im starting to think Lukes bip is not and was never a viable bip. but just some social drama to try averting peoples eyes and minds away from scaling bitcoin up. by using a fake bip to make people only talk about consequences of scaling down/up. to just delay scaling up.
(EG family wants to expand and have more kids. parent then drops in the abortion option distraction comment. and suddenly discussion moves to the pros and cons of abortion and how getting pregnant unplanned then becomes a sensative subject that should not be treated lightly.. end result dont have more kids due to abortion argument causing people to rethink)
i beleive it was never intended to become actual code that would be added to a core release. and as such, that by not being added. dev's can then pretend that devs are powerless janitors and unable to code things into core. thus not able to scale UP bitcoin.
thus being another psy-op bait and switch game to distract and play games. while the devs continue coding their roadmap and pretend they cant code anything else but their roadmap
(typical flip flop maneuver.. one minute they are authority in regards to roadmap. but only chimney sweeps(janitors) in regards to non roadmap bips) just like their 2016 backsteps
Topic: It seems luke-jr is ready to make his own shitcoin forked version of Bitcoin :P - page 3. (Read 523 times)
February 13, 2019, 09:15:26 PM
February 13, 2019, 05:25:19 PM
luke-jr is another one to add to the line fo Craig Wright, Jihan Wu and everyone that decide to fork bitcoin without any consensus. By design Bitcoin is open to this but as with the previous ppl and now luke-jr claim to social media that his version will be the "real Bitcoin" 
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/v0.17.1...luke-jr:example_300k-0.17
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/v0.17.1...luke-jr:example_300k-0.17
bitcoin is being forked for profit gains, gains the big problem the trash media tries to sell that trash looking professionally. experts and perfectionism will get globally a bad image. mark my words
regards
February 13, 2019, 05:22:27 PM
If it can indeed reduce the block size then it should improve upon transaction time.
Being the creator of bitcoin core he knows how it works from the very start.
Being the creator of bitcoin core he knows how it works from the very start.
February 13, 2019, 05:21:44 PM
is very funny with all of this ppl that want to fix bitcoin when Bitcoin is the only blockchain system that is up and running for 10 years now
February 13, 2019, 05:14:51 PM
he talk about a soft fork but if his nodes will not accept transactions ta blocks that are more than his 300kb plan for sure in some point bitcoin will forked.
His fork won't be backed by hashpower. It would be backward incompatible, just like a hard fork. One might call it a "soft-hard" fork.
and now luke-jr claim to social media that his version will be the "real Bitcoin"
After it's obvious that ~0 other Bitcoin developers agree with him, this will be forgotten about pretty quickly.
February 13, 2019, 12:22:52 PM
now luke-jr claim to social media that his version will be the "real Bitcoin"
Oh god no!!!!
Bitcoin is like some patient that every wannabe doctor want to experiment on with magical cures even if his only illness is a mild flu.
We already have 200 clones fixing everything that was not broken, now let's find a way to force people to do something although what they are doing is not wrong.
Quote
“There is never any guarantee. We need to reduce the block size just to have a *realistic hope* of it remaining feasible and *becoming practical again*. The blockchain is *already* bigger than most people are willing to tolerate, and the situation is getting worse and worse.”
Ok, so 200 GB are a problem right now but 150 weren't a year ago...
I would understand his concern if we would grow by 300-1000 GB a year but with this?
February 13, 2019, 11:42:11 AM
luke-jr is another one to add to the line fo Craig Wright, Jihan Wu and everyone that decide to fork bitcoin without any consensus. By design Bitcoin is open to this but as with the previous ppl and now luke-jr claim to social media that his version will be the "real Bitcoin"
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/v0.17.1...luke-jr:example_300k-0.17
I wish there was a way to prevent these things from happening. So that the fork were possible only when a certain number of developers supports it or something. These people are harming bitcoin and bitcoin community. They disrupt the trust in bitcoin by making other versions and leading some people to support them. Why can't these people be grown-ups and care about the greater good? Is it really that hard to stay on the same line about new developments? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/v0.17.1...luke-jr:example_300k-0.17
If there's a high risk that the innovation will not be accepted, why go for it and risk what we have?
February 13, 2019, 09:42:06 AM
i dont know if have any connection but today all of my nodes has this wanring
"warnings": "Warning: Unknown block versions being mined! It's possible unknown rules are in effect"
i have to see this warning to my nodes from segwit softfork activation
"warnings": "Warning: Unknown block versions being mined! It's possible unknown rules are in effect"
i have to see this warning to my nodes from segwit softfork activation
February 13, 2019, 09:38:46 AM
blockweight consensus rule is 4,000,000 witness scale factor /4 (base block 1mb weight 4mb)
average blocks real utility is ~ 1,200,000 (not all transactions are segwit so a full 1mb base is only garnering a 0.2mb extra weight)
by luke wanting (actual blocks) utilised to be just 600,000 . at current utility that would make the base block around 0.5mb.
which if he then tries to push segwit adoption up afterwards by forcing his nodes to only use wallets of segwit based address formats. would push the base block to be ~300,000
luke is trying to bypass the consensus rule by not changing the consensus (4mb) but just controversially reject blocks that produce blocks of 600kb
luke method of doing such a fork is super ugly. controversial and foolish.
its not even good coding practice.. nor utility practical
..
seems lukes mindset is maybe too stuck in the push bitcoin utility down, deburden bitcoin of utility by getting people to use commercial service networks like LN.
oh the august deadlines are not coincidence. the investors of blockstream need to start getting repaid ASAP so they would wanna see LN's commercialised income stream adoption rise for the investors to get some returns
average blocks real utility is ~ 1,200,000 (not all transactions are segwit so a full 1mb base is only garnering a 0.2mb extra weight)
by luke wanting (actual blocks) utilised to be just 600,000 . at current utility that would make the base block around 0.5mb.
which if he then tries to push segwit adoption up afterwards by forcing his nodes to only use wallets of segwit based address formats. would push the base block to be ~300,000
luke is trying to bypass the consensus rule by not changing the consensus (4mb) but just controversially reject blocks that produce blocks of 600kb
luke method of doing such a fork is super ugly. controversial and foolish.
its not even good coding practice.. nor utility practical
..
seems lukes mindset is maybe too stuck in the push bitcoin utility down, deburden bitcoin of utility by getting people to use commercial service networks like LN.
oh the august deadlines are not coincidence. the investors of blockstream need to start getting repaid ASAP so they would wanna see LN's commercialised income stream adoption rise for the investors to get some returns
February 13, 2019, 09:11:59 AM
Looks like Luke DashJr made this commit in the hopes of people being more convinced to run full nodes. In my opinion, regardless if we have 300kb blocks or 100kb blocks, I really don't see getting the masses to use full nodes, as I think most are holding their coins on their mobile wallets in the first place anyway.
he talk about a soft fork but if his nodes will not accept transactions ta blocks that are more than his 300kb plan for sure in some point bitcoin will forked.
February 13, 2019, 09:10:38 AM
Free shit coins again.
free money is good all the time .
@op , is this the luke jr that you are talking about ? > https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/luke-jr-3318
yes
https://twitter.com/LukeDashjr/status/1092625353774940160
February 13, 2019, 09:10:14 AM
Looks like Luke DashJr made this commit in the hopes of people being more convinced to run full nodes. In my opinion, regardless if we have 300kb blocks or 100kb blocks, I really don't see getting the masses to use full nodes, as I think most are holding their coins on their mobile wallets in the first place anyway.
February 13, 2019, 09:05:13 AM
Free shit coins again.
free money is good all the time .
@op , is this the luke jr that you are talking about ? > https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/luke-jr-3318
February 13, 2019, 09:02:44 AM
Free shit coins again.
February 13, 2019, 08:54:31 AM
luke-jr is another one to add to the line fo Craig Wright, Jihan Wu and everyone that decide to fork bitcoin without any consensus. By design Bitcoin is open to this but as with the previous ppl and now luke-jr claim to social media that his version will be the "real Bitcoin"
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/v0.17.1...luke-jr:example_300k-0.17
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/v0.17.1...luke-jr:example_300k-0.17
Jump to: