So who the hell is still supporting BU? - page 16.

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Quote from: Lauda on February 14, 2017, 05:28:34 AM

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 05:26:38 AM

I only say: On-chain scaling is more secure.

I only say: BU isn't secure due to the untested security model revamp called "emergent consensus"-

But really worth working on. I'm sure bitcoin cannot just ignore most secure scaling solution options.

LN - Again you come w/o any disclaimer on this -> I ignore what you say about security. (For BU risks you can repeat yourself up to infinity.)

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Lauda on February 14, 2017, 05:28:34 AM

Quote from: kiklo on February 14, 2017, 05:25:57 AM

Or the fact you say LN does not need segwit, but yet they can't activate LN.

You can't activate something that isn't ready for deployment. There are several different implementations of LN. You should be banned from this forum for trolling.

Quote from: Lauda on February 14, 2017, 05:28:34 AM

LN will be superior than transacting on-chain. Both cheaper and faster. You don't need the on-chain security for trivial purchases.

You all talk like LN is the solution and then you admit it is not even far enough in development to even run on the blockchain.
But you want everyone to trust this offchain untrustworthy non-working code. (That is rich.) Cheesy

If I don't need onchain solutions that can be trusted,
but according to you only use offchain solutions that can't be trusted , I might as well just stick with visa.
According to you a bank is safer, since they are offchain.
(But we know that is a lie , cause banks run fractional reserves just like LN will.)
(If they can ever get it working without segwit that is.) Wink

FYI:
Funny you making yourself the authority of what security is needed for purchases, kind of sounds like a Banker is pulling your strings.

FYI2:
Litecoin & Dogecoin is cheaper & faster and are still ONCHAIN, so they are more trustworthy than LN.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: kiklo on February 14, 2017, 05:25:57 AM

Or the fact you say LN does not need segwit, but yet they can't activate LN.

You can't activate something that isn't ready for deployment. There are several different implementations of LN. You should be banned from this forum for trolling.

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 05:26:38 AM

I only say: On-chain scaling is more secure.

I only say: BU isn't secure due to the untested security model revamp called "emergent consensus"-

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 05:26:38 AM

LN is not on chain, but nice for micro pay. Go for.

LN will be superior than transacting on-chain. Both cheaper and faster. You don't need the on-chain security for trivial purchases.

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Quote from: Lauda on February 14, 2017, 05:15:45 AM

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 04:54:27 AM

Here finally we might get feets on same ground - external / cross code rewieves ( core <-> BU ?) , dev testing and UAT / real live testing is your friend here.

People don't want to waste their time on reviewing BU, when it doesn't even have it's own proper testing and review system.

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 04:54:27 AM

That's why I'm close to some compromise thingy with SW and 4MB lift in a HF

2 MB base and 6 MB weight would maybe work. Segwit should be added as a soft fork and the block size increase as a HF. There is no proposal that does this though.

Quote from: kiklo on February 14, 2017, 05:09:27 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 14, 2017, 04:57:33 AM

Could be. Or maybe you're just being hysterical because you can't stop Lightning. Cheesy

I'm sorry you don't understand how trustless bidirectional payment channels inherit Bitcoin's security, but Honey Badger doesn't care one bit.

I an sorry you were born a stupid asshat that rides a short bus.
Maybe you will be smarter in your next life. Cheesy

Segwit has failed Dufus.

LN doesn't need Segwit. Roll Eyes

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 05:10:00 AM

If you can peg - you can also un-peg.

Nonsense. If you allow un-pegging, LN is dead in its in conception.

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 05:10:00 AM

I want use LN as well, but only for pennies I'm happy to lose and as quick as possible!

If you approach it with this mind set, the same is what you should say for BU.

I only say: On-chain scaling is more secure.

LN is not on chain, but nice for micro pay. Go for.

Disclaimer: I'm not Satoshi

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Lauda on February 14, 2017, 05:24:00 AM

Quote from: kiklo on February 14, 2017, 05:18:58 AM

Quote from: Lauda on February 14, 2017, 05:15:45 AM

LN doesn't need Segwit. Roll Eyes

Then Activate LN now, and prove it. Wink

'To prove that A doesn't require B, you should activate it on main net whilst it is in the Alpha development phase.' - Kiklo, 2017 (paraphrased)

This just shows your intellect, or lack thereof.

Or the fact you say LN does not need segwit,

but yet they can't activate LN.

See why you seem stupid. Wink

FYI:
You all talk like LN is the solution and then you admit it is not even far enough in development to even run on the blockchain.
But you want everyone to trust this offchain untrustworthy non-working code. (That is rich.) Cheesy

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: kiklo on February 14, 2017, 05:18:58 AM

Quote from: Lauda on February 14, 2017, 05:15:45 AM

LN doesn't need Segwit. Roll Eyes

Then Activate LN now, and prove it. Wink

'To prove that A doesn't require B, you should activate it on main net whilst it is in the Alpha development phase.' - Kiklo, 2017 (paraphrased)

This just shows your intellect, or lack thereof.

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Lauda on February 14, 2017, 05:15:45 AM

LN doesn't need Segwit. Roll Eyes

Then Activate LN now, and prove it. Wink

Funny how LN devs could solve all of BTC transaction problems according to you and do nothing but wait.

Why all of the trying to convince the miners to activate segwit, which they are never going to do.

Maybe because someone is hiding something, and they need segwit to pull it off. Hmm?

Cool

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 04:54:27 AM

Here finally we might get feets on same ground - external / cross code rewieves ( core <-> BU ?) , dev testing and UAT / real live testing is your friend here.

People don't want to waste their time on reviewing BU, when it doesn't even have it's own proper testing and review system.

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 04:54:27 AM

That's why I'm close to some compromise thingy with SW and 4MB lift in a HF

2 MB base and 6 MB weight would maybe work. Segwit should be added as a soft fork and the block size increase as a HF. There is no proposal that does this though.

Quote from: kiklo on February 14, 2017, 05:09:27 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 14, 2017, 04:57:33 AM

Could be. Or maybe you're just being hysterical because you can't stop Lightning. Cheesy

I'm sorry you don't understand how trustless bidirectional payment channels inherit Bitcoin's security, but Honey Badger doesn't care one bit.

I an sorry you were born a stupid asshat that rides a short bus.
Maybe you will be smarter in your next life. Cheesy

Segwit has failed Dufus.

LN doesn't need Segwit. Roll Eyes

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 05:10:00 AM

If you can peg - you can also un-peg.

Nonsense. If you allow un-pegging, LN is dead in its in conception.

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 05:10:00 AM

I want use LN as well, but only for pennies I'm happy to lose and as quick as possible!

If you approach it with this mind set, the same is what you should say for BU.

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 14, 2017, 04:57:33 AM

Quote from: kiklo on February 14, 2017, 04:10:05 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 14, 2017, 04:03:17 AM

Quote from: https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/bitcoin-lightning-things-to-know-e5ea8d84369f

Is Lightning Bitcoin?

Yes. You pick a peer and after some setup, create a bitcoin transaction to fund the lightning channel; it’ll then take another transaction to close it and release your funds. You and your peer always hold a bitcoin transaction to get your funds whenever you want: just broadcast to the blockchain like normal. In other words, you and your peer create a shared account, and then use Lightning to securely negotiate who gets how much from that shared account, without waiting for the bitcoin blockchain.

That in the above line in Red is a LIE. LN is OFFCHAIN!!!

Your ability to Lie thru your teeth is pathetic.

Read pages 49-51 of the LN whitepaper and all of the ways your LN funds can be stolen , then lie some more.

So @rusty_lightning is a liar? And he's lying through his teeth? And that's pathetic?

Could be. Or maybe you're just being hysterical because you can't stop Lightning. Cheesy

I'm sorry you don't understand how trustless bidirectional payment channels inherit Bitcoin's security, but Honey Badger doesn't care one bit.

If you can peg - you can also un-peg.

Somehow this reminds me to Nixon un-pegging gold from the USD - 1971 ?

You may trust - others you might convince.

I want use LN as well, but only for pennies I'm happy to lose and as quick as possible!

-> Risk disclaimers are your friend here, or will you be there and replace all the lost funds in case?

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 14, 2017, 04:57:33 AM

Could be. Or maybe you're just being hysterical because you can't stop Lightning. Cheesy

I'm sorry you don't understand how trustless bidirectional payment channels inherit Bitcoin's security, but Honey Badger doesn't care one bit.

I an sorry you were born a stupid asshat that rides a short bus.
Maybe you will be smarter in your next life. Cheesy

Segwit has failed Dufus.

Quote from: kiklo on February 13, 2017, 03:29:56 AM

Segwit needs 95% to activate.

Current Numbers
https://coin.dance/blocks

Explicit Mining Pool Support by Proposal
SegWit 24.6%
Bitcoin Unlimited 18.3%
8 MB Blocks 7.5%

If the current Voters for Bitcoin Unlimited and 8 MB Blocks do not change their votes, (either alone is enough to block segwit)
Segwit will NEVER ATTAIN the 95% needed.

Segwit is DEAD!

Suggest BTC core start working on a blocksize increase solution ASAP, because no matter what else happens Segwit is Dead on Arrival. Wink

Quote from: kiklo on February 13, 2017, 04:07:33 AM

Quote from: calkob on February 13, 2017, 03:35:04 AM

Do you realise that segwit has until Nov to activate ? i think you are a little premature. Undecided

And I think many of you can't do math.

8 MB Blocks 7.5% => 100%- 7.5% = 92.5% SEGWIT FAIL
or
Bitcoin Unlimited 18.3% => 100%-18.3% = 81.7% SEGWIT FAIL

Combined 25.8% => 100%-25.8% = 74.2% SEGWIT FAIL

Segwit has failed, Game Over it will never reach 95%.

iCEBREAKER

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1072

Crypto is the separation of Power and State.

Quote from: kiklo on February 14, 2017, 04:10:05 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 14, 2017, 04:03:17 AM

Quote from: https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/bitcoin-lightning-things-to-know-e5ea8d84369f

Is Lightning Bitcoin?

Yes. You pick a peer and after some setup, create a bitcoin transaction to fund the lightning channel; it’ll then take another transaction to close it and release your funds. You and your peer always hold a bitcoin transaction to get your funds whenever you want: just broadcast to the blockchain like normal. In other words, you and your peer create a shared account, and then use Lightning to securely negotiate who gets how much from that shared account, without waiting for the bitcoin blockchain.

That in the above line in Red is a LIE. LN is OFFCHAIN!!!

Your ability to Lie thru your teeth is pathetic.

Read pages 49-51 of the LN whitepaper and all of the ways your LN funds can be stolen , then lie some more.

So @rusty_lightning is a liar? And he's lying through his teeth? And that's pathetic?

Could be. Or maybe you're just being hysterical because you can't stop Lightning. Cheesy

I'm sorry you don't understand how trustless bidirectional payment channels inherit Bitcoin's security, but Honey Badger doesn't care one bit.

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

Quote from: Lauda on February 14, 2017, 04:40:53 AM

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 04:35:41 AM

(2MB or just no) MAX BLOCK SIZE - uhhg not 100% - never been here ( Satoshis most important protocol param 1MB !)

If you think that BU is a simple change, or secure, you've been drinking some strong kool-aid. If I had to choose outside of Bitcoin Core, I'd go with the original Bitcoin Classic proposal (rather than the current Classic/BU nonsense).

Here finally we might get feets on same ground - external / cross code rewieves ( core <-> BU ?) , dev testing and UAT / real live testing is your friend here.

That's why I'm close to some compromise thingy with SW and 4MB lift in a HF,

or Sergio Lerner comes up with the 3rd killer solution over midnight...

Grin

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

@Lauda,
(Once you lose an argument, you sees Trolls everywhere like CB.) Cheesy

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: kiklo on February 14, 2017, 04:17:28 AM

Nope, But I notice you ignored the Question.

There was no question mark. You're a delusional troll.

Quote from: kiklo on February 14, 2017, 04:17:28 AM

Actually you were trying to use him to make your point, see when you change your opinions from one post to the next.
Lying causes that to happen.

There was no lie. IF he didn't know about the issue, he wouldn't have introduced those limits in the proposal. Of course, a simpleton like you understands no technicalities. Roll Eyes

Quote from: RealBitcoin on February 14, 2017, 04:35:06 AM

We already have a risk variable called the nr. of Bitcoin nodes.
With LN you introduce another risk variable, called the nr. of LN hubs.

No. The LN hubs or lack thereof would just make routing harder. It does not pose a risk in the context that you're referring to.

Quote from: RealBitcoin on February 14, 2017, 04:35:06 AM

Instead of just introducing a more efficient mining system other than POW that does keep mining more decentralized, now Segwil will mess around with both the mining incentive structure, and the Bitcoin node system.

Segwit does not mess around with either in a dangerous sense which is what you're referring to.

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 04:35:41 AM

(2MB or just no) MAX BLOCK SIZE - uhhg not 100% - never been here ( Satoshis most important protocol param 1MB !)

If you think that BU is a simple change, or secure, you've been drinking some strong kool-aid. If I had to choose outside of Bitcoin Core, I'd go with the original Bitcoin Classic proposal (rather than the current Classic/BU nonsense).

hv_

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale

So funny - but rather sad

Ici and Laudi running in circles here about what is rather / really / nearly 100% bitcoinish:

LN - part of the initial bitcoin protocol - 100% yeah! -( Satoshi's S stands for Second layer ! :-) )

(2MB or just no) MAX BLOCK SIZE - uhhg not 100% - never been here ( Satoshis most important protocol param 1MB !)

Hey - do I believe my own crap if I ve posted it frequently enough ?

Or do I need to get some bucks to do ?

RealBitcoin

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 1009

JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK

Quote from: Lauda on February 14, 2017, 03:14:59 AM

Bullshit. In the traditional sense of third parties and IOUs, there is always one party that can take away your control of the asset in question. This is not the case with LN, because it is decentralized. There will be things like LN hubs for sure, which people will argue that are centralized, but they only serve for better routing purposes.

That is the whole problem.

We already have a risk variable called the nr. of Bitcoin nodes.
With LN you introduce another risk variable, called the nr. of LN hubs.

So the only thing you are doing is just doubling the risk of centralization, while introducing competition to the miner fees, which will leave less miners active.

You you don't just double the risk of node centralization, but you also increase the risk of miner centralization, since a lof of fees will be siphoned off from the miners, leaving small miners bankrupt.

Instead of just introducing a more efficient mining system other than POW that does keep mining more decentralized, now Segwil will mess around with both the mining incentive structure, and the Bitcoin node system.

A very very bad solution.

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Lauda on February 14, 2017, 04:06:12 AM

Quote from: kiklo on February 14, 2017, 03:45:50 AM

Quote from: Lauda on June 23, 2013, 03:41:04 PM

I agree on this, imo POS is better, let's see how it goes with this coin, you never know.

You're quoting something which was written by this account.. 4 years ago? Are you delusional?

Nope,
But I notice you ignored the Question.

Quote from: kiklo on February 14, 2017, 03:45:50 AM

FYI: LOL, You claimed Galvin knew it was a problem, so you made him an authority in your post , which his own words refuted your post. Cheesy

No. Gavin is a fool. I referred to him only as he is the author of said proposal/implementation.

Actually you were trying to use him to make your point, see when you change your opinions from one post to the next.
Lying causes that to happen. Wink

Quote from: Lauda on February 14, 2017, 03:40:15 AM

It starts even at 2 MB. Please look into the original Bitcoin Classic. Gavin knew this was a problem, that's why the original proposal in Classic had additional TX size and sigops limitations (if I remember correctly). The higher you go the easier it becomes to attack via this vector.

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 14, 2017, 04:03:17 AM

Lightning is on-chain scaling. Rusty explains why Lightning is 100% Bitcoin in clear, simple words. If you can't follow the technical discussion, too bad for you.

Your failure to understand how trustless bidirectional payment channels inherit Bitcoin's security isn't anyone's problem but your own.

That in the above line in Red is a LIE. LN is OFFCHAIN!!!

Your ability to Lie thru your teeth is pathetic.

Read pages 49-51 of the LN whitepaper and all of the ways your LN funds can be stolen , then lie some more.

Cool

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 04:01:04 AM

Quote from: Lauda on February 14, 2017, 03:40:15 AM

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 03:37:09 AM

And to what 'exact' threshold of max block size this will have an real effect to the security ? 2 MB ? 4 MB 10MB ?

This is the more serious Q&A to be formulated.

It starts even at 2 MB. Please look into the original Bitcoin Classic. Gavin knew this was a problem, that's why the original proposal in Classic had additional TX size and sigops limitations (if I remember correctly). The higher you go the easier it becomes to attack via this vector.

Yep - and with BU you just set it to what such a security modeling is proofed to be ok - so even you say it starts with 2MB - > 1.5 MB might be good or even 2.5MB - and with future improvments up to agreed 8MB?

Why the hack promoting 2nd layer gaming first? (see the word game in it ? )

LTC has 1mb at 2½ minute block speed,

BTC could move to 4MB Blocksize at a 10 minute block speed and it would be the exact same transaction capacity.

Both are equally safe.

Or BTC could just move to a 2½ minute block speed and stay at 1mb, transaction capacity would still increase 4X.
However the block reward and halving dates would have to be updated, I guess the BTC core team is too stupid to use a calculator. Wink

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: kiklo on February 14, 2017, 03:45:50 AM

Quote from: Lauda on June 23, 2013, 03:41:04 PM

I agree on this, imo POS is better, let's see how it goes with this coin, you never know.

You're quoting something which was written by this account.. 4 years ago? Are you delusional?

Quote from: kiklo on February 14, 2017, 03:45:50 AM

FYI: LOL, You claimed Galvin knew it was a problem, so you made him an authority in your post , which his own words refuted your post. Cheesy

No. Gavin is a fool. I referred to him only as he is the author of said proposal/implementation.

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 04:01:04 AM

Yep - and with BU you just set it to what such a security modeling is proofed to be ok - so even you say it starts with 2MB - > 1.5 MB might be good or even 2.5MB - and with future improvments up to agreed 8MB?

BU is a horrible nightmare. That "emergent consensus" thing is a complete revamp of the security model, and yet some supporters attack Segwit for potential security issues. That is quite hypocritical.

Quote from: hv_ on February 14, 2017, 04:01:04 AM

Why the hack promoting 2nd layer gaming first? (see the word game in it ? )

If you're referring to Segwit, then you're wrong. The only thing that could be considered a "hack" is the way that luke-jr figured out to deploy Segwit as a soft fork. That's it.

Topic: So who the hell is still supporting BU? - page 16. (Read 29824 times)