Topic: It seems luke-jr is ready to make his own shitcoin forked version of Bitcoin :P - page 2. (Read 588 times)

EDITED 21st september 2018
HA HA HA

heres a tip
buzzwords "user assisted softfork"(UASF)
buzzwords "miner assisted softfork"(MASF)
were non existant terms before LUKE dreamed them up .
it was all false social drama, to try to hid/downplay the controversy it would cause.. calling it soft doesnt mean its soft. it just a word someone chose for a buzzword to confuse the sheep

if you dont know what controversial fork (hard) is. then you really have not looked at what real hard/soft are in regards to real hard/soft forks since many years before lukes bait/switch social games name twisting buzzwords

but hey.. because a certain group buzzworded it in the last 2 years. (like 'conservative' you will follow their buzzword as the truth, rather than really understand/research
in short a soft fork is a fork that is not controversial or causes much network effect/damage. thus its soft
if it causes controversy/drama/alot of network effect.. its hard

even luke knows that. which is why he now wants to use the buzzword "inflight upgrade" for softforks
even other devs knows that. which is why they now wants to use the buzzword "compatible upgrade" for softforks

Not according to the definitions we've been using for many years. From the Bitcoin wiki:


Sort of like you calling a "soft fork" a "hard fork."

None of this matters anyway. Soft vs. hard is not important. What matter is whether a fork is compatibility-breaking. That is what causes network splits. That's why BIP148 was just as reckless as many hard fork proposals.

why do you always seek to discriminate against all "coins"

the difference in hardware needed for 1mb vs 300k blocks is trivial IMO. basically, consumer hardware can run either.

if i can run a full node at home with 1mb blocks on my pathetic 1.5 Mbs internet with a cheap 256 gb ssd (well soon will need a 500 gb ssd as the blockchain is currently ~220 gb), i see no need to go to smaller blocks purely from a technological standpoint.

as for the masses, they either will or they wont and it wont be based on 300k vs 1mb blocks that make the difference.. its the tech knowledge needed that is the selling point. few people have the security and computer knowledge needed to run full nodes with wallets securely at this point.

as far as mobile wallets for keeping coins. well i sure hope not. but again it comes down to security and computer knowledge. sure some people may be better of with mobile wallets (i use one for spending, most btc is in hardware wallets or paper wallets) as they lack the knowledge to run other wallets securely. they will be more likely lose their coins on other, more secure storage methods due to user error than have a good mobile wallet compromised.

As you said, too much social drama with not much of an use. The idea is not good.
Probably the guy is a good dev. Probably he made a lot of meaningful changes into Bitcoin. Maybe his idea has good or bad intentions behind. It doesn't matter. The idea is not viable.

And if he insists in making a fork for this, ... let's just hope it will not called again Bitcoin Whatever. If he doesn't, no problem: let the man experiment.

its not "broke" .. but yes people like luke*. will assume and try to promote such.
Lukes true nature is that luke is greedy. luke loves altcoins, merge mine income from different networks and such.  

there actually is no problem with bitcoin and blockchains, if certain real BITCOIN innovations occur. i am not talking about jumping to "gigabytes by midnight" which false mantra a that a certain group have stuck in their head as the lame excuse not to even try scaling bitcoin
im talking about bitcoin optimisations and SCALING(not leaping)

what i found truly funny. yes luke always hated bitcoin scaling and didnt even like the 1mb limit years ago. but as soon as it become apparent that the only way h can enforce segwit(to claim his VC funded prize) would be to accept 4mb. he soon went quiet about '2mb a block/100gb a year is bad'. and suddenly he became happy about 4mb possibilities(2.1-2.5 more realistic capability).
(now he has his VC funded tranche of income, now he wants to backtrack things. as do certain group that desire to de-burden bitcoin of utility to push people to other networks in the hopes of greedy income streams)

by the way, bitcoin is not too much for peoples bandwidth/hardware. in as much as online gaming or live streaming(which requires more data)


*(by which ill also tag you into that group as you seem to have your foot stuck in the door of preferring to de burden bitcoin of utility with your LN optimisms and not wanting bitcoin scaling)

He might be. Although I believe it is his opinion that the Bitcoin network is "not ready" to be utilized in a big way. It might come from the belief that if the users can't or won't run full nodes because the initial blockchain download is too much for their bandwidth, or hardware, or both, then Bitcoin therefore is "broken".

1. bip 148 was a controversial HARD fork. it was coded to be a hard fork, it performed as a hardfork. but was 'social dramatised' buzzworded as soft purely by the use of some baseball caps that samson mow handed out. and false promotions by the DCG NYA that pay blockstream/luke/mow and all them involved
basball caps and twitter pics does not make something hard go soft.(unless your looking at porn and then the next pic you see is trump wearing a 'make america ggreat again' cap )

2. one might call it an elephant or a helicopter. but doesnt make it so.

3. actually based on a 2015 meeting where there was a community compromise of a segwit2mb. if luke actually didnt back out of that decision with his chimney sweep/janitor/im not a contributor step back tactic.. segwit could have actually got activated a year earlier, while also letting legacy offer better transaction count possibilities and also without the wishy washy code. of witness scale factor.
but nah luke didnt like segwit2mb and only wanted segwit1x which when released as an option in november 2016, only obtained 35% approval by spring 2017...
so luke doubled down with wishy washy code and controversial tactics employed to force it in

and here we are 2019... transaction counts still under 600k a day(under7tx/s)
and here we are 2019... transaction that can still b malleated. yep both with legacy, and due to new opcodes, segwit is vulnerable again
and here we are 2019... with the only direction change being a new tx format thats only real purpose was to be a gateway to another network

..
so late 2015... early 2019. and people are still demanding scaling.. and what conclusion is there.. to deburden bitcoin of its utility and move people off the network
well done.. (sarcasm) way to go... celebrate bitcoin by saying get off the network. congrats for 3 years of.. well ill end my sarcasm there

when speaking of things such as BIP148 it is best to avoid using terms such as hard/soft fork, backward compatibility,... instead i tend to stick to the fact that it was a fork and it had very little support from both miners and nodes and the risk of splitting the network into two was extremely high.
not to mention that proposals such as BIP148 with their low threshold must not exist in a decentralized consensus based system. in other simple words "if you can't reach consensus you shouldn't force it".

that is why i was against it. if you look at SegWit proposal itself you can see it was designed to be activated with a high support of 95% and that is how consensus should work and that is how bitcoin has always worked.

BIP148 was controversial, but it was coded as a soft fork. Not all soft forks are backward compatible. That's one of things that upset me so much about the BIP148 camp -- they marketed it as a backward compatible soft fork, which was completely false and deceptive. Of course, no UASF can be a priori backward compatible because soft forks require majority hashrate to remain compatible. Indeed, one might call it a "soft-hard" fork because it was a soft fork that was extremely likely to cause a network split.

As you may be able to tell, I was vehemently opposed to BIP148. It was incredibly reckless to do on such a short timeline and I honestly lost a lot of respect for the people who pushed it. I also think Luke is an asshole who puts his own misguided principles above all else, including the health of the Bitcoin network.

But credit where credit is due: Segwit never would have activated if not for BIP148.

and there it is squatter pumped the "conservative" speach..
ok squatter has now entered what seems to be the echo chamber of the core defence league andd centralist loving crowd

P.S bip 148 was not soft. ys he was instrumental in it. but in no way was 148 soft. it was controversial hard fork
hint august 1st.

from what i see, there is no actual fork drama. people have been making this bigger than it really is, not to mention that it is not even a new thing! this weird looking proposal has been around for a long time (over a year?). and i suspect it has something to do with the price and the fact that some groups still want to lower it more.

It seems that after big blockers the next group that will leave bitcoin will be the "tiny blockers"

https://twitter.com/BitcoinErrorLog/status/1094731496638873600

we will see more of this new fork drama in the next months imo.

He's made hundreds of contributions to Bitcoin Core and maintains the BIP process. He's the one who realized Segwit could be implemented as a soft fork -- prior to that, it wasn't a serious option. He was probably integral in getting Segwit activated on the network by championing BIP148.

He has some good ideas and also some really bad ones. It can help to have conservative engineers like him involved, even if their ideas won't agree with the consensus most of the time. They see things that other people can't and can provide important counterpoints in technical discussions.

You should really shut up, bow down, ass up and open your....to the mighty devs!!!

Funny how this idolizing of some people has reached this level nowadays, less widespread in BTC but with a lot of people who would try everything to make you shut up if you dare to even doubt the devs of a token or a shitcoin.

Probably a lot of hodlers are so scared of anything bad coming up that they would go against the very principles of cryptos by imposing censorship and centralization just to see their investments safe.


One of the people that can be labeled as "developers" for BTC and to be fair I think he is still the most active one.
But unfortunately, he has a lot...a lot of crazy ideas.
And this might be one of those.

someone to Reddit in a topic like this blame me that i am troll and i must not criticise devs because i own to them my profits from Bitcoin.
With the same logic i own profits and to Gavin and Mike hearn

Who the hell is luke-jr and why should we care about this?
There were about 1000 bitcoin forks and 99,99% of them are dead.Only the btc forks with serious miner +crypto exchange support,like BCH, managed to survive(for a while).

Meh. Anybody can make a fork of bitcoin. This won't end up being anything.

I'm of the opinion that 1 MB blocks is the way to go, with the current blockchain in place. Its worked this far and been more successful than anybody's wildest imagination after 10 years.

If Bitcoin were a company traded on NASDAQ it would currently be the 30th biggest by market cap. Not too shabby.

Ah no, are we really going through all that drama again! 

Why do these people not simply create their own Alt coin with all the features they want and be done with it? Yes, the FREE coins are nice, but it dilutes Bitcoin's value in my opinion and it splits the community with all the drama that are associated with a split like this. 

Yes, I know this is how things are supposed to work and consensus should decide what the "real" Bitcoin is, but this is getting very old now. 

I don't ever get how this guy gets any attention. He always seems to be up to the dumbest shit and opinions of all time. And yet he's always headline news.