Topic: SegWit not Bitcoin? (Read 487 times)

what you and your chums need to understand is. having hope, faith and loyalty of a king and promoting a utopian dream and hoping everyone will be loyalist to a king is not what bitcoin was dsigned for.

schnorr has negatives. and trying to do personal attacks to hide the negatives is not helping anyone.
yes schnorr has negatives.

1. it hides how many parties are involved in a multiparty smart contract
2. when signing. even those involved wont know who signed it.
3. imagine some users are prompted with a smart contract under the belief thats its a 2-of-2 co-sign address.. but the reality is its actually a 2-of-3 smart contract and the other person has 2 keys and you only have 1.. guess what, chances are the other person will sign off funds to themselves when the 'pot' gets big enough that greed takes over morals

FTFY

myth= look at the purple


LN allows other coins that same utility right now.

right now nothing is stopping people in
litecoin from locking up LTC and then using LN with LN's 12 decimal unblockchained 'payments'
bitcoin from locking up BTC and then using LN with LN's 12 decimal unblockchained 'payments'
vertcoin from locking up VTC and then using LN with LN's 12 decimal unblockchained 'payments'

as for the atomic swap. yes that part is along way away as thats the part where factory/watchtower(masternodes) really will be needed.
funny part though. to have masternodes monitoring multipl chains. is like saying users cant handle one chain so a no-chain network is needed.. but inevitably full LN nodes will be multiple chain handling...
see the hypocrisy
EG man cant handle 1 wife, so lets develop a network with no wife so he can play with prostitutes(channels)... years later.. man need to monitor 4 wives to then play with prostitutes
or just risk a prostitiute(cellphone lite wallet) app and trust the prostitutes pimp whos got 4 wives to watch over the payments

We have Segwit because of Nakamoto consensus. This is how Bitcoin update works but Frank and bigblockers does not respecting it.

Will they shitting on Schnorr signatures when ready?

Where's the propaganda? Where is the "myth".


Yes I have already heard of that, but it is a long way from where Lightning is today.

But wouldn't you say that that is good for trading between coins in a trust-minimized way, decentrally? Wouldn't that reduce our need for centralized exchanges that require KYC/AML? Wouldn't the be better for our freedom?

I do not see how it is bad.

in my opinion, segwit has a big influence on a blockchain transaction. segwit comes to alleviate the scalability of bitcoin which has long been a major obstacle in distributed ledgers such as Bitcoin.

The scalability of this block is the same as it happens and becomes an obstacle also in crypto variants other than Bitcoin, or what is called Altcoin.

segwit is a basic consensus, and will be followed by full nodes in the network.

LN is the separate network with channels.
segwit is a tx format... its a bitcoin tx format.. when its used on the bitcoin network
it can be used to lock bitcoin up should people want to use the tx format as a gateway into LN.
so segwit is part of bitcoin. but its utility opens users up to something thats not bitcoin

segwit is a tx format... its a bitcoin tx format.. when its used on the litecoin network
it can be used to lock bitcoin up should people want to use the tx format as a gateway into LN.
so segwit is part of litecoin. but its utility opens users up to something thats not litecoin

SegWit not Bitcoin?
Correct.

Here is Bitcoin white paper
https://www.bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf

Satoshi quote


Satoshis Version is Peer to Peer (Men to Men, Person to Person) without a Segregated Witness (SegWit).aka creating a banking channel. (like opening a bank account).

Well yes, you can send money to a segwit address, doing it the other way around is more challenging...
I'm totally not a fan of segwit, in fact I think it's awful. But SegWit is Bitcoin because that's what the market decided after the fork, and I respect the market's decision.

referencing the kardasians is about the social drama distraction going on within the "dev state" of dcg.co/portfolio
to which doomad and windfury and any core loyalist are fans of.

yet the devs themselves have something different to say than what windfury and doomad believe.
windfury i take with a pinch of salt, as he is still learning.
but doomad has an obvious issue, which makes me wonder what his end agenda is with all his flip flopping and even going against the mantra of the very team he tries to defend.
i still wonder what some fanboys are even doing defending something that even the devs dont try denying.

but hey if your rebuttals only end up being insults. then many yawns and facepalms would be heard.. and thats about it

Frank is full with bullshit when it comes to Segwit and LN.

yawn


google can show you the rules/laws they made.
should you care to eventually want to independently research.

also, should you care to read my footnote

"Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at"

i would also like to emphasize opinions on a discussion forum.. are discussions. not rules, not laws. not dictating or and not binding.. unlike the actions of the "dev state" in august 2017

if you dont like what i have to say. hit the ignore button

Show me the code Mussolini wrote.
Show me the code Stalin wrote.
Show me the code Kim Jong-un wrote.

You're still a cunt.

so show me the dictating code i wrote?

oh wait. there is none. because i am not dictating. im just stating what occured IN THE PAST
no one can dictate the past.. thus im just informing people that august 1st 2017 actually occured because you wish people to not be aware of it.

i know its a negative hit against your dev state. but it happened. and funnily enough they are proud of it. they are the ones PROMOTING mandated upgrades and upgrades that dont need consensus

which keps me wondering why your denying the actions occured when the guys you wish to defend are promoting their involvement and joy of it happening

LIE.

You're dictating it has to be 95% support to activate a fork.  You're dictating we can't use softforks.  You're dictating we can't use activation dates in forks. 



LIE.

Devs can suggest a threshold.  They can't enforce one.  Those securing the chain make that decision.  As it happens, SegWit was activated by 90%+ of the hashrate.



LIE.

I can prevent nodes connecting to my node if I want.  That's my decision.  I have had that right since I first fired up my node.  SegWit has not changed this.  If I want to run code that disconnects a particular client, that's my call.  Not yours.



LIE.

"Promoting" things on an internet forum is not related to consensus.  Consensus is determined by the code people are running.  Not by what is said on the internet. 



Said the forum's #1 fan of Kardashians.   

again you are misguided.
1. im not dictating crap. thats what the "dev state" done in august 2017
2. consensus of majority means just that. majority.. by the "dev state" wanting a lower threshold is a contentious fork
3. by making nodes get banned and blocks getting rejected is also a different scenario than consensus.
the old consensus mechanism would not ban old nodes and would not ban old block formats..
but the dev state you support have and did..
4. by promoting such threatening contentious fork which occured on august 1st. was not consensus

but atleast your starting to admit that core are running code that activates at a lower threshold...
you finally tripped over your own flip flop which goes against your previous flips of 100% loyalty

anyway my argument is not about the %. its about the fact that it was not a clear majority accrued via full community count. due to the tricks of NYA/UASF/"compatibility" etc...
i already told you in many topics "mandatory" "mandatory" "mandatory" "mandatory" is what i am against.

you keep saying how users get to choose by them upgrading to a feature they want. yet segwit wasnt not activated by the method you flip.. you even admit the "compatibility. and the no vote and the other stuff that users dont get to dictate what core should do... so no point you flopping by suddenly saying users do get a vote

now may you go in peace and watch some eastenders. because i know you love your soap opera/drama more so that reality