Topic: NOT Upgrading to SegWit who's with me?! - page 7. (Read 7217 times)

I'll tell you what, I know computer hardware is very scarce in France, and that they typically get versions of things about 3 years late, but I'll pay for and send you a hard drive with 2 terabytes on it.  I know if you are French it seems impossible to have a hard drive with such capacity, but in the rest of the world these are so fucking cheap they are nearly free.  102GB is TINY.  Laughably tiny.  Your French node can get upgraded to 2000GB for less than 50 Euro.  Are you still afraid of 102GB (7 years of blockchain)?  

nodes for me ... are with a COMPLETE local blockchain.

when you have 102GB since 2009, i take care about the size of a block ... and love the SPAM feature include in this actual restriction of 1Mb (976kb).

i accept Segwit because it solves something.
block inflate solve NOTHING AT ALL.

---

are you even use the freenet network ... and learn what it's to decentralize the storage of a whole network over time ?

lol you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
the funny thing is
2mb base 4mb weight.
or
1mb base 4mb weight.

amount to the SAME maximum bloat potential either way, for CONFIRMED BLOCKS (not in mempool anymore)

allowing more tx's into a block, does not actually cause mempools to get flooded. quite the opposite

this 4mb max is also on the contingent that EVERYONE uses segwit to achieve the 4mb max. or we will see a more realistic well under 2mb expectation within under 3 months time frame you gave.
after all when any scalability is activated. it takes time for nodes to use the feature and takes time for pools to test the water at 1.001mb for orphan risk and slowly grow once they get confident. so dont expect max bloat straight away

again learn reality and stop exaggerating.

as for running 100 nodes.. why would someone do that and why would running 100 nodes mean anything.
if your currently running 100 nodes then your shooting yourself in the foot with a sybil attempt that is only hurting yourself.

but if you are worried about mempool bottleneck . worry more about nlocktime of 1 hour 59 minutes. that can force mempools to fill up

I'm really award of a congestion scenario ... and Block Inflate is NOT a spam protection.
If you want block Inflate, run 100 nodes ... and deal with this after 3 months.

Yes, good for you.
But in a network view ... this BUG is NOT acceptable.

network MUST refuse to transfer in mempool a wrongly connected transaction to "in-instant" other transaction in mempool.

lucky for all, SPV don't have mempool.
only miner ... and nodes.

that's why we MUST delete this BUG before open the SPV feature in the nodes (and miners).
that's why LN will be not deploy before SegWit.

LN don't work with malleability BUG in action.
LN must have access to mempool and be sure to not cross malleability transaction.

if you believe that you can emit double-spend in a (enforced) segwit network, you dream in color ... litterally.
https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_wallet_dev/

i have recieved many attempts of malleability in the past.. but guess what. i reject them, i never been a victim of malleability because i know what to look for.
however things like RBF, CPFP CSV open up a new can of worms.. the funny part is you snipped off that part because you fear talking about it to realise im right. double spends have not been fixed for those too lame to do proper checks.

if you think double spends have been fixed. your in for a rude awakening.

block inflate??, 8mb... um.. no.. the consensus round tables and multiple debates have settled and compromised to a 2mb base 4mb weight.
i think you need to call your cries a 'block exaggeration'.. because its only you inflating the numbers of the real debate
wake up to reality and learn whats real.




im a realist.
RBF CPFP CSV... learn it.

yes they take away malleability as a way to double spend.. but then open up and give the world atleast 3 NEW ways to double spend. meaning double spend is not solved.

much like someone changing the locks on the front door of your house to avoid you getting robbed but then taking away the lock on the back door.. leaving a window open that cant be locked and leaving the garage door without a lock. all of which used to be secure

no point circle jerking to people that already know bitcoin by using fake adverts that bitcoin is utopia.. when bitcoin still has issues. people should be aware of the issues so that they can do some proper checks on the data they handle. rather then stick head in the sand, ass in the air shouting thank you core now take me up the rear.

youre ignoring the basics here
if the block stays at 1MB everyone will be shoehorned onto LN whether they want to be or not
the space in the 1mb block will become so expensive that only businesses like coinbase etc can afford to use it

if we had dynamic blocks + LN at least there would be some choice ,if LN is cheaper ,faster and better everyone will use it anyway so why the need to force them ?

The amount of uncorrected lies in this thread is really absurd.

Segwit doesn't have anything to do with lightning. Lightning is already possible without it and can't be blocked. So if you're against having actual scalablity in Bitcoin: well too bad and fuck you: you already lost the day Satoshi released the software.  Similar, sidechains at least of the federated type are existing, unblockable, and undetectable.  If you want to force other people to not use them? Again too bad. You can't.


BitcoinBarrel, the notice in your software has nothing to do with segwit.  You're inconsistent with the network because you're not even running something that implements CSV.  You should at least run 0.13.0; if you do you won't get a notice until segwit activates.


I am not aware of any change here, have you opened an issue? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/

I don't see any basis for opposition to Segwit from this thread. The allegation is made that allowing Segwit will open the door to Blockstream (or whomever) creating off-chain payment channels that they can earn a profit on. Well, so what? If they succeed with the LN, sidechains, or whatever, is there anything in SegWit or anything else being discussed that will FORCE me to use their off-chain payment channel? Looks like the answer is no, so I can just choose to keep making on-chain transfers.

In other words, people seem to be afraid of increased choice, with no loss of the current option of doing on-chain TX. Does that make any sense?

Only idiots that don't understand technology want to block segwit. Andreas Antonopoulos has advice several times to activate segwit before we try to raise the blocksize, because it's a mistake and brings up many new vectors of attack.

Segwit first, blocksize increase later. If there is no segwit, blocksize will stay 1MB forever, so your choice.

'Bitcoin Protocol Consensus' has been arbitrarily defined by Greg Maxwell as 95%. 
'majority' is merely 51% 

So which is it? 

Bitcoin is what the majority of the community say it is.......... simple

Nope,,,,,, your on your own 

karpeles robbed mt gox blind
tx malleability was a convenient excuse but if it ws that big of a problem ,it would have affected every player in the industry ,not only gox lol

That is the beauty of this technology, majority rules and everyone has a choice. If you do not want to switch, then that would be your choice.

We will soon see if other people agree with you, and if LiteCoin will test it successfully. You got to luv the ingenuity of this experiment. 

How hard can it be to implement something else that address the major issues and exclude preparation for LN and still upgrade the block

size?   

I don't understand enough to pass a judgement. I am very curious to see what it looks like. Sounds like an alt such as lite coin may implement it first which should clear up a lot of shit talking, or confirm it.

..eh ?

You such a 'hater' lately - Frank. 

Was the $1 billion dollars stolen from MtGOX an 'over hyped exaggeration' ?

I know - sloppy code. Well - what if every other exchange out there, (with BUCKETS of code complicating things trying to get around txn malleability), could now NOT worry about that issue, and simplify their withdrawal process by a factor of, I dunno, 100 ? Pretty useful if you ask me. (And I actually write code for an exchange)

..I could go on.. (there's almost too much).. but I know you're going to lay into this post whatever I say.. 

1) In the ACTUAL network (mainnet) yes ... not in the TestNet SegWit.

2) You use the merchand problem, ok ... merchant MUST upgrade when SegWit is Enforced = problem solve.

3) Block Inflate want 8Mb permanently. You don't host a FULL node, yeah ... ? That's why you don't understand the decentralized manner of store the information and segregate this information for the storage.

4) And ?
LN is supported by the server in an offchain server ... not a problem.
Only benefic for HACKED exchanges (example, but plastic card is the next challenger for NFC/RFID Hack proximity sniffing).

the human broadcasted alerts have gone and wont return.
but your node whether its super old or even latest will still alert you when your node itself cannot verify block/tx data

in short dont expect a message from a person telling you of issues.(as this has changed)
 but instead rely on your node doing its own independant checks/validation and alert you if there was a problem(this has not changed)

I personally haven't upgraded my Core client to the .13 version yet, but that's mostly due to the fact that I haven't taken any effort to do so.

Another factor that is part to me not having updated yet, is that people complain about the notifications that pop up when you receive transactions. They are gone.

I am however not sure if the notifications are put back in place with the .13.1 update. Would be nice to hear someone confirm that as I don't want to miss this feature.