Pages:
Author

Topic: Segregated witness - The solution to Scalability (short term)? - page 10. (Read 23163 times)

legendary
Activity: 1988
Merit: 1012
Beyond Imagination
Why can´t the Bitcoin Lightning network, sidechains or colored coins be the answer to this problem? al least it would avoid tempering with the code


As you can see, unless you heavily tamper the code, none of these solutions is going to work

Still I prefer the simplest solution of direct clearing and settlement between service providers, two major benefit:
1. you don't need to change the bitcoin code, thus maximum code stability
2. clearing based solutions is a mature solution in financial industry, maybe more risky at each service provider level but no risk for bitcoin network, it can give you 0 transaction fee and instant payment, which bitcoin network can never achieve no matter what kind of scaling solution
legendary
Activity: 4396
Merit: 4755
LN needs two things to work properly:
 - free blockspace
 - fixed transaction malleability

the first one is not really solved (in my opinion at least) but the second one is.
You mean, the second one will be after segwit gets implemented? Otherwise the statement is incorrect because right now malleability is still a problem. The other complex solutions need time to develop.

lauda, you keep emphasising the malle proof..
but have you actually read HOW

come on paste in the exert that explains it. and tell me how it cannot be done without splitting the blockchain.. and how only wuille can do this,
legendary
Activity: 4396
Merit: 4755
There can't be a mega crash in Bitcoin compared to a world wide economy because Bitcoin is a flea compared to an elephant. There can't be a housing market crash in Bitcoin because there are no home loans denominated in Bitcoin. Bla bla bla....  I've used fiat banks for 50 years and never lost a dime. But I've lost thousands of dollars with Bitcoin.

You so desperately want to be right and defend your beloved Bitcoin that you're missing my point completely. I use Bitcoin. I'm willing to take the risk because I don't like the current system either. Bitcoin use is a personal choice. Use your own best judgement and trust it or not. But please don't pretend to have any influence on what's happening. If you want to influence what's happening start posting your own changes on Git and join the debate there. Be prepared though, they know what they're talking about. This is mostly a users forum. You can't help here.

im not saying it is fool proof.. im just saying its not as bad a risk as you think..
and how have you lost thousands of bitcoins.. if there on your keys there on your keys.. it wont matter if they are on keys from 2009 or 2015, they are stil on the keys..
lets say you are a business and you were delivering products in exchange for bitcoins.. you havnt lost bitcoins.. you just never got paid because of a scammer handing you a counterfeit.. which is the same as the real world..

lets say you put funds into dodgy exchanges.. well i can tell you millions of dodgy fiat boiler room scammers. how many "nigerian prince" scams cost people..

scams are not bitcoin protocols problem.. they are problems of human judgement. which no code can sort out.. if your going to throw funds at a nigerian prince, it doesnt matter if its bitcoin or fiat.. your going to lose..

but if you have and keep the coins on your private keys.. there is no way for a nigerian prince to run off.. there is no way a bank can go bankrupt and take your money..

im sorry but i do realise that bitcoin is not perfect. but nigerian princes setting up dodgy boiler room bitcoin exchanges has nothing o do with the bitcoin protocol
sr. member
Activity: 252
Merit: 251
LN needs two things to work properly:
 - free blockspace
 - fixed transaction malleability

the first one is not really solved (in my opinion at least) but the second one is.
You mean, the second one will be after segwit gets implemented? Otherwise the statement is incorrect because right now malleability is still a problem. The other complex solutions need time to develop.

yes, sorry. after segwit is implemented the second one is fixed (malleability) but the first one is not solved (the blocksize problem has just been moved to the future)
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
LN needs two things to work properly:
 - free blockspace
 - fixed transaction malleability

the first one is not really solved (in my opinion at least) but the second one is.
You mean, the second one will be after segwit gets implemented? Otherwise the statement is incorrect because right now malleability is still a problem. The other complex solutions need time to develop.
sr. member
Activity: 252
Merit: 251
Why can´t the Bitcoin Lightning network, sidechains or colored coins be the answer to this problem? al least it would avoid tempering with the code


LN needs two things to work properly:
 - free blockspace
 - fixed transaction malleability

the first one is not really solved (in my opinion at least) but the second one is.
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1393
You lead and I'll watch you walk away.
All we can do is choose to use it or move on.

Or by ignore new updates and let others become lab rats Wink

Well, that is one way, I suppose. As long as you don't end up on the losing side of a fork.  Smiley
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1027
Why can´t the Bitcoin Lightning network, sidechains or colored coins be the answer to this problem? al least it would avoid tempering with the code
legendary
Activity: 1988
Merit: 1012
Beyond Imagination
All we can do is choose to use it or move on.

Or by ignore new updates and let others become lab rats Wink
legendary
Activity: 1988
Merit: 1012
Beyond Imagination

However here in bitcoin world, there is no such kind of financial responsibility. If devs push in a change which resulted in customer loss, the devs are not responsible for the damage, or to say, they don't have enough money to compensate the loss from millions of users. The users are all on their own


if they mess up bitcoin, the dev's own income and savings is also lost..
thats why they dont want to mess up. and each new release is tested. and in the result of a bug in a new release. people downgrade to previous version and the bug is gone until its sorted out for an amended new release.

bitcoin is actually more secure then you think, you are not relying on 1 coders say so. there are usually 1000+ coders all using new releases before the general users even get the option to upgrade. so if there was any issue, the coders would be the first to get affected.

Yes, being the stake holder in the system will prevent devs from intentionally harm the system. But still they can make mistake, and a mistake in bitcoin network will bring real financial impact, like reversed transactions, lost mining income etc...  I still remember that during 2013 fork, those miners lost hundreds of coins due to they were on the wrong chain by running Gavin's new version, eventually their loss was compensated by the mining pools, so it was mining pools took the responsibility, not core devs. And that directly resulted in that almost none of the mining pools favor Gavin's code this time



legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1393
You lead and I'll watch you walk away.

Of course it's a proven system that has bailouts happen all the time. I've already said I'm willing to take the risk. Now, would you like me to start listing Bitcoin's failures starting with malleability and work backwards to be fair? Before you answer realize I'm going to fill a couple of pages of not only functional code problems but, because of the links you used, I'm going to list every theft that happened from human error or because Bitcoin made those thefts possible. BTW: no one bails out Bitcoin users and the FDIC doesn't reimburse them.

and i will write every single card cloning, every single pick pocket. every single bank note loss..
yes thats right bank notes are not insured.. if its stolen by some cunning theif its gone..
i bet the number of victims of bank notes. including total value lost will exceed bitcoin losses.

lehman brothers lost $600 billion+.. bitcoin is only $5 billion cap and losses far far far below that

if bitcoin v0.12 broke. we can just import our private keys into v0.11..
if our bank broke. we have to wait for a bank bailout.. which millions of people are still waiting for even today 7 years later..
so bitcoin fix=10 minutes.. banking mega crash.. 1day-7years

There can't be a mega crash in Bitcoin compared to a world wide economy because Bitcoin is a flea compared to an elephant. There can't be a housing market crash in Bitcoin because there are no home loans denominated in Bitcoin. Bla bla bla....  I've used fiat banks for 50 years and never lost a dime. But I've lost thousands of dollars with Bitcoin.

You so desperately want to be right and defend your beloved Bitcoin that you're missing my point completely. I use Bitcoin. I'm willing to take the risk because I don't like the current system either. Bitcoin use is a personal choice. Use your own best judgement and trust it or not. But please don't pretend to have any influence on what's happening. If you want to influence what's happening start posting your own changes on Git and join the debate there. Be prepared though, they know what they're talking about. This is mostly a users forum. You can't help here.
legendary
Activity: 4396
Merit: 4755

Of course it's a proven system that has bailouts happen all the time. I've already said I'm willing to take the risk. Now, would you like me to start listing Bitcoin's failures starting with malleability and work backwards to be fair? Before you answer realize I'm going to fill a couple of pages of not only functional code problems but, because of the links you used, I'm going to list every theft that happened from human error or because Bitcoin made those thefts possible. BTW: no one bails out Bitcoin users and the FDIC doesn't reimburse them.

and i will write every single card cloning, every single pick pocket. every single bank note loss..
yes thats right bank notes are not insured.. if its stolen by some cunning theif its gone..
i bet the number of victims of bank notes. including total value lost will exceed bitcoin losses.

lehman brothers lost $600 billion+.. bitcoin is only $5 billion cap and losses far far far below that

if bitcoin v0.12 broke. we can just import our private keys into v0.11..
if our bank broke. we have to wait for a bank bailout.. which millions of people are still waiting for even today 7 years later..
so bitcoin fix=10 minutes.. banking mega crash.. 1day-7years
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1393
You lead and I'll watch you walk away.

However here in bitcoin world, there is no such kind of financial responsibility. If devs push in a change which resulted in customer loss, the devs are not responsible for the damage, or to say, they don't have enough money to compensate the loss from millions of users. The users are all on their own


if they mess up bitcoin, the dev's own income and savings is also lost..
thats why they dont want to mess up. and each new release is tested. and in the result of a bug in a new release. people downgrade to previous version and the bug is gone until its sorted out for an amended new release.

bitcoin is actually more secure then you think, you are not relying on 1 coders say so. there are usually 1000+ coders all using new releases before the general users even get the option to upgrade. so if there was any issue, the coders would be the first to get affected.

Right, so essentially we need to use at our own risk and trust that they will make the right choices and implement the correct improvements. It's a little more risky than trusting the current proven system

banking is proven system??
2015 crash http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/epic/hsba/11830336/HSBC-hit-by-payments-crash-on-payday.html
2014 crash http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/bank-accounts/10667064/NatWest-suffers-payday-mobile-banking-crash.html
2013 crash http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/mar/07/natwest-banking-crash-what-need-to-know
2012 crash http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18561426

i picked 1 bank per year to make a point.. but there were alot more incidents..

Of course it's a proven system that has bailouts happen all the time. I've already said I'm willing to take the risk. Now, would you like me to start listing Bitcoin's failures starting with malleability and work backwards to be fair? Before you answer realize I'm going to fill a couple of pages of not only functional code problems but, because of the links you used, I'm going to list every theft that happened from human error or because Bitcoin made those thefts possible. BTW: no one bails out Bitcoin users and the FDIC doesn't reimburse them.
legendary
Activity: 4396
Merit: 4755

However here in bitcoin world, there is no such kind of financial responsibility. If devs push in a change which resulted in customer loss, the devs are not responsible for the damage, or to say, they don't have enough money to compensate the loss from millions of users. The users are all on their own


if they mess up bitcoin, the dev's own income and savings is also lost..
thats why they dont want to mess up. and each new release is tested. and in the result of a bug in a new release. people downgrade to previous version and the bug is gone until its sorted out for an amended new release.

bitcoin is actually more secure then you think, you are not relying on 1 coders say so. there are usually 1000+ coders all using new releases before the general users even get the option to upgrade. so if there was any issue, the coders would be the first to get affected.

Right, so essentially we need to use at our own risk and trust that they will make the right choices and implement the correct improvements. It's a little more risky than trusting the current proven system

banking is proven system??
2015 crash http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/epic/hsba/11830336/HSBC-hit-by-payments-crash-on-payday.html
2014 crash http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/bank-accounts/10667064/NatWest-suffers-payday-mobile-banking-crash.html
2013 crash http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/mar/07/natwest-banking-crash-what-need-to-know
2012 crash http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18561426

i picked 1 bank per year to make a point.. but there were alot more incidents.. need we forget the great crash of 2007-2008. or the goings on with banks in europe holding customers funds to ransom..

i much more trust bitcoin
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1393
You lead and I'll watch you walk away.

However here in bitcoin world, there is no such kind of financial responsibility. If devs push in a change which resulted in customer loss, the devs are not responsible for the damage, or to say, they don't have enough money to compensate the loss from millions of users. The users are all on their own


if they mess up bitcoin, the dev's own income and savings is also lost..
thats why they dont want to mess up. and each new release is tested. and in the result of a bug in a new release. people downgrade to previous version and the bug is gone until its sorted out for an amended new release.

bitcoin is actually more secure then you think, you are not relying on 1 coders say so. there are usually 1000+ coders all using new releases before the general users even get the option to upgrade. so if there was any issue, the coders would be the first to get affected.

Right, so essentially we need to use at our own risk and trust that they will make the right choices and implement the correct improvements. It's a little more risky than trusting the current proven system with 22 billion transactions a year and millions of oversight workers but I so hate the current system that I'm willing to take the risk. I use the same method to determine when to jump out of Bitcoin that I use for investments or banks, I watch what's happening, ask questions, seek the council of trusted advisors and make my own decision. I've voted with my feet a few times now, only returning when I feel it's safe. Everyone can do the same. Honestly, none of us really have any say or influence over what happens with Bitcoin. All we can do is choose to use it or move on.
legendary
Activity: 4396
Merit: 4755

However here in bitcoin world, there is no such kind of financial responsibility. If devs push in a change which resulted in customer loss, the devs are not responsible for the damage, or to say, they don't have enough money to compensate the loss from millions of users. The users are all on their own


if they mess up bitcoin, the dev's own income and savings is also lost..
thats why they dont want to mess up. and each new release is tested. and in the result of a bug in a new release. people downgrade to previous version and the bug is gone until its sorted out for an amended new release.

bitcoin is actually more secure then you think, you are not relying on 1 coders say so. there are usually 1000+ coders all using new releases before the general users even get the option to upgrade. so if there was any issue, the coders would be the first to get affected.
legendary
Activity: 1988
Merit: 1012
Beyond Imagination
No, not if you're a scientific genius, it's not. For the rest of us, yeah, it is.

Being a scientific genius is far from enough, there are so many professors financially broke because they lack of financial knowledge. In fact human all make wrong decisions, and different people have different interest, the point of bitcoin is to remove this kind of trust
legendary
Activity: 1988
Merit: 1012
Beyond Imagination
So, bitcoin is about believing and trusting people?

Exactly, instead of trusting a group of bankers you trust a group of developers, then this is not a trust-less system

The problem here is that an open source project does not take any financial responsibility

At enterprise level, if a company push in a software change which resulted in customer loss, the company will have to pay the fine/compensation to customer based on the service level agreement or similar contract. So there are usually strict change and release management procedure in place to avoid such kind of loss as much as possible

However here in bitcoin world, there is no such kind of financial responsibility. If devs push in a change which resulted in customer loss, the devs are not responsible for the damage, or to say, they don't have enough money to compensate the loss from millions of users. The users are all on their own

Imagine that in future if pension fund and social security fund are all invested in bitcoin, and devs pushes out a change and let their bitcoin stolen, who is going to compensate for the losses caused for millions of people that relies on these funds for their retirement?

Of course no one can insure against everything, there is always risk, but it is a general practice to not take drastic change in financial projects unless in a crisis, and we are far from that yet
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1393
You lead and I'll watch you walk away.
What you argue here (as I understand it) is that miners won't be able to 'understand' the SW patch, so they won't run it. I highly doubt both an assertion and a conclusion. I am sure it will be rolled over quite fast. But I have no real proof so we have to wait.

To migrate to a large change in infrastructure, you need to not only understand the solution, but also fully aware of the impact to the existing system and all the other systems that are dependent on them, potential security risk, evaluate its risk/reward ratio, and finally and most important, you should always be able to roll back to the old version if something went wrong

A soft fork qualify the last criteria, but still, from risk/reward point of view, I don't feel it worth the effort given the risk it involves. You change to a new untested architecture, what if after 1 years when majority of the nodes were upgraded to SW and found out that there is a deadly security hole that can not be covered, thus hackers can spend anyone's coin?

Bitcoin's value relies purely on its security model. Existing architecture worth a lot because it is robust and time tested for almost 7 years. It worth a little in the beginning, since there are too many possible security risk to break it apart, thus it must survive the test of time to gain its value. Now if you change to another untested architecture, it will basically reset its value to zero, and take equal long time to establish people's trust

This is growing tiresome. Do you fully understand the complexities of the ACH/EFT system? I bet, just like me, you have a general understanding of how it works but have never seen the code behind it. I would also bet you have or have had at least one debit card and credit card in your life because almost everyone in western society has. There were 22 billion ACH transactions in 2013 with a total value of $38.7 trillion and almost no one really understands how it works. The way the ACH/EFT system continues to operate is by government and private oversight. People make a career out of working in finance and programming who oversee the system and there are laws that govern the form of that oversight.

The users of Bitcoin believe that system is flawed. They see potential in Bitcoin and are willing to use it. That requires faith in the original architect and the developers that continue to improve it because there is no governing body to regulate its continued operation or bailout its failures as there is with ACH/EFT. That leaves two possibilities for our acceptance and use of Bitcoin. Either build up a world class understanding of at least C++, Python, Java and elliptic curve cryptography or trust the people that are doing the job for you. I've learned to trust some of the scientists that work on this project based on their actions. Others I don't trust at all. Unless a mistake becomes blatantly obvious or someone I trust decides to speak out against this change I'm going to trust it because my understanding is limited. I suggest you do the same.

So, bitcoin is about believing and trusting people?

No, not if you're a scientific genius, it's not. For the rest of us, yeah, it is.
sr. member
Activity: 346
Merit: 250
What you argue here (as I understand it) is that miners won't be able to 'understand' the SW patch, so they won't run it. I highly doubt both an assertion and a conclusion. I am sure it will be rolled over quite fast. But I have no real proof so we have to wait.

To migrate to a large change in infrastructure, you need to not only understand the solution, but also fully aware of the impact to the existing system and all the other systems that are dependent on them, potential security risk, evaluate its risk/reward ratio, and finally and most important, you should always be able to roll back to the old version if something went wrong

A soft fork qualify the last criteria, but still, from risk/reward point of view, I don't feel it worth the effort given the risk it involves. You change to a new untested architecture, what if after 1 years when majority of the nodes were upgraded to SW and found out that there is a deadly security hole that can not be covered, thus hackers can spend anyone's coin?

Bitcoin's value relies purely on its security model. Existing architecture worth a lot because it is robust and time tested for almost 7 years. It worth a little in the beginning, since there are too many possible security risk to break it apart, thus it must survive the test of time to gain its value. Now if you change to another untested architecture, it will basically reset its value to zero, and take equal long time to establish people's trust

This is growing tiresome. Do you fully understand the complexities of the ACH/EFT system? I bet, just like me, you have a general understanding of how it works but have never seen the code behind it. I would also bet you have or have had at least one debit card and credit card in your life because almost everyone in western society has. There were 22 billion ACH transactions in 2013 with a total value of $38.7 trillion and almost no one really understands how it works. The way the ACH/EFT system continues to operate is by government and private oversight. People make a career out of working in finance and programming who oversee the system and there are laws that govern the form of that oversight.

The users of Bitcoin believe that system is flawed. They see potential in Bitcoin and are willing to use it. That requires faith in the original architect and the developers that continue to improve it because there is no governing body to regulate its continued operation or bailout its failures as there is with ACH/EFT. That leaves two possibilities for our acceptance and use of Bitcoin. Either build up a world class understanding of at least C++, Python, Java and elliptic curve cryptography or trust the people that are doing the job for you. I've learned to trust some of the scientists that work on this project based on their actions. Others I don't trust at all. Unless a mistake becomes blatantly obvious or someone I trust decides to speak out against this change I'm going to trust it because my understanding is limited. I suggest you do the same.

So, bitcoin is about believing and trusting people?
Pages:
Jump to: