Topic: [SHOCK] Core dev and Blockstream employee tells bitcoin users to use fiat! - page 10. (Read 6040 times)

luke-jr was replying basically saying "you don't like Bitcoin? fine, then nobody is putting a gun to your head and demanding you to use it". That being said, this isn't an issue that can simply be ignored, indeed.


Consensus is indeed the answer to your question. The fact that there is no consensus doesn't mean that scaling isn't urgent, as proven by the post referred to in the OP (and many other posts...)

what prevents them from introducing this change on their own (given their hashing power monopoly)? Okay, some dudes would be quick to retort that they want consensus and all that but if there is no consensus may be the bigger blocks are not in fact so urgent as these miners are pretending them to be? As I see it, you can't possibly have it both ways

80%+ miners agreed to SegWit2x. They start signalling after SegWit2x code is ready and tested.

Litecoin right now is what Bitcoin might only become

Until a few months ago, no one talked about satoshis per byte. For years now transactions have been so cheap that you could have addresses with lots of tiny inputs, and it would still cost only 0.0001 or 0.00005 BTC to send. Since I was just a user sitting behind the driving wheel, clueless as to what an alternator or a distributor was, I paid absolutely no attention to the size amounts coming into addresses. Now suddenly, the truth comes forward, and it can now cost tens of dollars to move out smallish amount of bitcoin in an address. It can also cost a still reasonable amount, if you only have one input in an address that you're  spending.

Anyway, now we all know better, Satoshis/byte is a real world thing now, and smallish amounts of BTC will be sent less and less frequently, sending bitcoin on chain will not be for tiny amounts anymore, fees will be more reasonable once this turnover of small inputs finishes, and we'll all adjust our usage habits.

here is one example - not perfect. but think about it
imagine that we decided its acceptable that people should have a way to get priority if they have a lean tx and signal that they only want to spend funds once a day. (reasonable expectation)
where if they want to spend more often costs rise, if they want bloated tx, costs rise..
obviously those wanting to spend many times a day can benefit from LN

which then allows those that just pay their rent once a month or buys groceries every couple days to be ok using onchain bitcoin.. and where the costs of trying to spam the network (every block) becomes expensive where by they would be better off using LN. (for things like faucet raiding/day trading every 1-10 minutes)

so lets think about a priority fee thats not about rich vs poor(like the old one was) but about reducing respend spam and bloat.

lets imagine we actually use the tx age combined with CLTV to signal the network that a user is willing to add some maturity time if their tx age is under a day, to signal they want it confirmed but allowing themselves to be locked out of spending again for an average of 24 hours.(thats what CLTV does) to win lower fee

and where the bloat of the tx vs the blocksize has some impact too... rather than the old formulae with was more about the value of the tx


as you can see its not about tx value. its about bloat and age.
this way
those not wanting to spend more than once a day and dont bloat the blocks get preferential treatment onchain ($0.01).
if you are willing to wait a day but your taking up 1% of the blockspace. you pay more ($0.44)
if you want to be a spammer spending every block. you pay the price($1.44)
and if you want to be a total ass-hat and be both bloated and respending EVERY BLOCK you pay the ultimate price($63.72)

note this is not perfect. but think about it

Users complaining about high bitcoin fees....Core dev and Blockstream worker Lukejr mocks them and tells them to "just use fiat". https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6ereib/these_fees_are_unacceptable/dicq95v/

I'm curious as to why you think that Litecoin would be the next crypto to replace Bitcoin if there is some catastrophic event. Looking at the market caps and volumes alone, I see Ethereum and Ripple ahead of Litecoin in both aspects, so I would assume one of those two would become the next big crypto and fill the power gap.
Does your theory focus mainly around LTC activating segwit? Or is there something else I haven't touched on here?

I'm curious as to why you think that Litecoin would be the next crypto to replace Bitcoin if there is some catastrophic event. Looking at the market caps and volumes alone, I see Ethereum and Ripple ahead of Litecoin in both aspects, so I would assume one of those two would become the next big crypto and fill the power gap.
Does your theory focus mainly around LTC activating segwit? Or is there something else I haven't touched on here?

I guess block split is inevitable since miners, core dev and community have different opinion on bitcoin scaling

The only ones here responsible for stalling bitcoin are miners by not signaling BIP 141 aka segwit. If they wanted to scale, they would activate it right now, but they just want bigger fees.

Run UASF or keep dreaming about miners activating anything that really scales bitcoin.

And Litecoin will most likely be a new king of crypto

Regarding the noise raised by the OP, I have heard many people claiming here that miners have been screaming for years about the necessity of the blocksize increase. If it is really so (I don't know, but let's assume that) and the blocksize increase was (is) as urgent and pressing as they have been screaming, what prevents them from introducing this change on their own (given their hashing power monopoly)? Okay, some dudes would be quick to retort that they want consensus and all that but if there is no consensus may be the bigger blocks are not in fact so urgent as these miners are pretending them to be? As I see it, you can't possibly have it both ways

The only ones here responsible for stalling bitcoin are miners by not signaling BIP 141 aka segwit. If they wanted to scale, they would activate it right now, but they just want bigger fees.

And that most likely will be Litecoin

Regarding the noise raised by the OP, I have heard many people claiming that miners have been screaming for years about the blocksize increase. If it is really so (I don't know, but let's assume that) and the blocksize increase was as required as they have been screaming, what prevented them from introducing this increase on their own? Okay, some dudes would readily say that they want consensus but if there is no consensus may be the bigger blocks are not in fact such an urgent feature as the miners are pretending it ti be?

Some altcoin will take the throne if bitcoin doesn't change. Things change... deal with it or be pushed out of the way.  Pigs get slaughtered.