Topic: Segwit on Bitcoin has Failed , BTC Core has Lost , The Miners have Won - page 3. (Read 4516 times)

I'm fully with you - the only issue is:

How to get the miners to allow competition against themselves. Most of them might see this behind SW. The bounty = 'keep 1MB limit' they don't want to swallow....

And this bounty now have led that even critical voices in bitcoin (Tone Vays,..) have swallowed the fee pill, and preach 'we need fees' , but if you do the math correctly - we do not need (those high) fees for many years!

-> SW an BS roadmap is flawed and unveiled by many critical brains. Rest of (no BS-) core might see this already ?

I would like to see Off-Chain and Sub-Chain solutions. This is much better than the current centralization with 5-10 miners. Competition is a good thing.

BTW competition is not stealing!

OK, you're just stupid.

Unlimited transactions could occur OFFCHAIN,
that amount of transactions will be stolen from the miners as a whole, decreasing the total amount of transactions from them to choose from ONCHAIN,  Dufus.

 


FYI:
The Goal of LN is that all transactions be performed offchain (like Banks), where they can control the money supply , Dufus.

I dunno. If I had my tinfoil hat on, I might speculate 'fiat bux from AXA' - but I have no idea.

The funny thing is that the people that brought us (entirely predictable) state of affairs are the very ones who present themselves as the masters of not only sw implementation, but also of economics and of game theory.   I guess that's both funny(sick) and funny(haha).


Indeed. The only proper response is to implement, signal, and argue for your optimal solution.


If your only driving concern is the dollar price, then your position (seemingly 1MB4EVA) might be reasonable. Personally, I rather value the antifragility enabled by the next wave adoption (and the next, and the next, and ...). And we can't make any progress on that front when we are hard-limited to ~250,000 transactions per day.


I sympathize a little with your outrage. However, I don't believe that there is another way. Your options -- from the sidelines -- are few.

- Sell all your BTC and leave it all behind, thereby unnoticeably reducing the price (such would be a lever for large groups, but inconsequential for individuals)

- Buck up buttercup and fire up a node. Joining the network makes your voice heard. Any given node still has essentially zero real power, but at least you can signal your preferences.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I think that's about all your options.


Let us conveniently ignore the fact that a year ago, the preponderance of miners indicated that they would implement a simple maxblocksize increase to 8MB. Of course Core Knew Better, and gave them 'what they needed' (::ahem::!), not what they wanted.

The majority of the whole Bitcoin ecosystem inc. dev and programmers wants Segwit, for obvious reasons. They all dont give a shit about Core's behaviour. Those BU programmers + supporters are not going to make it with only more nodes and bigger blocks  . Segwit is technical better that outweight BU by far.

have you read the whole network topology changes.
have you read the whitelisting/node filtering.

segwit is not about the temporary gesture. its about putting segwit nodes at the top of the network so they can control the network participants.

the 'benefits' to users are empty. its al about putting segwit-core nodes at the top of the control pyramid and ignore non segwit pools simply because they are not blockstream friendly. (even if the data is moral, ethical and containing valid native bitcoin accepting tx's)

---

if segwit is so 'backward compatible' then blockstream should just get BTCC to add a segwit tx to a block. and show that native nodes have no issues when its filtered around.

show that pools/nodes dont miscommunicate with each other.

worse case. they use $13k of their $90m. as a thank you to btcc for the test

-> Lightcoin ....

Okay, but even if you're skeptical about the benefits, surely it would still be better to see it in action first.  Then, if it doesn't deliver on its promises, at least it's an undeniable fact and not just speculation.  

Think about it.  If it does fall flat on its face, you get to say "I told you so" to a few dozen people who just lost a whole bunch of credibility and you're in a much stronger position to push for a blocksize increase.  All the people who are still queuing for blocks will be pissed and feel betrayed by everyone who argued for it and the majority will be screaming in unison for an increase.

And if it works as claimed, at least it will ease the congestion for a little while before we start the whole sordid song and dance again.  So the question is, how confident are you that you're right?

The solution is already worked: segwit. It's not core's fault that miners are too stupid to adopt it. Also miners will never adopt any blocksize increase because the fuckers want fees as high as possible to make more money so stop thinking it's segwit what the don't want, they dont want any increase of blocksize.

Looks like we are stuck with 1mb for life, so lets hope for LN.

guys your still arguing about just "activating" segwit..
but not accepting the hard truth

people wanting to malleate/quadratic sigop spam. will continue using native keys after segwit activation.. meaning segwit solves nothing
people wanting to bloat spam. will continue using native keys after segwit activation.. meaning segwit doesnt get its magical 2.1x predicted tx count boost

segwit has failed on its promised before even getting to be used. because its an empty promise/temporary gesture.. not a solution

Yeah - be patient and smoothly hoppa over to Monethereum ....

the failure is that atleast 60% are UNDECIDED
the failure is that its been done as an A OR B. not an A AND B
the failure is that NODES have NOT formed a secure consensus so pools wont risk orphans pushing something that nodes wont validate to high %.

segwit fails because people can continue to use native keytypes AFTER activation. so malleation/quadratic sigop spamming still can happen. thus no fix.

the solution
NODES have BOTH (meaning core has dynamic block solution (but without cores stupid reward/fee penalty drawback(facepalm))
get node user acceptance, to give the undecided pools confidence that the network can handle what pools create.

again pools wont create a block that NODES cant handle so the solution is to involve the nodes

Math today != Math tomorrow

Be patient grasshoppah

Have you seen the stats? You said that SegWit is dead, so lets embrace 8MB blocksize increase instead. But as you can see 8MB Blocks are supported only by 7.5% hash power.
It is far worse that SegWit's or BU support, do you think that miners who supported BU and SegWIt will now happy chose the least popular solution?

At this moment I think that every kind of super consensus requiring more than 80% majority to be accepted is impossible. Bitcoin community is too divided.

In my opinion this is a great news,being segwit out of the way btc core has no choice but to adopt 8 mb blocks as an alternative solution. If segwit is out of the picture and bitcoin unlimited is not a good choice then the last choice for bitcoin core was to bid on 8mb blocksize. Finally the end of slow transactions will come to be realized but let us observe what will be the next move of btc core as it will affect the future mining situation.

Right. So Off-Chain Transaktions, selling Casascius Coins and other transactions outside of the blocks will not steal transaction fees from miners!


Wrong. The others have to carefully select their (paid) payment provider. Bitcoin is your money. This means YOU are responsible - so act accordingly!

I don't agree. When 40MB mempool is usual, when people come here each other day asking why their transaction (made with perfectly valid wallets) are not processed, then it's not normal.


So only the miners and the nodes have the power to do anything.
And the rest, the ones paying for the service, (me included) can just go to h***, right?
No. There has to be another way.

OK, you are confused. 
Miners only receive transaction fees for the individual blocks they include transactions in.


 

You say the miners have the right to receive a fee for every transaction, even if it is not included in a block found by them?! Never! The day the miners act as a central bank / owner of the Bitcoin system is the day we need to get rid of those miners!

This means the number 1 priority for the next hard-fork is changing the mining algorithm!

Advantage
 #1 : Allowing the LN devs to steal transactions fees directly from the miners.
(And expecting the miners to agree to it.)  

Say if your really feel that way, PM me your BTC private keys & address, so I can take your money away from you.  
(That is what you are asking the miners to do.)


 


FYI:
When you don't give me your money , why do you expect the miners to give away theirs?