Topic: Segwit and the lightning network?? (Read 1522 times)

It's technical.

Segwit eliminates signature malleability. Signature malleability prevents 2nd layer protocols (like Lightning) working, as they depend on transaction IDs being unchangeable (and the txid is literally calculated using a transaction's signature for input). 

Thank you. A response without arguing ideals. An actual answer. So it seems I have read it correctly and now understand the time frame. And what of the LN? HOW is that tied in.....if at all? (anyone with an understanding of this can answer without giving your PRO or CON opinion)

A year from the starting date, so ~15 November 2017.

They can get easily outhashed if the majority wants it.

You guys / gals realize I'm new, right? Lol....... There were some links that showed me a graph of the implementation of Segwit to date.

But beyond that....if you go back and re-read my OP, NONE of my other questions were answered. They were just basic questions about the implementation and time frame of segwit and the LN. I am flattered that one the lead devs decided to respond (twice) in my thread and I would have been flattered if ANY of the lead devs from ANY coin had responded.

The funniest part to me though is this : I really don't understand pretty much anything any of you are arguing about. I could be wrong, but I don't recall asking *IF* Segwit would be a good thing or a bad thing and same goes for LN. I was merely asking if I had read correctly that it would take 95% approval and THEN (Time frame) it would be implemented two weeks later? I also wanted to know if there was a time frame or cut off date for Segwit if it didn't get the 95%? Then I wanted to know if the LN was somehow tied in automatically with the approval of Segwit. (regarding time frame)

That's it. That's all I wanted to know. Seeing as how (VIA_BTC?) mining pool has 8% control and have said they will not implement segwit, it all seems to be a moot point anyway. (I can do math too) But feel free to carry on arguing.....in the meantime, I'm sticking with core. Why? Because of the math. Core is king, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

The most lightning about Segwit is that it won't scale the network.

 

I continue with this while you continue to do nothing,

Everyone BoyCott BTC for 24 hours because of the Ignored Transaction Problems
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/--1690300

 

Hard to argue with that well though out logic.

As you can see @OP you won't find any decent reasoning even used on this forum (that disappeared a few years ago) which is why I (and many others) rarely even bother posting any more.

So please continue on with the personal insults and non-technical babble - about the only people that are reading are "ad-sig posters" anyway who don't even care as long as they are paid to post more dribble here (for any decent technical information about Bitcoin it would be best to look elsewhere).

LOL,
My Alt is ASICS resistant, it is more secure than any PoW coin will ever be.
Also our coin is for the World , rich or poor.
Enough about ZEIT and your attempts to deflect.

LTC is Proof of work, want to explain why it can handle 5X the transactions as BTC,
and why the BTC Devs are scarred to even attempt a 5 minute block speed?  

 

FYI:
Or just increase blocksize like ViaBTC wants, their going to block segwit so you have no choice but to increase blocksize or decrease blockspeed
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/why-viabtc-rejects-segwit-soft-fork-in-favor-of-block-size-hard-fork-interview-with-haipo-yang-1479409475

http://www.coindesk.com/lower-bitcoin-block-time-scale/

Funny , how ViaBTC (Chinese Mining Pool) and Arthur Gervais, a PhD student in the Institute of Information Security at ETH Zürich, came to exact same conclusions ,
I presented ( increase blocksize or decrease blockspeed) , must be cause we can all do simple math, huh?  

The rest of you have no excuses for the propaganda you have been spewing and should be ashamed of yourselves.

I do not need a motive, I use Bitcoin daily without any problems and I have been doing that for years. I admit that it might have problems in the future, if mainstream adoption happens, but for now I have no problems. The propaganda to shill for Alt coins & Fiat is a sickness on this forum, and it needs to be addressed.

When your Alt coin reach Bitcoin's size, {Billions of dollars of other people's money} you might also feel the pressure not to implement stuff on the fly, but to check and to triple check every little thing. Bitcoin's security is more important than the scaling needs, that are not a issue now. It might be for the future. ^smile^

Exactly , who is looking out for you and the others , that money is just sitting there.
Not the Chinese mining pools and not the BTC devs or community,
The Users should always be the most important concern of any product or service.

FYI:
LTC is also Chinese owned , but has the liquidity needed to send & receive safely with 5X the transaction capacity of BTC.
Good Luck.
  

FYI2:
In Times of heavy transactions like now, the Mining Pools could serve the trasactions in the order they arrive and not jump over others.
It is only proving BTC is only for the Greedy & Rich, when the poor & middle class transactions are constantly being shoved to the back of the queue.
@franky1, now that is real racism, transaction processing based upon your monetary status

This fix will only come true if core and BS will depend their livings on btc transactions.

Until this is not the case they will see btc as an academic experiment where you can code and plan any theoretical stuff around, but never fix the real needs for users....

I don't like that 3 of my btc transactions are stuck now for over 22 hours, I am a lay person, not a techie, the transaction fees I paid were what were taken out automatically, why they not taken out higher fees in the first place, like paypal or any other processor do? When you send money you don't expect it to be stuck like this, or I would have used a bank. We many switched to bitcoin for it's so called fast transaction times, I feel like we are being bullied now lol.. other peep's transactions are going through and mine are stuck..very miffed at the moment and hope they sort this soon. I am too scared now to send any btc out until it's sorted.

Yes, it does not scale (in what terms?), but it will fix, at least for some years.

Not sure if you try to scale the internet for all times and all needs yet as well? Good luck!

Nothing ever will 'scale' in our world, humans only can fix!

kiklo
your crapcoin zeit can do small times for a simple reason. it has no utility.

as soon as you start having to propagate/relay zeit blocks to more than a couple hops away (which adds time to when the entire network gets informed of a new block), things will slowdown and you end up with a network fighting orphans due to some nodes not getting one block solution before a competitor has another.

changing the blockreward mechanism alone as a work around to enable changing the timing also has ramifications.

but hey, go play with your altcoin and see it crash out and get high orphan counts when blocks start to fill and cant get passed around the network quick enough.
you dont see the problem because your altcoin is not decentralized and distributed enough. it also uses PoS which shows your lack of understanding PoW
 

So what is your motive, that makes you unable to do simple math?


 

Nope the Blockspeed idea is a valid fix or increasing the Blocksize , it is not my fault the devs and mining pools are stupid and greedy.
By the way how is any of the above more Negative that the fact people are waiting over 16 hours from confirmations,
Do None of you care about your User Base?  It sure seems like none of you care.

 

I always look for motive, when I see people attacking Bitcoin or the developers and your motive is as a clear as daylight. You do not need to hype up ZEIT and badmouth Bitcoin. If ZEIT is better than Bitcoin, people would dump Bitcoin and use it on their own. ^smile^

As I said, SegWit & LN might not be the ideal solution, but it will help. It also fixes other issues like Malleability and also removing the quadratic scaling of hashed data for verifying signatures makes increasing the block size safer and also improved security for multisig via P2SH.

In the end, nothing has been decided yet, so we might be bumping chests for nothing. ^smile^

Thanks, that's all the admission I needed.

the theory of messing with difficulty to allow blocks to average, lets say 5 minutes "may" increase transaction count. but you have to take into account the other ramifications.

1. it messes with the coin production(blockreward) timing and changes the 2140 when mining should end. to being much sooner
2. pools need time to validate solved blocks and propagate them. if difficulty changes to average 5 minutes. we will see more "empty blocks" where pools circumvent the validation/propagation in an attempt to get blocks solved faster. thus less transactions get added to a block.
3. the 10 minute average has many reasons behind it.
4. changing the 2016blocks over 2 weeks has many negative ripple effects

research 2 and 3 and 4.
learn the why's and hows and whats.

reason 1 alone is reason enough not to do it. for economic, and for reasons revolving around rules that just should not be messed with.

i know you hate the mining pools so lets word it in a way you will understand, purely based on your hate of pools..

changing the timings to 2016blocks a week(5min average). means that in 10 minutes, the pools get a 200% pay rise because the change would mean they get paid twice every 10 minutes instead of once.
plus not guaranteeing that blocks will be full in those 5minute blocks (look at reasons why "empty blocks" are happening. (hint: its not due to low mempool(demand), but pools trying to be efficient solving blocks by starting empty blocks))

also changing the speed cant be "scaled" because there is a limit to how man times you can actually mess with all the mechanisms before it causes security weaknesses, bugs and issues.

so drop the change "blockspeed" idea. the side effects have more negatives than positives.

---

as for increasing the base blocksize. yes that has more noticeable effects and can be changed again and again, thus is about "scaling"..

unlike segwit which is a one time fix. that cannot then be repeated so its not "scaling". its just a side effect one time boost.

so yes changing the base blocksize is about "scaling", unlike segwit or your buzzword "blockspeed"

Knowledgeable my ass, the guy is so drugged up he can't add.

I seen altcoin run at 15 seconds , BTC devs are just a bunch of chickens, that scare the stupid with no it is too risky,
the truth of the matter is decreasing the blockspeed to say 5 minutes , means the miners have to accept half the award they get now per block,
and they are too greedy to do so.

SegWit & LN are crap patches that may work for a short time , if that before they fail.
Chinese mining pools blocked the other proposals that would have fixed it.

Simple solutions are always the best , SegWit & LN are not simple solutions.
Increase the Blocksize or decrease the blockspeed, either works, and works immediately on implementation.