarming rate because your mind is unwell.  Nodes will only become irrelevant when we stop running them, which incidentally, isn't happening.  So best of luck with your continued tirade, because it isn't having the desired effect.  

You would certainly like nodes to be irrelevant because that would suit your narrative.  

Which, for the briefest moments of considering the possibility you aren't insane, could ultimately be the basis of your FUD.  You don't like SegWit, so you tell people there's a vulnerability with it.  You try to convince them it's not safe to use in an attempt to diminish it.  You don't like the fact that full nodes clearly do enforce the will of a supermajority of network users, so you claim nodes are irrelevant.  So if your arguments aren't insane, then they're deliberately intended to weaken the aspects of Bitcoin that you don't personally agree with.  I'll leave it to the other readers of the thread to decide if you're crazy or simply malicious.  I think most of them should have a pretty solid opinion by now.

---

Apparently it's what I'm good at.    



Providing other readers of this thread can assure me that they're still happy to use SegWit and the demented loon isn't having any sway on their thoughts in that regard, I'll happily stop.  It's was never about trying to convince Anonymint of anything, since I know from repeated prior encounters that's a complete waste of time.  Plus, it's not like his opinion matters anyway.  I just like to know the FUD isn't having the desired effect.

WOW look at that ..

Satoshi's protocol can’t fork off from itself. It is actively running now on the current BTC block chain. When the booty piles up, the Satoshi miners will take the donations and then Core will fork off. And then all the wealthy 1% who decide which chain will be the winner will of course sell their free air drop of Core altcoin fork tokens and use the proceeds to buy Satoshi Bitcoin unforked protocol tokens. Because the wealthy want security as the highest priority. And because the miners will be sharing the proceeds of the donations with the wealthy. As you point out, without immutability there is no security as even Peter Todd recently mused about if had his choice he would want to a perpetual inflation instead of 21 million coins. Core is mutability. Satoshi protocol is immutability.