You can't really escape corps in the end.
Topic: So it looks like Cobra is planning on passing on the Bitcoin.org domain - page 5. (Read 2209 times)
May 25, 2020, 03:49:12 AM
seg2x was a corporate takeover. Funnily they see same thing in blockstream.
You can't really escape corps in the end.
You can't really escape corps in the end.
May 25, 2020, 03:43:46 AM
I opposed segwit2x and BCH because I oppose everything they stand for, and I prefer the smallest block size possible because the smaller the better if second layer solutions are available.
to me it seems like your opposition is the mob mentality that @Cøbra pointed out in the end, and not with reasonable research. the funny thing is that bcash used the same mob approach to exist.
not to mention that you are confusing different things. you put an altcoin that was maliciously created without respecting consensus and majority's vote/support with the proposals in same category. you can't oppose a proposal just because you don't like the person that supports that proposal or the altcoin result. same way bcashers can't oppose SegWit just because they don't like blockstream.
for instance the only way you can oppose a proposal like SegWit2x is if you have any technical reasons why a hard fork to increase the base block size to 2 MB (weight to 8 MB) is bad while weighing both pros and cons of it.
I'm not sure what you are arguing here? My reasons for opposing segwit2x was not technical, aside from the inherent risks in any hardfork, the proposed implementation was fine by me. My opposition was to the process. At the time Segwit2x was announced as an agreement without even releasing any technical information about it all, it was just, "a bunch of us got together in a room and decided what is going to happen". Which is the same reason I hate bcash, it's centralised control. It was made as though the community had no say, like we didn't matter. Miners and corporations had decided how things will go, which is bullshit. You speak like segwit2x was a proposal, when it wasn't, it was presented as a fait accompli
May 25, 2020, 03:29:48 AM
People opposed the big blocks because in time it would get a lot harder to sync a node from scratch than what it already is.
That means the node count around the world would be lower than what it is now if we had 2mb or bigger blocks. Low full node numbers mean low decentralization//high centralization.
Also a decision like this won't be reversible because by the time you start realizing the damage, it would be too late already. That's why people like LukeJr. wanted have even smaller blocks. So the network would stay decentralized for a longer time.
To not make the blocksize a matter of discussion ever again, the core side blocked hard forks or made it incredibly hard to pull via segwit.
That's what I understood from reading the core side.
I somehow agree with Cobra on LN but then, many people thought something like bitcoin wouldn't work too*, yet satoshi didn't care and continued his work. LN might end up as a huge pile of unusable shit and the more complicated it gets, the closer it gets to that end. If this happens "We told you so!" people will be so fucking happy I can imagine.
Anyway, Back to the big blocks.
Let's say we have 4mb blocks, no segwit, huge world wide demand. How long would it take to raise the B.s. again? And what is the physical limit? What blocksize we need to counter the world demand? Other big blocks are not good examples because they don't have any real on-chain demand. The answer is, we don't know. Core chose to work with what we know instead of sailing towards the unknown.
That's why I have chosen to support the core from a technical standpoint.(my other reasons are them -craig, roger etc- being scammers and liars but that's not the subject of this post)
*Looking at the bigger picture, maybe those people were right you know. Maybe this is a failed project which attracts only scammers.
That means the node count around the world would be lower than what it is now if we had 2mb or bigger blocks. Low full node numbers mean low decentralization//high centralization.
Also a decision like this won't be reversible because by the time you start realizing the damage, it would be too late already. That's why people like LukeJr. wanted have even smaller blocks. So the network would stay decentralized for a longer time.
To not make the blocksize a matter of discussion ever again, the core side blocked hard forks or made it incredibly hard to pull via segwit.
That's what I understood from reading the core side.
I somehow agree with Cobra on LN but then, many people thought something like bitcoin wouldn't work too*, yet satoshi didn't care and continued his work. LN might end up as a huge pile of unusable shit and the more complicated it gets, the closer it gets to that end. If this happens "We told you so!" people will be so fucking happy I can imagine.
Anyway, Back to the big blocks.
Let's say we have 4mb blocks, no segwit, huge world wide demand. How long would it take to raise the B.s. again? And what is the physical limit? What blocksize we need to counter the world demand? Other big blocks are not good examples because they don't have any real on-chain demand. The answer is, we don't know. Core chose to work with what we know instead of sailing towards the unknown.
That's why I have chosen to support the core from a technical standpoint.(my other reasons are them -craig, roger etc- being scammers and liars but that's not the subject of this post)
*Looking at the bigger picture, maybe those people were right you know. Maybe this is a failed project which attracts only scammers.
Its not just about 'big blocks'
its about ALL TWEAKS and ALTERATIONS of Bitcoin and its geniusly defined protocol - cause this allows any evil to happen
and it finally opend the vector of having 5000 altcoins now btw ...
think of the peace we ll have if you cannot discuss, alter, gain power of CHANGES at all !!
There is nothing to do in smtp, tcp/ip , VoIP, ... NOTHING >> same MUST apply to a global protocol of sending money
Get rid of they idea you might do better than Satoshi
That's why if you have a hard time getting the change you want or consensus, we just stick with the status quo.
Good thing that seqwit was passed with overwhelming consensus, so that should shut up the whiners, but it does not.
Anyhow, sure anyone can make proposals and if they cannot get traction, then we just stick with the status quo, which difficulties to change remains a bitcoin feature not a bug.
Regarding lightning network, it gives options, and there are quite a few people working on developing it, but surely if it is not performing up to the task and it is just a mess then people do not need to use it, which I suppose is part of the reason that there are people working on alternative second layer solutions too, and maybe something better than lightning network will come along - or otherwise there might be some break throughs in lightning network to cause it to become more user-friendly - which seems to be one of the complaints about that option.
I broadly agree with all of the above, changing the protocol should always be difficult. And I guess everything becomes political in the end. Smaller block are better, as I said, it's just before Roger and his moronic minions took one side of the debate, there was more consensus that at some point an increase would be needed. Looking back I guess it was not very clear we would win the argument against an unelected cabal instituting segwit2x without community agreement, so the entrenched positions were a necessity. It's just now the political situation is such that layer two kind of has to work, because there is no going back. So the side we all picked back then is the side we have to stick with, because any kind of conversation now seems to be a signal you are siding with the idiots, rather than a separate argument. Hopefully BCH will reach its logical price floor of 0 at some point, which might make things easier.
May 25, 2020, 03:24:57 AM
People opposed the big blocks because in time it would get a lot harder to sync a node from scratch than what it already is.
That means the node count around the world would be lower than what it is now if we had 2mb or bigger blocks. Low full node numbers mean low decentralization//high centralization.
Also a decision like this won't be reversible because by the time you start realizing the damage, it would be too late already. That's why people like LukeJr. wanted have even smaller blocks. So the network would stay decentralized for a longer time.
To not make the blocksize a matter of discussion ever again, the core side blocked hard forks or made it incredibly hard to pull via segwit.
That's what I understood from reading the core side.
I somehow agree with Cobra on LN but then, many people thought something like bitcoin wouldn't work too*, yet satoshi didn't care and continued his work. LN might end up as a huge pile of unusable shit and the more complicated it gets, the closer it gets to that end. If this happens "We told you so!" people will be so fucking happy I can imagine.
Anyway, Back to the big blocks.
Let's say we have 4mb blocks, no segwit, huge world wide demand. How long would it take to raise the B.s. again? And what is the physical limit? What blocksize we need to counter the world demand? Other big blocks are not good examples because they don't have any real on-chain demand. The answer is, we don't know. Core chose to work with what we know instead of sailing towards the unknown.
That's why I have chosen to support the core from a technical standpoint.(my other reasons are them -craig, roger etc- being scammers and liars but that's not the subject of this post)
*Looking at the bigger picture, maybe those people were right you know. Maybe this is a failed project which attracts only scammers.
That means the node count around the world would be lower than what it is now if we had 2mb or bigger blocks. Low full node numbers mean low decentralization//high centralization.
Also a decision like this won't be reversible because by the time you start realizing the damage, it would be too late already. That's why people like LukeJr. wanted have even smaller blocks. So the network would stay decentralized for a longer time.
To not make the blocksize a matter of discussion ever again, the core side blocked hard forks or made it incredibly hard to pull via segwit.
That's what I understood from reading the core side.
I somehow agree with Cobra on LN but then, many people thought something like bitcoin wouldn't work too*, yet satoshi didn't care and continued his work. LN might end up as a huge pile of unusable shit and the more complicated it gets, the closer it gets to that end. If this happens "We told you so!" people will be so fucking happy I can imagine.
Anyway, Back to the big blocks.
Let's say we have 4mb blocks, no segwit, huge world wide demand. How long would it take to raise the B.s. again? And what is the physical limit? What blocksize we need to counter the world demand? Other big blocks are not good examples because they don't have any real on-chain demand. The answer is, we don't know. Core chose to work with what we know instead of sailing towards the unknown.
That's why I have chosen to support the core from a technical standpoint.(my other reasons are them -craig, roger etc- being scammers and liars but that's not the subject of this post)
*Looking at the bigger picture, maybe those people were right you know. Maybe this is a failed project which attracts only scammers.
Its not just about 'big blocks'
its about ALL TWEAKS and ALTERATIONS of Bitcoin and its geniusly defined protocol - cause this allows any evil to happen
and it finally opend the vector of having 5000 altcoins now btw ...
think of the peace we ll have if you cannot discuss, alter, gain power of CHANGES at all !!
There is nothing to do in smtp, tcp/ip , VoIP, ... NOTHING >> same MUST apply to a global protocol of sending money
Get rid of they idea you might do better than Satoshi
That's why if you have a hard time getting the change you want or consensus, we just stick with the status quo.
Good thing that seqwit was passed with overwhelming consensus, so that should shut up the whiners, but it does not.
Anyhow, sure anyone can make proposals and if they cannot get traction, then we just stick with the status quo, which difficulties to change remains a bitcoin feature not a bug.
Regarding lightning network, it gives options, and there are quite a few people working on developing it, but surely if it is not performing up to the task and it is just a mess then people do not need to use it, which I suppose is part of the reason that there are people working on alternative second layer solutions too, and maybe something better than lightning network will come along - or otherwise there might be some break throughs in lightning network to cause it to become more user-friendly - which seems to be one of the complaints about that option.
lol, try to get a 'democratic' overwhelming 'consensus' whatever fo a change to tcp/ip ...
Nope
and btw: esp for SEGVID-17 there wasn't - only in 'agree' of the 2x - you remember ?
Bugs must be fixxed - sure, but you can see a real bug if that comes - there are strict definitions
May 25, 2020, 02:55:02 AM
People opposed the big blocks because in time it would get a lot harder to sync a node from scratch than what it already is.
That means the node count around the world would be lower than what it is now if we had 2mb or bigger blocks. Low full node numbers mean low decentralization//high centralization.
Also a decision like this won't be reversible because by the time you start realizing the damage, it would be too late already. That's why people like LukeJr. wanted have even smaller blocks. So the network would stay decentralized for a longer time.
To not make the blocksize a matter of discussion ever again, the core side blocked hard forks or made it incredibly hard to pull via segwit.
That's what I understood from reading the core side.
I somehow agree with Cobra on LN but then, many people thought something like bitcoin wouldn't work too*, yet satoshi didn't care and continued his work. LN might end up as a huge pile of unusable shit and the more complicated it gets, the closer it gets to that end. If this happens "We told you so!" people will be so fucking happy I can imagine.
Anyway, Back to the big blocks.
Let's say we have 4mb blocks, no segwit, huge world wide demand. How long would it take to raise the B.s. again? And what is the physical limit? What blocksize we need to counter the world demand? Other big blocks are not good examples because they don't have any real on-chain demand. The answer is, we don't know. Core chose to work with what we know instead of sailing towards the unknown.
That's why I have chosen to support the core from a technical standpoint.(my other reasons are them -craig, roger etc- being scammers and liars but that's not the subject of this post)
*Looking at the bigger picture, maybe those people were right you know. Maybe this is a failed project which attracts only scammers.
That means the node count around the world would be lower than what it is now if we had 2mb or bigger blocks. Low full node numbers mean low decentralization//high centralization.
Also a decision like this won't be reversible because by the time you start realizing the damage, it would be too late already. That's why people like LukeJr. wanted have even smaller blocks. So the network would stay decentralized for a longer time.
To not make the blocksize a matter of discussion ever again, the core side blocked hard forks or made it incredibly hard to pull via segwit.
That's what I understood from reading the core side.
I somehow agree with Cobra on LN but then, many people thought something like bitcoin wouldn't work too*, yet satoshi didn't care and continued his work. LN might end up as a huge pile of unusable shit and the more complicated it gets, the closer it gets to that end. If this happens "We told you so!" people will be so fucking happy I can imagine.
Anyway, Back to the big blocks.
Let's say we have 4mb blocks, no segwit, huge world wide demand. How long would it take to raise the B.s. again? And what is the physical limit? What blocksize we need to counter the world demand? Other big blocks are not good examples because they don't have any real on-chain demand. The answer is, we don't know. Core chose to work with what we know instead of sailing towards the unknown.
That's why I have chosen to support the core from a technical standpoint.(my other reasons are them -craig, roger etc- being scammers and liars but that's not the subject of this post)
*Looking at the bigger picture, maybe those people were right you know. Maybe this is a failed project which attracts only scammers.
Its not just about 'big blocks'
its about ALL TWEAKS and ALTERATIONS of Bitcoin and its geniusly defined protocol - cause this allows any evil to happen
and it finally opend the vector of having 5000 altcoins now btw ...
think of the peace we ll have if you cannot discuss, alter, gain power of CHANGES at all !!
There is nothing to do in smtp, tcp/ip , VoIP, ... NOTHING >> same MUST apply to a global protocol of sending money
Get rid of they idea you might do better than Satoshi
That's why if you have a hard time getting the change you want or consensus, we just stick with the status quo.
Good thing that seqwit was passed with overwhelming consensus, so that should shut up the whiners, but it does not.
Anyhow, sure anyone can make proposals and if they cannot get traction, then we just stick with the status quo, which difficulties to change remains a bitcoin feature not a bug.
Regarding lightning network, it gives options, and there are quite a few people working on developing it, but surely if it is not performing up to the task and it is just a mess then people do not need to use it, which I suppose is part of the reason that there are people working on alternative second layer solutions too, and maybe something better than lightning network will come along - or otherwise there might be some break throughs in lightning network to cause it to become more user-friendly - which seems to be one of the complaints about that option.
May 25, 2020, 02:04:21 AM
People opposed the big blocks because in time it would get a lot harder to sync a node from scratch than what it already is.
That means the node count around the world would be lower than what it is now if we had 2mb or bigger blocks. Low full node numbers mean low decentralization//high centralization.
Also a decision like this won't be reversible because by the time you start realizing the damage, it would be too late already. That's why people like LukeJr. wanted have even smaller blocks. So the network would stay decentralized for a longer time.
To not make the blocksize a matter of discussion ever again, the core side blocked hard forks or made it incredibly hard to pull via segwit.
That's what I understood from reading the core side.
I somehow agree with Cobra on LN but then, many people thought something like bitcoin wouldn't work too*, yet satoshi didn't care and continued his work. LN might end up as a huge pile of unusable shit and the more complicated it gets, the closer it gets to that end. If this happens "We told you so!" people will be so fucking happy I can imagine.
Anyway, Back to the big blocks.
Let's say we have 4mb blocks, no segwit, huge world wide demand. How long would it take to raise the B.s. again? And what is the physical limit? What blocksize we need to counter the world demand? Other big blocks are not good examples because they don't have any real on-chain demand. The answer is, we don't know. Core chose to work with what we know instead of sailing towards the unknown.
That's why I have chosen to support the core from a technical standpoint.(my other reasons are them -craig, roger etc- being scammers and liars but that's not the subject of this post)
*Looking at the bigger picture, maybe those people were right you know. Maybe this is a failed project which attracts only scammers.
That means the node count around the world would be lower than what it is now if we had 2mb or bigger blocks. Low full node numbers mean low decentralization//high centralization.
Also a decision like this won't be reversible because by the time you start realizing the damage, it would be too late already. That's why people like LukeJr. wanted have even smaller blocks. So the network would stay decentralized for a longer time.
To not make the blocksize a matter of discussion ever again, the core side blocked hard forks or made it incredibly hard to pull via segwit.
That's what I understood from reading the core side.
I somehow agree with Cobra on LN but then, many people thought something like bitcoin wouldn't work too*, yet satoshi didn't care and continued his work. LN might end up as a huge pile of unusable shit and the more complicated it gets, the closer it gets to that end. If this happens "We told you so!" people will be so fucking happy I can imagine.
Anyway, Back to the big blocks.
Let's say we have 4mb blocks, no segwit, huge world wide demand. How long would it take to raise the B.s. again? And what is the physical limit? What blocksize we need to counter the world demand? Other big blocks are not good examples because they don't have any real on-chain demand. The answer is, we don't know. Core chose to work with what we know instead of sailing towards the unknown.
That's why I have chosen to support the core from a technical standpoint.(my other reasons are them -craig, roger etc- being scammers and liars but that's not the subject of this post)
*Looking at the bigger picture, maybe those people were right you know. Maybe this is a failed project which attracts only scammers.
Its not just about 'big blocks'
its about ALL TWEAKS and ALTERATIONS of Bitcoin and its geniusly defined protocol - cause this allows any evil to happen
and it finally opend the vector of having 5000 altcoins now btw ...
think of the peace we ll have if you cannot discuss, alter, gain power of CHANGES at all !!
There is nothing to do in smtp, tcp/ip , VoIP, ... NOTHING >> same MUST apply to a global protocol of sending money
Get rid of they idea you might do better than Satoshi
May 25, 2020, 01:48:09 AM
People opposed the big blocks because in time it would get a lot harder to sync a node from scratch than what it already is.
That means the node count around the world would be lower than what it is now if we had 2mb or bigger blocks. Low full node numbers mean low decentralization//high centralization.
Also a decision like this won't be reversible because by the time you start realizing the damage, it would be too late already. That's why people like LukeJr. wanted have even smaller blocks. So the network would stay decentralized for a longer time.
To not make the blocksize a matter of discussion ever again, the core side blocked hard forks or made it incredibly hard to pull via segwit.
That's what I understood from reading the core side.
I somehow agree with Cobra on LN but then, many people thought something like bitcoin wouldn't work too*, yet satoshi didn't care and continued his work. LN might end up as a huge pile of unusable shit and the more complicated it gets, the closer it gets to that end. If this happens "We told you so!" people will be so fucking happy I can imagine.
Anyway, Back to the big blocks.
Let's say we have 4mb blocks, no segwit, huge world wide demand. How long would it take to raise the B.s. again? And what is the physical limit? What blocksize we need to counter the world demand? Other big blocks are not good examples because they don't have any real on-chain demand. The answer is, we don't know. Core chose to work with what we know instead of sailing towards the unknown.
That's why I have chosen to support the core from a technical standpoint.(my other reasons are them -craig, roger etc- being scammers and liars but that's not the subject of this post)
*Looking at the bigger picture, maybe those people were right you know. Maybe this is a failed project which attracts only scammers.
That means the node count around the world would be lower than what it is now if we had 2mb or bigger blocks. Low full node numbers mean low decentralization//high centralization.
Also a decision like this won't be reversible because by the time you start realizing the damage, it would be too late already. That's why people like LukeJr. wanted have even smaller blocks. So the network would stay decentralized for a longer time.
To not make the blocksize a matter of discussion ever again, the core side blocked hard forks or made it incredibly hard to pull via segwit.
That's what I understood from reading the core side.
I somehow agree with Cobra on LN but then, many people thought something like bitcoin wouldn't work too*, yet satoshi didn't care and continued his work. LN might end up as a huge pile of unusable shit and the more complicated it gets, the closer it gets to that end. If this happens "We told you so!" people will be so fucking happy I can imagine.
Anyway, Back to the big blocks.
Let's say we have 4mb blocks, no segwit, huge world wide demand. How long would it take to raise the B.s. again? And what is the physical limit? What blocksize we need to counter the world demand? Other big blocks are not good examples because they don't have any real on-chain demand. The answer is, we don't know. Core chose to work with what we know instead of sailing towards the unknown.
That's why I have chosen to support the core from a technical standpoint.(my other reasons are them -craig, roger etc- being scammers and liars but that's not the subject of this post)
*Looking at the bigger picture, maybe those people were right you know. Maybe this is a failed project which attracts only scammers.
May 25, 2020, 12:38:19 AM
I opposed segwit2x and BCH because I oppose everything they stand for, and I prefer the smallest block size possible because the smaller the better if second layer solutions are available.
to me it seems like your opposition is the mob mentality that @Cøbra pointed out in the end, and not with reasonable research. the funny thing is that bcash used the same mob approach to exist.
not to mention that you are confusing different things. you put an altcoin that was maliciously created without respecting consensus and majority's vote/support with the proposals in same category. you can't oppose a proposal just because you don't like the person that supports that proposal or the altcoin result. same way bcashers can't oppose SegWit just because they don't like blockstream.
for instance the only way you can oppose a proposal like SegWit2x is if you have any technical reasons why a hard fork to increase the base block size to 2 MB (weight to 8 MB) is bad while weighing both pros and cons of it.
May 24, 2020, 05:23:43 PM
I am having troubles seeing the blockstream monopolies or undue influences, but maybe my intellect is not strong enough? perhaps?
Segwit (needed for LN offchain banking 2.0 scam) was nothing but Blockstream undue influence.
Segwit was passed by overwhelming consensus in August 2017, and thereafter (same month) implemented.
In other words, node operators and miners saw it in their interest to pass segwit...
If you want segwit reversed, then you are likely going to need to muster up overwhelming consensus to reverse it, and you are likely going to need more than some vague claims of purported undue influence including overcoming lots of reluctance that building has been done and continues to be done upon segwit related systems.. not impossible, but an obstacle since bitcoin is a community effort rather than flopping around because some people are whining that they do not like the direction of bitcoin blah blah blah.
Things Satoshi did with Bitcoin
Removed MiddleMen aka Bankers from Personal Transactions
Designed Bitcoin so as Rewards drops the Miners would move to a fee based economy
Approved of Hard Forks
Approved of Program Coded Checkpoints
Removed MiddleMen aka Bankers from Personal Transactions
Designed Bitcoin so as Rewards drops the Miners would move to a fee based economy
Approved of Hard Forks
Approved of Program Coded Checkpoints
Sure Satoshi set up a lot of parameters in bitcoin that are still followed but they are also a product of a community, so even though Satoshi set up a lot of parameters, it is likely that he disappeared for a reason, which also allowed bitcoin to continue to evolve and to be developed on and to improve as a community... and surely there are ways to contribute and to propose changes and to get involved in order to attempt to affect various changes that you want to see or you believe that you can achieve consensus for your proposals.
Things Blockstream & Greg Maxwell did
They do not run bitcoin... remember consensus? Blockstream and Greg could both disappear from the scene and bitcoin would continue, but they do not need to disappear, and it seems to me that both are well respected in the bitcoin community but each of them still have to convince others if they want to propose some changes or to get them passed or adopted or tested or whatever various stages proposals get reviewed and are frequently a product of a whole number of people and entities rather than your narrow conspiratorial framing regarding supposed undue influences.
Added MiddleMen aka Bankers back into personal crypto transactions with LN or Liquid
Designed a offchain networks like LN that steals fees that would have went to the miners
Convinced idiots that soft forks are the only way to fork a coin
Quit adding Program Coded Checkpoints
Convinced idiots that bitcoin can't increase blocksize or use a faster blockspeed to increase transactions because Wind_Fury can't afford to buy a 2 year old PC to run a full node, but on the flip side that modern PCs running LN can achieve millisecond transactions while bitcoin can not, but every alt out has a higher capacity than the original bitcoin.
Convinced idiots that a non-mining node validates, when at best it only verifies for that individual node , no validation occurs on non-mining nodes.
Guaranteed forcing of users off bitcoin onto LN Banking Trojan Horses, by forever limiting Bitcoin onchain transaction capacity, so that onchain fees will have to increase because of limited space forcing the majority onto LN offchain scam.
Designed a offchain networks like LN that steals fees that would have went to the miners
Convinced idiots that soft forks are the only way to fork a coin
Quit adding Program Coded Checkpoints
Convinced idiots that bitcoin can't increase blocksize or use a faster blockspeed to increase transactions because Wind_Fury can't afford to buy a 2 year old PC to run a full node, but on the flip side that modern PCs running LN can achieve millisecond transactions while bitcoin can not, but every alt out has a higher capacity than the original bitcoin.
Convinced idiots that a non-mining node validates, when at best it only verifies for that individual node , no validation occurs on non-mining nodes.
Guaranteed forcing of users off bitcoin onto LN Banking Trojan Horses, by forever limiting Bitcoin onchain transaction capacity, so that onchain fees will have to increase because of limited space forcing the majority onto LN offchain scam.
I doubt that it is necessary for me to respond to each of these individually, because they seem to be failing and refusing to accept that these various changes, to the extent that they exist or even matter materially or are negative, are not the product of a few individuals or blockstream et al.
Perhaps paying attention by pulling your head out of your arse , might make the current reality more apparent to you. Perhaps. 
Well, if you know so much, then I am glad that you are participating and educating the rest of us (or at least trying). I am not convinced by your various points because I have seen variations of that seeming nonsense on a number of occasions, but hey, maybe you have exposure to some enlightening information, participation or interactions with some of the characters that you seem to hate so much that may have ended up locking some well-intended people/proposals out of bitcoin in terms of being considered or being tested, and I will grant you that you might have some information that I don't have. And, I am not even saying that convincing me matters or I am anybody important except I participate in this forum in terms of my having had been investing in bitcoin for about 6.5 years and continuing to try to follow various aspects of bitcoin within my time and abilities within my own reason and discretion.
Over the years, I have seen a lot of stupid-ass BIG blockers putting forth their nonsensical conspiratorial points similar to the ones you are making, and I have seen how a lot of those whiners went over to bcash forks, but hey some of those folks were just lying about their concerns about wanting BIG blocks and merely using those ploys as a means to want to cause it to be really easy to change bitcoin (in other words change governance), and like that is NOT going to do much if any good to have bitcoin really easy to just change in any willy-nilly way merely because a bunch of whiners are complaining but neither putting forth valid and sound proposals nor convincing others in the bitcoin community to adopt, code or test those proposals.
May 24, 2020, 10:57:43 AM
Some kind of layer two solution is needed, but it's taking a lot fucking longer than expected, so maybe a reevaluation is in order?
Then contribute? It doesn't get built on its own.
I've yet to see much that's convinced me that LNs are anything other than an interesting curio but I no doubt would've thought the same of the internet had I been introduced to it in its nascent stages.
Sometimes I feel a bit out of my depth with the technological aspects, but I understand that both open source and attempts at somewhat censorship resistant ways of interacting does not just happen without a lot of snags along the way, including that sometimes regular peeps might not be able to just jump in and start using it... until the interface is like just downloading an app or some kind of easiness like that.
Personally I think lightening is not terrible code, which is basically pretty high praise, but putting all eggs in one basket, especially an unbuilt, untested basket is fucking stupid,
Second layer development can be done anywhere that people want, and there are other second layer projects besides lightning network. Sure, none of them seem to be even close to mainstream.
and while the most simple solution of a small block increase may very well not be the correct one, it should be open for discussion.
That BIG blocker discussion was batted around intensively, does not seem to have any reason or justification currently.
Bitcoin at a high price will make >100 sat/byte unaffordable to anyone who isn't rich, which is not the kind of censorship resistant money I want or got involved for.
There are quite a few bitcoiners who want a fee market to develop... whether that is more than 100 sat/byte on a regular basis or some other amount. Seems to me that having a fee market does not really hurt bitcoin, even though you are personally complaining about it. Having more fees can also inspire more use of segwit, batching, or even second layer developments and improvements.
Some kind of layer two solution is needed, but it's taking a lot fucking longer than expected, so maybe a reevaluation is in order?
A re-evaluation by who? By you? You can re-evaluate if there is some other project that you prefer. There is no bitcoin marketing team, so I am fairly sure that all kinds of evaluations are made by various developers to figure out if there is some kind of niche that they can exploit or develop into.
Though I doubt Cobra will just sell the domain to someone like Roger, holy fuck if Roger actually gets to own two high-authority Bitcoin domains.
I don't think Cobra will just hand over the domain to Roger, as we can see the reply on twitter. He will definitely hand over to someone trusted and of course a supporter of BTC.It would be better if some trusted from the bitcointalk forum could have the access of it, may be theymos?
theymos controls too many resources, it's better to pick somebody else, even though he's obviously very trustworthy.
This makes sense to me.
The difference should be obvious in practice. When Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja published their ideas in the Lightning whitepaper, people took notice regardless of where their income was sourced. Those who understood it recognised the potential and it sparked enough interest to result in multiple implementations, each with numerous team members, all producing code. There wouldn't be several teams of people working on it if no one thought it was a good idea, no matter how much money someone might be willing to throw at it.
Smart people can waste decades on things that don't turn out to lead to anything. Academia is filled with scientists and mathematicians who spent a good portion of their life creating new systems and concepts that, with respect to them, can be described as a waste of time and a net negative for the world, because that person could have been pursuing better ideas with their time. I personally know a physicist who regrets spending years involved in string theory research. You would be surprised at how common it is for smart and highly technical people to fall into toiling away at flawed projects.
Of course, sometimes we cannot go back in career choices that we made early, and we figure out that we may have wasted opportunities by going down the wrong paths and there ended up being a lot of bad presumptions that we relied upon in making our career choices that end up being wrong. I doubt that this applies to various ways of working on bitcoin or bitcoin second-layer solutions, but it likely does apply to a lot of people fucking around with various shitcoins... but there may be some shitcoins that end up adding value to the space.. perhaps?
Lightning has a lot of flaws. How do you train users that to spend money, they need to put it in a channel first? OK. Maybe the wallet can automatically open channels. How do you explain that some of the users money is gone because transaction fees spiked on Bitcoin, and more satoshis had to be reserved for when the channel needs to be closed? OK. I guess you can put a disclaimer, or alert. How do you explain watchtowers? How about backups? The user probably expects to receive arbitrary amounts of value, but you're going to need to tell them to get some inbound capacity if they want to receive anything substantial. At some point, Lightning Labs will choose to abstract all this away, but that's going to pressure them to centralize (a centralized directory of liquidity providers, watchtowers, well connected nodes, etc).
Maybe you can see more than me in terms of the technicals? Does not seem to be a waste of time to me, and maybe some of what is learned in various second layer explorations, including lightning network, can be incorporated into some other areas in the even that lightning fails or has too many uncorrectable flaws? perhaps?
Blockstream is a hostile actor in the space. They don't want Bitcoin to succeed. There are some good people working there, but those few good apples mostly collect their salary and focus their time on Bitcoin Core and cryptographic research, they tend to distance themselves from Blockstream's damaging products. Have you ever seen Pieter Wuille shilling Liquid? Nope. It's unclear to me how they ever plan on making money, but they will no doubt abuse their position of influence in the community for their own business interests at some point. They already attempted to market Liquid as "trustless", which lead to founder Matt Corallo publicly shaming them on Twitter.
Maybe you have insider information about purported Blockstream bad intentions? I just don't come to the same conclusions of you that blockstream is purportedly striving for bitcoin not to succeed.. just seems a bit contrary to both facts and logic, in spite your attempted justification, here.
Those who were shilling liquid were bad guys because they wanted to convert it into a kind of trustlessness?
The worst thing Blockstream has done: they made a block size increase on Bitcoin absolutely impossible. They whipped up a mob to such an extent that, for the foreseeable decade, we're not going to get any increase because a mass of uneducated morons will oppose it. I don't ever see a hard fork in general as a possibility, which sucks because some nice things could have been fixed with a hard fork, and the "no hard fork" mentality hurts Bitcoin as more and more technical debt will accumulate because of ever messier soft forks. I suspect this is what they want: an ugly system, that is slow and congested, so they can market their sidechains as better alternatives.
I doubt that preferences for no blocksize limit increase nor hardfork is the achieve of blockstream. Seems to me that there still has been no justification for either an increase in the blocksize limits nor reason to hardfork, and it is not because of blockstream's purported propaganda.
Seems to me that if there were some legitimate reasons to either increase the blocksize limit or to hardfork, then likely there would be work in that direction and maybe even increased consensus regarding the necessity of either one of those.
Before Blockstream, the general consensus was that hard forks could be done in the future, carefully and far ahead in advance. They ripped that consensus out of the community. Any Bitcoiner who doesn't view Blockstream with some level of suspicion has no intellect; you don't need to call them a fucking conspiracy, but you better raise a bloody eyebrow when there exists a company that benefits from Bitcoin not working.
Bitcoin seems to be working quite well in a lot of ways. Of course, it might not be perfect, but there is a lot of good paradigm shifting aspects of bitcoin still changing the world in a variety of ways, and no one needs to be any blockstream cheerleader to recognize that bitcoin has already been a success and continues to be a success in a lot of ways of both where it has been including some of the softfork changes in 2017 (segwit related) and where it seem to be going which is a preference for both onchain and second-layer solutions (and, yeah, lots of work still being done and attempted and maybe some slower than preferred progress, too).
Seems to me that we have seen those projects related to bcash not really justifying any kind of benefits of BIG blocks, but hey maybe they might inspire with some of the ongoing experiments.. And sure there are thousands of other coins experimenting, but frequently, if they do not have enough traffic, then it becomes more difficult to recognize whether or how their traffic or fee dynamics would play out if such onchain changes were made to bitcoin.
Maybe part of the problem that you personally are having cøbra has to do with some personal battles that you are having with blockstream conspiracies..? and sure I can see that you are inclined towards wanting everything done on layer 1 and you seem to be skeptical of segwit, even though it was passed though consensus nearly 3 years ago. So I am having trouble understanding seemingly bitter pills in that direction.
I cannot really know why you seem to be so negative about current bitcoin direction and seeming to not accept some of the segwit related matters and to attribute so much bitcoin's current direction to blockstream, but you are coming to some pretty strong conclusions that seems to want to require more blockstream suspicions, but you are linking these matters in weird ways, too to assert that the incentives of blockstream is for bitcoin not to work so that they make more money or they benefit from more obscure products and putting themselves in kind of monopolizing places or something like that blah blah blah.. just seems weird to be arguing such seeming conspiratorial angle.. but I suppose.. maybe I have been just brainwashed because I have not yet seen enough of the subtle effects that some of the blockstream folks are having upon my thinking and my being o.k. with the various ongoing second layer solution efforts that are done by blockstream and there are other second layer solution developers too besides just blockstream, right?
I am having troubles seeing the blockstream monopolies or undue influences, but maybe my intellect is not strong enough? perhaps?
May 24, 2020, 10:55:44 AM
I don't have time to contribute. Are you suggesting unless one contributes one isn't allowed to discuss or criticize the current approach? When I tell organisations what the roadmap looks like for the code I'm writing them, they make decisions based around that, and if my shit was still unusable 5 years later I would be broke and they would be pissed.
I have zero doubt that the people working on it are doing their best and if they could have delivered something perfect and shiny they would absolutely loved to have done so by now.
If they're 'fired' then I can't see who or what else is going to appear out of nowhere and magic up what they haven't yet pulled off. I can guess we'll be kindly offered our own Paypal by the usual suspects but we could've had one of those years ago.
No one knows where this is going to end up or how it'll resolve or whether it'll resolve.
May 24, 2020, 10:21:44 AM
Then contribute? It doesn't get built on its own.
I've yet to see much that's convinced me that LNs are anything other than an interesting curio but I no doubt would've thought the same of the internet had I been introduced to it in its nascent stages.
I don't have time to contribute. Are you suggesting unless one contributes one isn't allowed to discuss or criticize the current approach? When I tell organisations what the roadmap looks like for the code I'm writing them, they make decisions based around that, and if my shit was still unusable 5 years later I would be broke and they would be pissed. I opposed segwit2x and BCH because I oppose everything they stand for, and I prefer the smallest block size possible because the smaller the better if second layer solutions are available. But its been fucking years, and if its going to be another 5 years, 10 years, 100 years, we need to start having a conversation about wtf we should do. What if they are never really possible? Do we just give up and say, oh well, I guess bitcoin doesn't work, fun while it lasted? What is it takes 10 years to iron out all the bugs? Do we just have censorship resistant money for the wealthy?
People have stopped fighting over this, which would be fine if there was a working solution. But there isn't, so we should keep fighting over it, because that's how progress it made. Luckily BCH happened, so we can have the fight with hopefully most of the morons out of the space.
Probably not the thread to start fighting over it, but on twitter, reddit and here to a lesser extent, it seems like everyone has decided that the bcash war being won decided all future wars relating to blocksize and hardforks. Just because bch was wrong in their arguments about them, doesn't mean all future arguments about them are also wrong.
May 24, 2020, 09:44:48 AM
Some kind of layer two solution is needed, but it's taking a lot fucking longer than expected, so maybe a reevaluation is in order?
Then contribute? It doesn't get built on its own.
I've yet to see much that's convinced me that LNs are anything other than an interesting curio but I no doubt would've thought the same of the internet had I been introduced to it in its nascent stages.
May 24, 2020, 09:34:47 AM
Blockstream is a hostile actor in the space. They don't want Bitcoin to succeed. There are some good people working there, but those few good apples mostly collect their salary and focus their time on Bitcoin Core and cryptographic research, they tend to distance themselves from Blockstream's damaging products. Have you ever seen Pieter Wuille shilling Liquid? Nope. It's unclear to me how they ever plan on making money, but they will no doubt abuse their position of influence in the community for their own business interests at some point. They already attempted to market Liquid as "trustless", which lead to founder Matt Corallo publicly shaming them on Twitter.
The worst thing Blockstream has done: they made a block size increase on Bitcoin absolutely impossible. They whipped up a mob to such an extent that, for the foreseeable decade, we're not going to get any increase because a mass of uneducated morons will oppose it. I don't ever see a hard fork in general as a possibility, which sucks because some nice things could have been fixed with a hard fork, and the "no hard fork" mentality hurts Bitcoin as more and more technical debt will accumulate because of ever messier soft forks. I suspect this is what they want: an ugly system, that is slow and congested, so they can market their sidechains as better alternatives.
Before Blockstream, the general consensus was that hard forks could be done in the future, carefully and far ahead in advance. They ripped that consensus out of the community. Any Bitcoiner who doesn't view Blockstream with some level of suspicion has no intellect; you don't need to call them a fucking conspiracy, but you better raise a bloody eyebrow when there exists a company that benefits from Bitcoin not working.
I tend to agree, more-so over time. Huge blocks may not be the answer, corporate take overs and stupid backroom segwit2x agreements are definitely not the answer, but the fact that reasonable discussion around small blocksize increases and hardforks in general are now verboten is bad for bitcoin. It doesn't help that the Blockstream corporate strategy seems to be based around being insufferable internet trolls who both simultaneously love to mock everyone who disagrees with them, whilst crying victim when anyone mocks them in return.
It seems Bitcoin now has fucking "influencers" who use social media and combative shit posting to raise their profile in order to personally profit from bitcoin, gain influence and raise their fucking twitter followers. A plague on all their fucking houses.
Personally I think lightening is not terrible code, which is basically pretty high praise, but putting all eggs in one basket, especially an unbuilt, untested basket is fucking stupid, and while the most simple solution of a small block increase may very well not be the correct one, it should be open for discussion. Bitcoin at a high price will make >100 sat/byte unaffordable to anyone who isn't rich, which is not the kind of censorship resistant money I want or got involved for.
Some kind of layer two solution is needed, but it's taking a lot fucking longer than expected, so maybe a reevaluation is in order?
May 24, 2020, 05:11:20 AM
A bit sad that people who have cash in hand and who are willing to splash it all are all these guys. Of course BCH people have cash in hand. They forked, made free money out of thin air, and people got sold on their idea. Worse, it wasn't just the single fork but many. Ver's done enough damage with .com hope it doesn't double down.
He will never stop till he absorbs the whole fucking thing or he dies.
He never showed any signs of stepping back. Not even once.
I understand cobra it gets tiring af to fight an army of trolls every day. He probably has the money which he can spend forever... why make life more complicated?
Let the others fight.
Tbh, I am starting to feel like that for the whole crypto space. It is filled with scammers like Vitalik, Roger, Craig etc and their minions trying to scam each other. Why would I invest my hard earned money in it? Doesn't make sense.
...
Before Blockstream, the general consensus was that hard forks could be done in the future, carefully and far ahead in advance. They ripped that consensus out of the community. Any Bitcoiner who doesn't view Blockstream with some level of suspicion has no intellect; you don't need to call them a fucking conspiracy, but you better raise a bloody eyebrow when there exists a company that benefits from Bitcoin not working.
Before Blockstream, the general consensus was that hard forks could be done in the future, carefully and far ahead in advance. They ripped that consensus out of the community. Any Bitcoiner who doesn't view Blockstream with some level of suspicion has no intellect; you don't need to call them a fucking conspiracy, but you better raise a bloody eyebrow when there exists a company that benefits from Bitcoin not working.
I may agree with some of your points but this looks like it was written by Roger himself.
May 24, 2020, 04:56:05 AM
Smart people can waste decades on things that don't turn out to lead to anything. Academia is filled with scientists and mathematicians who spent a good portion of their life creating new systems and concepts that, with respect to them, can be described as a waste of time and a net negative for the world, because that person could have been pursuing better ideas with their time. I personally know a physicist who regrets spending years involved in string theory research. You would be surprised at how common it is for smart and highly technical people to fall into toiling away at flawed projects.
That's a distinct possibility, sure. But similarly, private companies can also waste their time and investments by attempting to cash in on the latest tech trends and have it all amount to very little profit when people realise they don't need to rely on that company to use that tech. And there's a much bigger risk of that happening to a company in a field like this one where the tech is primarily open-source. If particular companies are taking aggressive or predatory stances, I'd guess it's because they know their proposed business model has a limited shelf-life.
Lightning has a lot of flaws. How do you train users that to spend money, they need to put it in a channel first? OK. Maybe the wallet can automatically open channels. How do you explain that some of the users money is gone because transaction fees spiked on Bitcoin, and more satoshis had to be reserved for when the channel needs to be closed? OK. I guess you can put a disclaimer, or alert. How do you explain watchtowers? How about backups? The user probably expects to receive arbitrary amounts of value, but you're going to need to tell them to get some inbound capacity if they want to receive anything substantial. At some point, Lightning Labs will choose to abstract all this away, but that's going to pressure them to centralize (a centralized directory of liquidity providers, watchtowers, well connected nodes, etc).
There's a long way to go, no arguments there. I don't think anyone can promise beyond doubt that Lightning doesn't remain a niche thing for the more tech-savvy users as it is at the moment. But I don't see the harm in other dev teams attempting to make Lightning software more user friendly over time. There's still a fair amount of impetus behind development of the underlying Bitcoin protocol and further scaling and privacy improvements are in the pipeline. That said, even the transactions that are being made off-chain right now are still contributing to scaling, because it's fewer transactions that need to be included in the blocks we're currently producing. If that number does grow in future as the software evolves and more people start using it, then it stands to reason that more people can make transactions that are still cryptographically secured (albeit to a lesser extent than on-chain) without creating too heavy a burden for people running full nodes. It's an elegant compromise.
Blockstream is a hostile actor in the space. They don't want Bitcoin to succeed. There are some good people working there, but those few good apples mostly collect their salary and focus their time on Bitcoin Core and cryptographic research, they tend to distance themselves from Blockstream's damaging products. Have you ever seen Pieter Wuille shilling Liquid? Nope. It's unclear to me how they ever plan on making money, but they will no doubt abuse their position of influence in the community for their own business interests at some point. They already attempted to market Liquid as "trustless", which lead to founder Matt Corallo publicly shaming them on Twitter.
I tend to view it the same way as the early dotcom days, where companies attempted to monetise walled-gardens and create something like a subscription service for their customers to have access to an enclosed intranet. The bigger idea resisted the corporate attempts to co-opt it. I'm confident the same will happen with Bitcoin. I just don't see a way for big business to "control" it, unless we centralise the network to the extent that only companies would have sufficient resources to run a full node. That would definitely weaken Bitcoin's innate resistance to regulatory shutdown or corporate takeover.
Out of curiosity, do you feel the existence of the Lightning Network is the direct result of Blockstream's influence? Or is there a possibility that the idea would have been pursued without Blockstream having their fingers in the pies? If this email excerpt is genuine, then it appears satoshi theorised something vaguely akin to Lightning several years prior to the Lightning whitepaper being published. Maybe it was something that was always on the cards?
Quote from: Mike Hearn quoting correspondence allegedly from satoshi https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2013-April/002417.html
One use of nLockTime is high frequency trades between a set of parties.
They can keep updating a tx by unanimous agreement. The party giving
money would be the first to sign the next version. If one party stops
agreeing to changes, then the last state will be recorded at nLockTime. If
desired, a default transaction can be prepared after each version so n-1
parties can push an unresponsive party out. Intermediate transactions do
not need to be broadcast. Only the final outcome gets recorded by the
network. Just before nLockTime, the parties and a few witness nodes
broadcast the highest sequence tx they saw.
They can keep updating a tx by unanimous agreement. The party giving
money would be the first to sign the next version. If one party stops
agreeing to changes, then the last state will be recorded at nLockTime. If
desired, a default transaction can be prepared after each version so n-1
parties can push an unresponsive party out. Intermediate transactions do
not need to be broadcast. Only the final outcome gets recorded by the
network. Just before nLockTime, the parties and a few witness nodes
broadcast the highest sequence tx they saw.
May 23, 2020, 02:34:55 PM
agree, give it back...
Who took it off you? Name names so they can reported to the authorities. This will not stand.
Once they're in jail 'give it back' to whom?
Errr, this guy?
This hunk of burning love?
Fuck it, let's get some referrals going. Why turn down money waiting to be made? Let's fuckin' party.
Cobra might know, and there should be the receipt from 2008 ...
May 23, 2020, 02:31:21 PM
agree, give it back...
Who took it off you? Name names so they can reported to the authorities. This will not stand.
Once they're in jail 'give it back' to whom?
Errr, this guy?
This hunk of burning love?
Fuck it, let's get some referrals going. Why turn down money waiting to be made? Let's fuckin' party.
May 23, 2020, 02:12:10 PM
Though I doubt Cobra will just sell the domain to someone like Roger, holy fuck if Roger actually gets to own two high-authority Bitcoin domains.
I don't think Cobra will just hand over the domain to Roger, as we can see the reply on twitter. He will definitely hand over to someone trusted and of course a supporter of BTC.It would be better if some trusted from the bitcointalk forum could have the access of it, may be theymos?
theymos controls too many resources, it's better to pick somebody else, even though he's obviously very trustworthy.
The difference should be obvious in practice. When Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja published their ideas in the Lightning whitepaper, people took notice regardless of where their income was sourced. Those who understood it recognised the potential and it sparked enough interest to result in multiple implementations, each with numerous team members, all producing code. There wouldn't be several teams of people working on it if no one thought it was a good idea, no matter how much money someone might be willing to throw at it.
Smart people can waste decades on things that don't turn out to lead to anything. Academia is filled with scientists and mathematicians who spent a good portion of their life creating new systems and concepts that, with respect to them, can be described as a waste of time and a net negative for the world, because that person could have been pursuing better ideas with their time. I personally know a physicist who regrets spending years involved in string theory research. You would be surprised at how common it is for smart and highly technical people to fall into toiling away at flawed projects.
Lightning has a lot of flaws. How do you train users that to spend money, they need to put it in a channel first? OK. Maybe the wallet can automatically open channels. How do you explain that some of the users money is gone because transaction fees spiked on Bitcoin, and more satoshis had to be reserved for when the channel needs to be closed? OK. I guess you can put a disclaimer, or alert. How do you explain watchtowers? How about backups? The user probably expects to receive arbitrary amounts of value, but you're going to need to tell them to get some inbound capacity if they want to receive anything substantial. At some point, Lightning Labs will choose to abstract all this away, but that's going to pressure them to centralize (a centralized directory of liquidity providers, watchtowers, well connected nodes, etc).
Blockstream is a hostile actor in the space. They don't want Bitcoin to succeed. There are some good people working there, but those few good apples mostly collect their salary and focus their time on Bitcoin Core and cryptographic research, they tend to distance themselves from Blockstream's damaging products. Have you ever seen Pieter Wuille shilling Liquid? Nope. It's unclear to me how they ever plan on making money, but they will no doubt abuse their position of influence in the community for their own business interests at some point. They already attempted to market Liquid as "trustless", which lead to founder Matt Corallo publicly shaming them on Twitter.
The worst thing Blockstream has done: they made a block size increase on Bitcoin absolutely impossible. They whipped up a mob to such an extent that, for the foreseeable decade, we're not going to get any increase because a mass of uneducated morons will oppose it. I don't ever see a hard fork in general as a possibility, which sucks because some nice things could have been fixed with a hard fork, and the "no hard fork" mentality hurts Bitcoin as more and more technical debt will accumulate because of ever messier soft forks. I suspect this is what they want: an ugly system, that is slow and congested, so they can market their sidechains as better alternatives.
Before Blockstream, the general consensus was that hard forks could be done in the future, carefully and far ahead in advance. They ripped that consensus out of the community. Any Bitcoiner who doesn't view Blockstream with some level of suspicion has no intellect; you don't need to call them a fucking conspiracy, but you better raise a bloody eyebrow when there exists a company that benefits from Bitcoin not working.
Right, so what s the plan? Give it back ...
agree, give it back...
May 23, 2020, 02:05:10 PM
Though I doubt Cobra will just sell the domain to someone like Roger, holy fuck if Roger actually gets to own two high-authority Bitcoin domains.
I don't think Cobra will just hand over the domain to Roger, as we can see the reply on twitter. He will definitely hand over to someone trusted and of course a supporter of BTC.It would be better if some trusted from the bitcointalk forum could have the access of it, may be theymos?
theymos controls too many resources, it's better to pick somebody else, even though he's obviously very trustworthy.
The difference should be obvious in practice. When Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja published their ideas in the Lightning whitepaper, people took notice regardless of where their income was sourced. Those who understood it recognised the potential and it sparked enough interest to result in multiple implementations, each with numerous team members, all producing code. There wouldn't be several teams of people working on it if no one thought it was a good idea, no matter how much money someone might be willing to throw at it.
Smart people can waste decades on things that don't turn out to lead to anything. Academia is filled with scientists and mathematicians who spent a good portion of their life creating new systems and concepts that, with respect to them, can be described as a waste of time and a net negative for the world, because that person could have been pursuing better ideas with their time. I personally know a physicist who regrets spending years involved in string theory research. You would be surprised at how common it is for smart and highly technical people to fall into toiling away at flawed projects.
Lightning has a lot of flaws. How do you train users that to spend money, they need to put it in a channel first? OK. Maybe the wallet can automatically open channels. How do you explain that some of the users money is gone because transaction fees spiked on Bitcoin, and more satoshis had to be reserved for when the channel needs to be closed? OK. I guess you can put a disclaimer, or alert. How do you explain watchtowers? How about backups? The user probably expects to receive arbitrary amounts of value, but you're going to need to tell them to get some inbound capacity if they want to receive anything substantial. At some point, Lightning Labs will choose to abstract all this away, but that's going to pressure them to centralize (a centralized directory of liquidity providers, watchtowers, well connected nodes, etc).
Blockstream is a hostile actor in the space. They don't want Bitcoin to succeed. There are some good people working there, but those few good apples mostly collect their salary and focus their time on Bitcoin Core and cryptographic research, they tend to distance themselves from Blockstream's damaging products. Have you ever seen Pieter Wuille shilling Liquid? Nope. It's unclear to me how they ever plan on making money, but they will no doubt abuse their position of influence in the community for their own business interests at some point. They already attempted to market Liquid as "trustless", which lead to founder Matt Corallo publicly shaming them on Twitter.
The worst thing Blockstream has done: they made a block size increase on Bitcoin absolutely impossible. They whipped up a mob to such an extent that, for the foreseeable decade, we're not going to get any increase because a mass of uneducated morons will oppose it. I don't ever see a hard fork in general as a possibility, which sucks because some nice things could have been fixed with a hard fork, and the "no hard fork" mentality hurts Bitcoin as more and more technical debt will accumulate because of ever messier soft forks. I suspect this is what they want: an ugly system, that is slow and congested, so they can market their sidechains as better alternatives.
Before Blockstream, the general consensus was that hard forks could be done in the future, carefully and far ahead in advance. They ripped that consensus out of the community. Any Bitcoiner who doesn't view Blockstream with some level of suspicion has no intellect; you don't need to call them a fucking conspiracy, but you better raise a bloody eyebrow when there exists a company that benefits from Bitcoin not working.
Right, so what s the plan? Give it back ...
Jump to: