grrrrrr
this never ending argument is truly never ending.
this never ending argument is truly never ending.
Oh, it will have an end all right. If Lauda gets his way it will be an end of Bitcoin as currency and hello bitcoin as SWIFT MKII.
Topic: [News]WHY AGAINST SEGWIT AND CORE? Mining investor gives his answer - page 2. (Read 2624 times)
November 24, 2016, 02:08:50 AM
Oh, it will have an end all right. If Lauda gets his way it will be an end of Bitcoin as currency and hello bitcoin as SWIFT MKII.
November 24, 2016, 12:59:14 AM
How about you provide a link to a quote so I can know what you're talking about?
Quote
Roger Ver finds it "difficult to support segwit" because he is "more concerned about morals of the people who came up it", than the technology itself.
It was initially in a video, but it seems to be gone now. Here's a [url=https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5bha5d/roger_ver_finds_it_difficult_to_support_segwit/]link.Leaving aside the fact that cherry-picking some random rich dude and attributing an entire movement to that person is ludicrous...
You seem to be stating that you view Ver's verbal statement of "difficult to support segwit" as synonymous with "[primarily Roger Ver and ViaBTC have been] fighting for blocking scaling and Segwit and pro a fork." This says more about you than it does of Ver.
And again, we're not for "blocking scaling and SegWit"*. We BU-ers are for implementing scaling through the emergent consensus of the entire network having control over maxblocksize.
Just implement Segwit and continue promoting/preaching what you are already doing. It causes no harm but helps move forward (at least a bit).No. You (core, et al) just implement emergent maxblocksize and continue promoting/preaching what you are already doing. It causes no harm but helps move forward (at least a bit).
Which by all accounts is the mainstream. We're just fighting for what we believe is the most beneficial approach and best path forward to a more capable Bitcoin, maximizing value to the largest possible set of users.
Mainstream people should not be trying to decide technical limits though. Now see, that is what is known as an opinion. Dogma really. Spare me the 'holier than thou' shit. I do not agree. There was a time when the prevailing attitude within Bitcoin was that our money was to be free of arbitrary limitations imposed by others. Further, it is not a technical limit. There is some limit that technology imposes, but it sure-the-hell-ain't 1MB (good thing, as The SegWit Omnibus Changeset implements a sliding scale for maxblocksize that can be as large as 4MB). No. What we have here is a centrally-imposed limit within the code. Indeed, this limit was not put in place to begin with to deal with a technological problem, and its realtion to any underlying technological limit is tenuous at best.
Roger Ver is not some random rich guy, he is the self proclaimed Bitcoin Jesus and lately the Bitcoin Judas. He has dumped loads of money into a alternative forum, that are being used to spread propaganda for whatever flavor of Bitcoin or Alt coin he wants to hype. < Usually something that are not supported by the Blockstream guys >
He has found a niche market for the people with a revolutionary mindset. < The ones who wants to piss in the wind >
It started with < fabricated censorship > and now it is all about money. < Gambling etc.. >
November 23, 2016, 11:57:59 PM
seriously?? your going to:
ignore actual blockcounts
ignore how the activation is measured.
Here it is in plain text.
"sincePeriodStart"
http://api.qbit.ninja/versionstats
Or if you like colors.....
of course this counts 1000 blocks of which signaling only started 822 blocks ago.
http://xtnodes.com/graphs.php
One question: what is a '10B level financial system'? I am unfamiliar with this term.
I think it means "10 billion dollar" level fin sys.
November 23, 2016, 09:50:52 PM
20% of hashing power currently supports segwit.
i would imagine that potential support for segwit (like this week) tops out at 30-50%
but who is this 20% hashing power supporting segwit
i would imagine that potential support for segwit (like this week) tops out at 30-50%
but who is this 20% hashing power supporting segwit
November 23, 2016, 09:14:12 PM
Who wrote this? You? The best that I can say about this is that it is sad. The post is full of misinformation and/or *half-truths*. FYI: Post-segwit roadmap is irrelevant to Segwit.
FYI using the word "market" in your claims is wrong. The market is currently presented with 4 options:
1) Core.
2) XT (dead)
3) Classic (dead)
4) BU
Please remind me again how many nodes and how much hashrate is in support of BU. Also, you can see a big list of Segwit supporters (different entities, not Core developers) on the Bitcoin Core website.
FYI using the word "market" in your claims is wrong. The market is currently presented with 4 options:
1) Core.
2) XT (dead)
3) Classic (dead)
4) BU
Please remind me again how many nodes and how much hashrate is in support of BU. Also, you can see a big list of Segwit supporters (different entities, not Core developers) on the Bitcoin Core website.
Hi,BITKAN translate this article. This one is very popular in China these days.
November 23, 2016, 08:54:38 PM
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools?resolution=24h ~19% according to here.
seriously?? your going to:
ignore actual blockcounts
ignore how the activation is measured.
and show a stupid average over a stupid 24 hours.
wow. the other day it hit 24%, then down to 14%, then upto 25% then down to 16% then upto 19%........ LOL
how about use actual count of 2016 blocks and get a number that actually applies to the rule.
hell lets even use segwit creators own stats page
note the red line as thats the only metric the CODE cares about.
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-10k.png
again note the red line.
as for anything else lauda has said about segwit. im pretty sure lauda has yet to learn C++ to actually know code to actually independently review and understand it. and run it through some scenarios
i did give lauda a few hints months ago to learn it. lets hope lauda took up that chance.
now lets summarise.
malleability does nothing for LN.
say we call a malicious person X and a honest person Y
to open a channel funds need to be confirmed and locked. LN would only recognise a locked and confirmed tx. thus malleability is useless. because LN wont do anything to unconfirmed transactions and would only accept whatever is seen locked into the blockchain.
when using LN a transaction needs to be signed by BOTH X and Y to spend (broadcast back onchain)
if X then wants to malleate a tx to then void the first one hoping he can then sign a second tx to trick funds back to himself he cannot. because Y wont sign the malleated tx. and the second tx without both signatures will never get accepted into a block.
dual signing alone makes malleability useless tool to double spend
secondly. legacy(old) nodes wont benefit from it. also old nodes will have more issues to contend with. such as seeing 'funky' transactions. aswell as still not being able to trust unconfirmed transactions due to RBF and CPFP.
thirdly new nodes wont benefit from malleability. because malleabilities main headache was double spending.. and guess what.. RBF CPFP still make double spends a risk.
yes all them promises of fixing malleability to let people have a bit more trust in unconfirmed transactions falls flat because they basically took away malleability but then implemented RBF CPFP..
fourthly as for the linear/quadratics.. be serious for one moment. think of a rational reason why one person would need to do say 200-10,000 signature operations in one transaction.
just checking the blockchain history. how often has a legitimate transaction actually required lots of signatures to the extent of causing issues.
the funny thing is limiting transactions sigops actually ensures that we never get a situation where one person can fill a block alone..
but instead, not limiting transaction sigops and just making it fast to process. along with offering a discount on signatures, actually makes it easier, cheaper and more rewarding for someone to spam the block with a single transaction. yea it wont cause network delay. but still causes the community to get peed off that someone is filling the block with one transaction.
limiting sigops was/is the obvious route that should have been taken.
fifthly, the 4mb weight. is only going to be filled with 1.8mb tx +witness data. leaving 2.2mb unused. but guess what. people will use it by filling it with arbitrary data. such as writing messages, adverts, even writing a book into the blockchain. what should have been done was allow 2mb base thus needing ~3.6mb weight.. and also adding a rule that 'messages' could not be added. thus keeping the blockchain lean and utilised just for transactions and not novels/adverts/messages. afterall if a communication tool like twitter or SMS can limit how much someone writes.. then so should bitcoin.
we will definetly see people purposefully bloating up the blockchain with passages of mobydick or over nonsense. and core have done nothing to stop it but done everything to allow it.
sixthly, as i slightly hinted before. by not limiting sigops, not preventing arbitrary data being added core have incentivised bloating by discounting it. but have then added the fee's to reduce bitcoins utility of an actual transaction ledger..
this has to be emphasized over and over.. adding bloat is discounted(free) but sending a real transaction is costly
seventhly, now lets get to the feewar. by removing the instant reaction of allowing fee's to drop when there is low demand. to instead use an "average" metric, actually ends up keeping prices high even when empty blocks are showing. this also has a ripple effect on the relay network where nodes wont even relay certain transactions that dont meet a threshold. which during times of empty blocks/low mempools. the mining pools wont even get all transactions to manually add into blocks if they circumvent the "average" setting.. because other nodes have refused to relay them.
this overall ends up with an ever increasing fee, while having blocks either spam filled with messages of a novel bloating a block. or empty blocks while still demanding a high fee because the average doesnt decline instantly, but over many blocks. meaning instead of
block 500,000: 4500tx 1.8mb avgfee=0.00010000fee
block 500,001: 4500tx 1.8mb avgfee=0.00011000fee
block 500,002: 4500tx 1.8mb avgfee=0.00012000fee
block 500,003: 4500tx 1.8mb avgfee=0.00013000fee
block 500,004: 4500tx 1.8mb avgfee=0.00014000fee
block 500,005: 4500tx 1.8mb avgfee=0.00015000fee
you will see
block 500,000: 4500tx 1.8mb avgfee=0.00010000fee
block 500,001: 1tx 4mb avgfee=0.00250000fee - "Call me Ishmael." "Some years ago-" "never mind how long precisely-" "having little or no money"
block 500,002: 0tx 0mb avgfee=0.00019600fee
block 500,003: 0tx 0mb avgfee=0.00019984fee
block 500,004: 0tx 0mb avgfee=0.00020383fee
block 500,005: 0tx 0mb avgfee=0.00020799fee
go on.. i dare you.
using an "average" screws up any chance of having cheap transactions and enforces a fee war, even when there are no full blocks the price does not instantly go down due to there being no demand.
November 23, 2016, 08:35:28 PM
Leaving aside the fact that cherry-picking some random rich dude and attributing an entire movement to that person is ludicrous...
Random rich dude? Looks like someone has been living inside a cave during the last two quarters.Not at all. Last two quarters? I was around when Ver's early advocacy made a huge impact on Bitcoin adoption. BTAIM, my point is that singling out a single individual out of a large group that agree on one point, and ascribing one statement that that individual made to the group as a whole, is ludicrous.
You seem to be stating that you view Ver's verbal statement of "difficult to support segwit" as synonymous with "[primarily Roger Ver and ViaBTC have been] fighting for blocking scaling and Segwit and pro a fork." This says more about you than it does of Ver.
False. Do your research regarding this problem, i.e. stop requiring spoon-feeding. I've already said the statement is wrong and it should be "blocking scaling via Segwit".You are the one with the outlandish claim. Proving it is on you. So let us substitute the text you assert you meant then:
You seem to be stating that you view Ver's verbal statement of "difficult to support segwit" as synonymous with "[primarily Roger Ver and ViaBTC have been] fighting for blocking scaling via Segwit and pro a fork."
Nope - I'm not seeing how that is any closer to being synonymous. It still says more about you than it does of Ver.
No. You (core, et al) just implement emergent maxblocksize and continue promoting/preaching what you are already doing. It causes no harm but helps move forward (at least a bit).
Nobody in their right mind is going to implement something that effectively has no benefits in contrast to the solution on hand.Exactly. Now do you see how ludicrous your suggestion seems to someone who supports scaling via emergent consensus of maxblocksize?
Now see, that is what is known as an opinion.
Nope. Facts.No. "Mainstream people should not be trying to decide technical limits though" is not a statement of fact. It is dogma.
Further, it is not a technical limit.
Surely it's an economical limit that my node can only run X amount of validation in Y amount of time. 
1MB maxblocksize is an economical limit only because it is being imposed upon the system.
November 23, 2016, 07:42:56 PM
Leaving aside the fact that cherry-picking some random rich dude and attributing an entire movement to that person is ludicrous...
Random rich dude? Looks like someone has been living inside a cave during the last two quarters.You seem to be stating that you view Ver's verbal statement of "difficult to support segwit" as synonymous with "[primarily Roger Ver and ViaBTC have been] fighting for blocking scaling and Segwit and pro a fork." This says more about you than it does of Ver.
False. Do your research regarding this problem, i.e. stop requiring spoon-feeding. I've already said the statement is wrong and it should be "blocking scaling via Segwit".No. You (core, et al) just implement emergent maxblocksize and continue promoting/preaching what you are already doing. It causes no harm but helps move forward (at least a bit).
Nobody in their right mind is going to implement something that effectively has no benefits in contrast to the solution on hand.Now see, that is what is known as an opinion.
Nope. Facts. Random people that know nothing about what a system can or can not handle should not be messing around with it.Further, it is not a technical limit.
Surely it's an economical limit that my node can only run X amount of validation in Y amount of time. can you repeat the question?
Read the thread...
(Fee: $ 0.97 - Size: 192 bytes) 2016-11-24 00:26:22
(Fee: $ 5.77 - Size: 1554 bytes) 2016-11-23 23:42:28
(Fee: $ 3.00 - Size: 223 bytes) 2016-11-23 23:42:06
...
I'm not sure if you're trolling or just stupid. In what rational mind is mentioning some random TXs and their fees as evidence to support the claim that "Core devs will be okay with 10$ fees". I could literally put in $1M of fees in the smallest possible TX. Is this proof that Core developers want $1m fees? (Fee: $ 0.97 - Size: 192 bytes) 2016-11-24 00:26:22
(Fee: $ 5.77 - Size: 1554 bytes) 2016-11-23 23:42:28
(Fee: $ 3.00 - Size: 223 bytes) 2016-11-23 23:42:06
...
no shit they wouldn't flat out say that, they want you to FEEL like hard forks are very dangerous.
They are dangerous, anyone stating otherwise is misinformed or delusional.right, core devs are infallible programming gods, so i guess there's no real danger.
They just may be in comparison to the people that have worked on the last 2 (almost 3) failed clients. Then again, that may be an appeal to authority. November 23, 2016, 07:41:12 PM
grrrrrr
this never ending argument is truly never ending.
this never ending argument is truly never ending.
November 23, 2016, 07:37:41 PM
i just dont want core to block scaling via block size
You're completely dodging the argument which is fallacy.because once we have LN, core devs will say things like " the settlement layer must remain DECENTRALIZED,
False assumption. if you have a problem with the 10$ fees go learn how to use LN, you dumb users that can hardly turn on a computer!"
Appeal to extremes...
(Fee: $ 0.97 - Size: 192 bytes) 2016-11-24 00:26:22
(Fee: $ 5.77 - Size: 1554 bytes) 2016-11-23 23:42:28
(Fee: $ 3.00 - Size: 223 bytes) 2016-11-23 23:42:06
...
sometime cores act like users are going to lose funds because the user didnt upgrade in time.
I've yet to see this somewhere.user wakes up, everything APPEARS to work fine, and unknown to him a softfork has been activated.
Yet everything continues to work just fine even after a soft fork. This is a moot point. November 23, 2016, 07:33:20 PM
How about you provide a link to a quote so I can know what you're talking about?
Quote
Roger Ver finds it "difficult to support segwit" because he is "more concerned about morals of the people who came up it", than the technology itself.
It was initially in a video, but it seems to be gone now. Here's a [url=https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5bha5d/roger_ver_finds_it_difficult_to_support_segwit/]link.Leaving aside the fact that cherry-picking some random rich dude and attributing an entire movement to that person is ludicrous...
You seem to be stating that you view Ver's verbal statement of "difficult to support segwit" as synonymous with "[primarily Roger Ver and ViaBTC have been] fighting for blocking scaling and Segwit and pro a fork." This says more about you than it does of Ver.
And again, we're not for "blocking scaling and SegWit"*. We BU-ers are for implementing scaling through the emergent consensus of the entire network having control over maxblocksize.
Just implement Segwit and continue promoting/preaching what you are already doing. It causes no harm but helps move forward (at least a bit).No. You (core, et al) just implement emergent maxblocksize and continue promoting/preaching what you are already doing. It causes no harm but helps move forward (at least a bit).
Which by all accounts is the mainstream. We're just fighting for what we believe is the most beneficial approach and best path forward to a more capable Bitcoin, maximizing value to the largest possible set of users.
Mainstream people should not be trying to decide technical limits though. Now see, that is what is known as an opinion. Dogma really. Spare me the 'holier than thou' shit. I do not agree. There was a time when the prevailing attitude within Bitcoin was that our money was to be free of arbitrary limitations imposed by others. Further, it is not a technical limit. There is some limit that technology imposes, but it sure-the-hell-ain't 1MB (good thing, as The SegWit Omnibus Changeset implements a sliding scale for maxblocksize that can be as large as 4MB). No. What we have here is a centrally-imposed limit within the code. Indeed, this limit was not put in place to begin with to deal with a technological problem, and its realtion to any underlying technological limit is tenuous at best.
