Topic: So who the hell is still supporting BU? - page 11. (Read 29824 times)

Completely useless in this case. Keep the baseless propaganda to your own mind.

I'm pretty sure that no single serious investor gives zero fucks about Dash or whatever "tech" it provides. The same goes for 99.9% cryptocurrencies.

False equivalency.

2016.. "easily"? Go test this and update me after you've spent several days/weeks trying to catch up with the network.

Segwit = big blocks. They are not opposing sides.

Simple: Segwit then implement a hard fork for a base block size increase to 1.5 or 2 MB.

The "someone else" is Gavin.

I realize you are not yet very familiar with him or his infamous work on defanging XT and Classic's careless exaggeration of Bitcoin's quadratic sig validation time problem, but please do pursue the links I spoon fed to you like a baby provided earlier.

And it's not just Gavin (and me) calling the quadratic sig validation time issue a "problem."

"O(n^2) attacks are a problem" is the uncontroversial strong consensus of the entire Bitcoin (and wider Computer Science) community, including both sides of the Grand Schism.  I just used Gavin's words because he explains the problematic nature of the issue very well.

I did in fact respond to more than "a single element" of your claim.  Perhaps you are simply incapable of understanding those responses.

Here are two examples.

Example One


Here I've responded to the element of your claim whereby you believe yourself capable of deducing future events with perfect, irreproachable clarity.  Obviously that's insane, and so I do indulge in a bit of pushing back against your imaginative hubris.

Example Two


Here I've responded to the element of your claim's internal logic, ie the mechanism of action which you believe understanding gives you singular prescient insight into empirical (to be determined) outcomes.  Like the other elements of your silly claim, it is simultaneously reprehensible and laughable.

Your argument has been destroyed from within and without, its purported external and internal logic have been completely debunked.

You've made an extraordinary claim at odds with everyone else in the universe, but failed to provide any evidence besides the courage of your conviction (which, sorry, doesn't count).  And so I dissolved your specious claims in a vat of basic logic and acidic wit.

Trifle with me again, and I shall mock thee a second time!  

And in that entire tirade, your only argument is 'someone else called it a problem'.


If you say so. Of course, you've still not responded to a single element of my claim.

You'd have a point, if and only if

-Bitcoin's filesystem (The Blockchain) could be shut down, crash, or suffer from power outages (it can't)
-LN didn't already journalize when opening channels (it does)
-LN used private journalizing (it doesn't)

There you go telling another lie.  Clearly you are unused to being curb stomped in an argument and are taking it badly, in the manner of a sore loser.

My tirade included several arguments besides 'someone else everyone not named jbreher called it a problem' but I understand you wish to avoid them, and so will simply pretend the other arguments don't exist.

My tirade also pointed out Gavin only wrote one patch to fix the quadratic validation problem, so you had absolutely no factual or logical basis on which to assert you couldn't know to which particular patch I was referring.

You contradicted yourself by first saying you weren't aware of Gavin's 100k/tx patch (which was roundly mocked for being an anti-future-proof kludge) then turning around and saying you were aware of it.

Anyone possessing a passing familiarity with the events of the last two years' Grand Schism would instantly recognize the 100k/tx patch to which I was referring.

It's not unreasonable to expect you to have an exceedinly firm grip on the subject matter when you are claiming to have made (from first principles LOL) some sort of supremely accurate prediction deduction based on nothing more than the phase "mining incentives."

Incentives appeal to motivations.  Different people have different motivations.  In this case, an attacker responds to your precious magical "mining incentives" differently than an honest (or at least non-adversarial) miner.

You got caught not knowing WTF you were talking about and then tried to cover it up, so I had to humiliate you in public.

You finally gave up trying to spin the quadratic validation time problem as something other than a problem, but not after an obnoxiously long period of defending the indefensible.

Everyone here in consensus reality (big- and small-blockers alike) agrees quadratic validation is problem.  Nobody cares about your crazy anointed vision where it's not.

Quadratic validation time and the attacks it engenders are clearly a problem.  Shame on you for using word games to distort reality, just so we can all admire your navel-gazing pet theories about "mining incentives" (which, by sheer coincidence, are also what supposedly make BU's loopy ideas about unlimited block sizes work).

That's what happens when you try to argue with someone who has the facts on their side.  You make a fool of yourself and get BTFO.

I demolished every single one of your shitty attempts at spin, from the "it's not an issue or a problem" BS to the completely implausible "you didn't say which specific Gavin patch so I couldn't know" excuse of ultimate lameness.

You never even tried to defend Gavin's quick-and-dirty 100k/tx limit workaround.

You never even tried to explain how you could possibly be confused as to which quadratic validation time quick-fix I was referring, given he only made one.

And now you won't even quote me or respond on point, because you got #REKT.   

You know it's not real "on disk" operations when the computer crash or power short age and the filesystem end up corrupted :p otherwise you would just keep all the data on ram disk and just write on the HD on shut down how safe would that really look Write cache aren't not all that fud free

Now with journalized filesystem it mitigiate the possible damage, but having reliable decentralized journalizing on LN would mostly ruin the concept. And in this context having only private journalizing is not changing much.

Both sides - "big blockers" and "segwitters" - have valid arguments in my opinion. It's all about a tradeoff between decentralization and centralization in two different areas:
- the Core plan would mean a more centralized payment system (becaues it realies on off-chain solutions), but a more decentralized full-node structure (because everyone could run a full node without even have to prune)
- while the Unlimited plan would maintain the decentralized payment system (on-chain payments for almost all use cases), but with a more centralized full-node structure (most nodes will have to be pruned/light nodes and full nodes will be limited to industrialized areas with good connections and datacenter users).

It's well possible that in well-connected areas of industrialized countries and urban areas upstream bandwith already is high enough for, let's say, 15-20 MB blocks (~1 TB/year). Now even in a highly developed country like Germany there are still "black holes" without >1 Mbit internet connections. In the developing world, naturally these black holes are much larger (almost the entire rural areas/small cities).

So the goal should be to find an agreement (Satoshi Roundtable Consensus 2?) on block size that makes possible for nearly everyone with a full-sized computer to run a full node, but not on a cheap smartphone, that would be too limited even today. And for the "payment system" my proposal would be to find a block size that should be able to handle all mid-to-large payments (let's say over 20-30 USD) on-chain but also facilitate off-chain payments with solutions like LN for real microtransactions (coffee, mp3's ...).

Edit: And for the future, the technologic progress - data like bandwidth growth and storage capacity - should be used to determine block size.

Yeah - I opened up my BU node to inbound connections last week. Thereby doing my part to add to the network's robustness.

No it's not. If it were then people won't be holding their coins in centralized exchanges:

https://blockchain.info/charts/my-wallet-n-users

And Coinbase and the rest of them.




It would be trivial, but people still don't do it, because they don't care.

Out of the millions of BTC users, only 5-6000 are running nodes. What does that tell you?

It looks to me that less than 0.06% of the users care about trustlesness, if we assume a conservative user estimate of 10m.

Which reinforces my hypothesis that I have told earlier that:

diversity

their needs to be atleast a dozen different "teams" of devs.
where some nodes are wrote in different codes like go, bitcoinj, etc

that way if for instance there was a bug in core. the network survives.

if only core was running the network if core has a bug all nodes have a bug.

diversity to mitigate bug risks is a security bonus.
anyone screaming that core needs to be the bitcoin king, is not thinking about bitcoin security, but about corporate centralism and security weakness