Topic: Satoshi's original idea... - page 3. (Read 1323 times)

bitcoin is not th bitcoin satoshi envisioned any more..(bitcoins ethos and original idea started getting twisted as soon as he left but most notably since 2013-14) when diverse decentralisation became more so central referenced but distributed.. they even emphasised that decentralisation was diminishing by calling themselves the "CORE"(center) team

the core devs are now in control and mandate their own roadmap plan. even when the community cant agree core still push their agenda through by bypassing consensus.

these team think blockchains are broke and cant scale. yet its their own code that has the limit which they refuse to move(starve your kid so you can eat on another network then blame your kid for not growing)

the other network the team desire so much is not a blockchain. its not even locked to only serve bitcoin. its a separate network for multiple coins and bitcoin has been manipulated to fit that network, rather than that network getting manipulated to fit bitcoin

things have changed since this team took over in 2013-14. and all it is doing is having them impose restrictions on bitcoin utility while they promote a totally separate network as the future of electronic payments.
.. but as you can read by the meandered topic of that teams defence social group. they dont like it if people talk about how bitcoin has changed to suit the corporate roadmap

Is Bitcoin still the bitcoin that Satoshi envisioned? Perhaps Satoshi’s Bitcoin concept has indeed succeeded, but unfortunately, the power of capital always not to be underestimated, interfering with and manipulating this market.

windfury ill give you a little more respect than doomad as you dont always sling as much mud(insult) as much as him and others like lauda, carlton and the other club members i have seen you converse with.
but to put an end to the meandering
go here
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/random-topic-about-eltoo-factories-ln-and-cores-lack-of-bitcoin-care-5056910

Can you give us any references and citations where this information came from? I really want to learn more.


The idea behind the Lightning Network is to have both low cost transactions, and a low cost in system validation through a layered architecture.

The internet itself is the same.


How? Consensus is still on-chain.


Bitcoin Cash supporters split the chain, maybe hoping to have everyone follow them. The miners activated Segwit on main-net. Let's move on and let the community choose what the want


What is Core's fault? They were waiting to get 95% miner signalling for readiness, or go home having nothing. The UASF was not supported by Core.


Are they trust-minimized? Are they better than Lightning?


While you stop gaslighting. If you have been posting facts, why would we argue with you?

firstly your talking about transactions. not nodes. (nice meander by the way..(facepalm))
learn about the network topology.
also older nodes do not accept segwit transactions as valid. the full validation check of a segwit transaction gets bypassed and is auto deemed as accepted. (not valid(there is a difference)) OLD NODES DO NOT SIGNATURE VERIFY A SEGWIT TX)
without choice to reject a segwit block (countering doomads endless belief thats it was an opt-in event. and counters the doomad belief that it was a consensus event)

when a old node gets a block and sees that a transaction paying thir legacy address was funded via a segwit input.. the node does not validate the signature of the segwit input.
the premiss(flaw) is that the devs are saying that for it to get into a block a segwit pool node would have validated it. and also the segwit cluster of relay nodes would have validated and relayed it. so by the time a legacy node gets the stripped version. that bypasses the validation check of the segwit transaction.. the node is suppose to just accept it as valid

(making the whole bip for the segwit adoption break the whole principle of people wanting to run a full validation node in a consensus network)
segwit should have only activated with a real 95% segwit verifying node adoption.. which it did not

now this raises the point doomad circles around but never grasps

imagine your a fully validating node. but you dont want to OPT-IN. you dont download the latest version to opt-in. thus you would think that you are a part of consensus giving a no to the vote.
the reality is you never got a vote. the event you would have thought was a consensus event where the community got a choice...that was actually bypassed.

if you reconfigured your node to actually reject segwit blocks. in the hopes of actually giving a real 'NO' vote.
you would have got banned off the network even before segwit blocks were made.

if you were a pool and didnt signal to opt in. it would not be treated as a 'no' vote. it got treated as you wanting to have your blocks rejected and your node banned off the network.
so after the august 1st date.. that was mandated the nodes that were left on the network were a smaller portion that were a mix of segwit validating nodes. and blind 'acceptance' pigeon english nodes (downstream/filtered nodes)

then a couple weeks later the block data changed format without your consent and you will instead be handed a stripped block that you cannot fully validate every transaction anymore. and you have been thrown down the network topology level to be a downstream/filtered node that only gets pigeon english data that bypasses full validation tests

anyway..
doomad and your chums.. again i do recognise you keep trying to meander the topic.. again and again. and again. funny part is you are trying to argue the history of something thats been discussed at length for atleast a year now.
yet you still have not shown that you have done independent research outside your cabin club of chums

and dont bother replying if all you want to do is insult. that trick doesnt work. all your doing is insulting a username that has no birth certificate so its not even defamation. thus you gain nothing from it. its like you are just insulting a wall of text.

maybe best you guys go do some independent research. and stop just repeating the same empty arguments that have been circling for the last year plus.

if you dont like my comments on the subject. then dont meander other topics to keep discussing it.
again if you dont want the bear to bite about a certain topic. then dont poke it with the certain topic stick
stop meandering the topic and then crying because i reply to talk about your meander
and then dont get emotional and become insulting as it doesnt help you in any way

p.s
opt-in. means you physically have to do something to show agreement of..
if you automatically get thrown in. but treated as second class citizen. thats not opting in
if you automatically get thrown out before anything actually changes.. thats not consensus

Peer to peer internet transaction of was the basic idea of what satoshi outlined in his whitepaper and not as a form of investment as many perceive bitcoins today. Today out of greed, bitcoins is used by most people to scam and trick innocent people into ponzi scheme and other quick money scheme, meanwhile that is not the original idea of bitcoins.

Yeah i agree to you people knows satoshi creating this new technology of digital currency to help people for the easy and convenient usefull micropayment system anywhere in the world
More country's adopt this new digital currency because tgey knows how to help their country for ecnomic grow
The oginal goal of satoshi cpis to help for the people to got job use this digital currency.

Does the client you run do that?  No?  Then I guess you haven't opted in, have you?   *exasperated sigh*

One minute you're saying SegWit adoption is too low, then suddenly you're whining about default settings to help increase adoption?  I mean, pick an argument already.  Actually, don't bother, since it won't make rational sense anyway.




Sure franky1, whatever you say.  

And stop double-posting, FFS.  There's an edit button for a reason.

"consensus" requires the agreement of all participants. that's why it's either "opt in" or "opt out". i don't care what luke jr says, and i'm guessing you're mischaracterizing what he said.

as long as miners don't partition the network by refusing to build on a soft fork's chain, then that soft fork is compatible with the existing consensus. this is why segwit nodes and legacy nodes coexist on the same network. if segwit violated consensus, segwit nodes (and all their blocks/transactions) would have been rejected by the bitcoin network.


on the contrary, my entire point is about network consensus and has nothing to do with developers. you, on the hand, seem extremely focused on the core devs and their evil ploys to take away your ability to "vote".......

If older nodes aren't compatible with Segwit, why can I send Segwit outputs to legacy addresses? Why can I receive payments from legacy addresses to my Segwit wallet? Why do older nodes accept Segwit transactions and blocks as valid?

You have a very strange definition of compatibility.


You're making a distinction between full vs. partial validation, not compatibility. Also, non-Segwit nodes still validate transactions and blocks against their consensus rules. They don't "blindly" do anything.

I like his ideas much as all of them are great. I respect him and think that he is a great person able to brainstorm creative ideas like a genius mind. Hope soon he will braistorm another idea

and the mandatory consensus bypass .... you call that conservative approach...
core use "conservative" as their way of saying "nah we wont do that, we will do this".. same as the tories

anyway you meandered this topic enough. and still just ended up with just you spouting insults.
now you admit you dont care. so go to the pub, watch some eastenders. then instead of your endless flood of meandering topics just to cause insult social drama. how about go research REAL STATS

oh. by the way. you may also notice compared to 2016-2017. the number of transactions DECREASED per week.. so although you may think that there are 40%+ using OPTING IN to segwit. there are not.
try reviewing real people / tx count/utxo count,

EG if there were lets say 2500 people buying a banana every week for years. suddenly a Kabana was invented.
now after the event you only see 2000 people buy any type of fruit. but you only see 800 people buy kabana.. even though they also buy banana at same time. does not mean there is a 40% kababa desire and 60% banana desire.
there is actually more than 60% banana desire and you will find that by default some kabanas have been thrown into peoples shopping by default via the fruit supplier
(yea core defaults change addresses to be segwit even if people didnt "opt-in"(your favourite word))
might be worth reading some code now and again, keep yourself upto date on the reality of bitcoin. oh and read about eltoo to keep uptodate about LN. seems your missing some uptodate info about factories

now here is a bit of funny...
do you know that sipa (main segwit guy) uses legacy addresses..
even funnier.
do you know since segwit. the tips/payments sipa gets from people who obviously think that he done a good job so are tipping him.. are not in any majority % at all tipping him in segwit tx format
just goes to show when an inventor does not use his invention and his fans dont tip him using his invention, means that somethings up

but then again. there are many funnies. like the paid dev's chairmen(vc funders) organising a bitcoin event, but you have to buy tickets in only fiat. (comedy gold)

if you dont care. then why are you for months now repeating yourself every time i point out a flaw in dvs mindset. if you dont care about devs. you would be at a pub, drinking, or watching eastenders or finding some other british drama to entertain your life.

yea check them stats
a transaction is blindly treated as segwit even if 1 input is a segwit address..
yep even if the rest of the inputs are legacy signed. they can be incorrectly counted as a segwit transaction even though their signatures dont sit in the weight area(the whole point of segwit)

(makes them stats even less reliable...)
.... (you will find the real stats are under 25%.. but yea a year later and less than 40%(i was trying to be nice and use biggr numbers in your favour.. but still proving a point that after a year thers no big segwit uptake)
did you even dare read that topic..
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.46980487
there is shown admitting that even if legacy has majority inclusion of a tx. its still treated as 100% segwit
so.. next time. if you want to prove me wrong. dont use a stat that actually proves me right. although i do love laughing when you prove me right. i still find it foolish that you have not done th research to have your own independant compelling information for you to make a good rebuttle. as its just wasting your time and mine
please try to do some independent research outside your lil group (year i recognise the regular buddies of yours merit swapping each other and just circle jerking the same mantra)
..

this here is the FLAW in YOUR repeated rhetoric
core have proven with the august 2017 event that they dont need community approval.
LUKE JR ADMITTED IT HIMSELF, as did others..
they disregarded 60% of the community with their coded tricks
(and dont you even dare try to poke the bear asking for the names of the tricks.. you tried that many times now.)

bilateral split, consensus bypass, nya agreement uasf, mandatory bypass. call the event whichever one you choose. ..
but you know all about it so no time to play dumb/ignorant. that game of yours is over. you cant play dumb now. you have had a year to learn

If there was only one single idea I could successfully communicate to you, it's that I'm well past caring what you're saying.  

We've already established that you're running a client that supports Emergent Consensus.  That option is there for those who do think EC is a good idea and people are free to run that code if they want to, but very few people appear to think that's the correct course of action for BTC, because for the most part, people are not electing to run that code.  If they did, your arguments might have some clout.  You are simply a small, but exceedingly outspoken, minority here.  



Yes, let's check the stats for SegWit.  As for Lightning, there isn't any kind of threshold it needs to achieve to be useful.  That's the whole point of being able to opt-in.  Some people are using it and that's good enough.  Perhaps more will use it in time as it evolves and becomes more user friendly.  And if they don't, it's still good enough.  It's doesn't have to be all-or-nothing.  Even a small number of LN users is still enough to take some pressure off the BTC blockchain.  But try not to mistake peoples' general enthusiasm for the concept as some sort of notion that literally everyone has to use it.  The option is there, but it is categorically an option.  Not compulsory.

But I bet if usage for LN and SegWit were higher, you'd be claiming that was some sort of goddamn conspiracy too.  



Of course the developers decide what goes into their own client.  What planet are you even living on if you think they don't have that right?  It just goes round and round in circles with you, doesn't it?  Every single thought that escapes from your head is deliberately designed to perpetuate the myth that users somehow get to tell developers what they can or can't do.  Developers don't owe you the exact client you personally want to have.  They're under no obligation to implement every dumb idea you come up with.  They aren't your slaves.  If they aren't interested in your ideas enough to pursue them on merit alone, pay them some money and ask nicely if you want them to make something for you.

The community don't directly get to decide what goes into any particular dev team's client.  That would be completely unworkable (mostly because it would be total chaos and isn't even remotely practical).  However, if Core want to remain relevant, it's up to them to make sure that what they're putting out there appeals to enough users.  Users get to decide if they run that client or a different one.  If an idea is deemed worthy by a significant proportion of the community and Core decide not to implement it, they create a gap in the market which anyone can then fill with a new client, just like the one you freely choose to run.  Ergo, you are the living embodiment of the fact that there is a level playing field.  Of the options available, you're running exactly the code you want to run.  But each and every time a competitor has appeared so far, the community are mostly choosing to run Core's client.  That means they broadly agree with what Core are doing.  Obviously you blame that on the REKT campaigns, but there's not much anyone can do to prevent those and it still doesn't change the fact that BTC users generally don't seem to like EC.



I think the tories are loathsome shit-stains and their particular breed of politics is disgusting, but that doesn't mean I think we should be reckless when it comes to Bitcoin.  When I say "conservative" I simply mean not being rash, impulsive or imprudent.  I honestly don't know why the tories even call themselves conservatives, because they're incredibly rash and imprudent with their neoclassical economy BS, but that's a discussion for another topic entirely.  

you seem to think i am only wanting blockweight increase... seems you have stuck head in sand about many things.. and instead just heard your cabin fever friends suggest im just a big blocker...
(facepalm to the 100th degree)
the echoing accoustics of the cabin you sit with your friends repeating the same story to each other until you all beleive it to be true because its the only story you hear must give you headaches. maybe it really is worth you getting some fresh air and seeing beyond the wall of that cabin
have you yet tried to do some independant research away from your buddies?


shock horror.. im not the one saying its broke
further shock is when you find out who does
im the one saying bitcoin can scale... and saying it can scale in many ways (emphasis on thebitcoin network. not other networks pretending to be bitcoin layered)

again your arguing as if "bitcoin is broke" is my interpretation.... (facepalm)
nice meander but im just laughing
oh and not even 40% are using segwit now and not even 40 % are using LN.. should you actually want to do some stats checking.. yea even while pushing alot of people off the network or into non full validating nodes.. the actual utility and desire of segwit and LN is low...
heck even sipa still uses legacy transactions instead of his own invention of segwit.. true comedy


yet luke JR's proposals get to become BIPS.. yet other non core roadmap friendly proposals dont even make it to bip stage...
really shows core have community spirit.. and want to actually be a community REFERENCE.. but oh wait, you stepped over your own toe by admitting core are not a community reference but a team where they decide what should be rejected before even allowing the community to decide

how can a community decide of core close the door on an idea before code is wrote... or REKT a team into an altcoin to avoid community decision

now please please please do some independant research. by this i dont mean ask your buddies opinion.
i have already spotted the many signs that you are just repeating the same gibberish as them when you use certain key buzzwords that group uses
(first time i seen you fell down their buzzword script rabbithole is when you started spouting "conservative")
as a fellow brit. you should know better than to think conservative is a positive.. in bitcoin and british politics. conservative buzzword does not mean what you think it does.

The more days the bitcoin function gets more, it used to be used for peer to peer transactions. But now more developed, bitcoin can be used for buying and selling, for digital assets and others. Times will continue to change, so does the function of bitcoin.

the devs in particular that shout bitcoin is broke and cant scale, and have instead done the roadmap of only changing bitcoin for the last couple years to be compatible with another network of non-blockchain non community validation, counterparty locked funds requiring counterparts to be online and agree on payment of IOU(12decimal) balance (yea LN is like bank account business plan)
is because those devs are paid devs of a company that want a commercial network and need to make returns on their investment of the funds they paid to those devs.

LN is not a bitcoin only feature.
LN is a separate network of banking model for use not purely for bitcoin but for any coin made compatible to LN
(and thats the funny. bitcoin and litecoin changed to be LN compatible.. LN didnt change to be purely bitcoin compatible. which reveals why LN is not a bitcoin only feature. or a bitcoin solution)

yet the devs that want LN and say LN is the bitcoin solution are also saying foolish things like bitcoin blocks should decrease in size to let less transactions in to cause fee wars. under the pretense it helps mining pools get more funding. when infact its just making bitcoin network less usable by the community (high fee's and less tx per block(compare fee's today to fee's in 2014(prior to the corporate roadmap)).

the reality is if more transactions are allowed. more people will use it (more diverse, more decentralised) plus the more that use it then the more pennies per transaction add up to being extra funding for pools..
the paid dev rather have bitcoin as a 2000tx network of people paying 25cents, than a 10000tx network of people paying 5cents(same income for pools but better for community with 10k tx average)

the paid dev rather have bitcoin decrease the blocksize or bloat each transaction to allow less transactions per block to increase the fee's and make people not want to use the bitcoin network. so that they play around with other networks just so that the investors that paid the devs get returns
(the november 2017 price spike was sparked by the paid devs meeting their financial obligations and the investors needed to buy up a load of coin to pay out the investment contracted tranche of funding. )

If the only form of "innovation" you are capable of recoginsing is a blockweight increase, then I can see why this must be so confusing for you.  Saying that it's not practical to have every single last transaction, no matter how small, recorded on-chain isn't very resource-efficient is not the same as saying that on-chain is "broke".  Your interpretation is wrong.  As usual, you're taking things to extremes.  You have a clear idea of what you think Bitcoin should be and you can't stand the fact that a large majority of the userbase couldn't care less what you think.



How many nodes do you see enforcing that proposal?  One last time in case you still haven't grasped it, anyone can propose a change, but that proposal means nothing if people don't run the code to enforce it.

windfury and your cabin fever camp.
in regards to LN
go learn ELTOO
multisig
12decimal transactions
offchain transactions
byzantine generals problem

factories
users pay into a factories address. funds are locked onchain
channels are not funded with the locked balance input
factory makes a OFFCHAIN payment to a channel
channel is funded with a OFFCHAIN IOU from factoriy
channels settlement is not a onchain broadcast, but a OFFCHAIN payment back to the factory with a request that the factory broadcasts a fund unlock onchain, or to re make new paymnt offchain to a new channel.
much like locking gold into fortknox and then playing with paper until you demand fortknow release whatever gold your paper allows you to have back

spend some time learning it in detail, run some scenarios. actually use LN
as for how people can do transactions without LN go learn about multisig, then run some scenarios
maybe think about how with a joint bank account with your spouse, you dont need a special bank tool to then agree with your spouse who gets what. even a post-it note on a fridge will do

oh and when you get to the lightbulb moment of the flaws of a post-it note. you may dawn on the idea of LN's flaw known as the byzantine generals issue(one party can edit their node and no community can validate the new orders/rules the edited node has. and the counterparty using autopilot and new viewing the raw tx data will blindly just follow orders handed to them or get blackmailed into a chargeback(revocation))

in regards to core not being satoshi's idea
go learn consensus
mandatory hard fork(august 1st 2017 contentious hard fork)
trojan soft fork(mid august 2017 consensus bypass using the stripped block data of pidgeon english data)

yea august was comedy gold. performing a mandatory contentious hard fork to just be able to then do a consensus bypass softfork... truly amazing comedy backflipping happened.. all because core didnt get a 95% vote without the circus acts(only 40% vote without circus acts and 3 card trick games)

many people for years have been doing offchain stuff without LN. exchanges have been doing it behind the scenes (research arbitrage reserves). people have even done 2party atomic swaps without LN for years

anyway.. instead of trying to meander topics and just poke the bear
do some research
i have given you hints for months. but you still ask the same questions and then stick fingers in your ears. so just go do some research first this time