Topic: So who the hell is still supporting BU? - page 21. (Read 29824 times)

Pls read again:

It does not need politics and stupid rules.

Pls think

Pls get it

I have 2 questions, if you were kind to answer.

1) What does security/efficiency improvement for hardware wallets means?

Isnt segwit general purpose, what special advantage do hardware wallets get? Please explain.

2) What does P2SH 256 bit mean? Is ECDSA or RIPEMD160 replaced in those kinds of transactions? How does the 256bit securiy manifest itself?

---

I also have other criticisms of Segwit, mainly the steering away from onchain scaling towards offchain scaling, which would really mean centralization.

When the transactions are not settled on the blockchain, then you essentially enabled fractional reserve banking. Because anyone can just make up coins out of thin air, if payments will be handled on a secondary chain.

This is the whole point of the blockchain, to have a liquid payment system + settling in 10 minutes, not 4 days like banks do.

It would be a huge mistake to derail from that path.

As soon as I see signs of fractional reserves in BTC, I will have to abandon it. I dont want BTC to turn into a fiat currency.

There is obviously some people out there who just dont care and will push against any core recommendations no matter what they are.

No, it does need rules. How could any system, of any kind, operate without rules?




And that's very close to what BU is: a system where the rules are so easy to change, they might as well not exist.


And that's the perfect antithesis of Bitcoin: a system where the rules are so hard to change, that they are practically as strong as the rules of logic or physics.


And you think the former is better? Have fun with your Unlimited "money" lol

You can't automate everything, there have to be certain solid rules. 21 million coins, why? because it's an artificial limit we set (a rule). Same goes for blocksize etc. Rules need to be set, and to change them consensus need to be reached. As of right now, there is no way to automate the blocksize without it resulting it nasty vector attacks. That's how it is.

The only people supporting this BUcoin disaster are paid Roger Ver shills, wannabe forum shitposters that think they are smarter than Core devs yet they have no code to show, and naive clueless users that think fast, cheap, big volume onchain transactions with no tradeoffs are perfectly possible with the magic of BUcoin.

No. I only try to show how you restrict yourself by not seeing the pure bitcoin protocol - detached from any group or team.

It does not need politics and stupid rules. It needs to be as 'small' and open as possible -> so it can be max distributed.

The free market cannot operate if the ownership of enterprises are not respected.

You're basically saying that all customers should have a vote on all businesses, and that the businesses must respect the customers wishes. How do the businesses make decisions to differentiate themselves from the others competing in the market, if they don't have the power to make changes to the business they supposedly own?


The free market exists in cryptocurrency design already: either you like how Litecoin works, or you like how Dogecoin works, and you make that choice freely. Trying to take control away from those who work on a cryptocoin is the opposite of free competition, the only reason to commandeer Bitcoin and it's network is if your idea can't compete openly. Hence this BU "internal market" bullshit you're all pushing.

Whatever you want, but it should be automated.

I would love to see an automated code, with automatic regulation functions.

Decentralization is not enough to remove the middleman. We need to remove all human interaction, and make it 100% automated.

Otherwise we get corrupted by human flaws (greed, malice, stupidity,etc..)

NO thats a false dichotomy.

Both Core and BU sucks in my opinion. We would need a 3rd code, that is automatically regulating itself.

The only way we are going to achieve consensus, is if we remove the human element from the game.

Humans are the weakest link in Bitcoin. Nodes/Miners could be corrupt, could do shady deals behind doors, could be coerced, or could turn against us.

We just need to make everything automatic, that is the future, AI.

Great.

I understand, you're fine with a HF or could one do this with 'safer' SF ?

And what base amount (increase) could you imagine is sufficient?

Your post has zero meaning and is therefore a waste of bytes.

This is only a fanboy dream of greedy altcoiners that missed the Bitcoin train. Out of >1000 currencies, maybe 2 are worth a second look. Monero is nice for anonymity/fungibility, but that will only make it illegal (if regulated). You also have the centralized Fed 2.0 shitcoin ETH. Besides that, I don't see anything worth the time of serious people.

I wouldn't mind a SW + block size (base) increase. I don't want the "emergent consensus" bullshit though.

This is not my image, and it's pretty decently made. You can twist it however you want, some things are facts.

6 facts of nonsense. I'm waiting for the next 4.

look at lauda with his glossy images that promote but do not explain..
look at lauda with his glossy images thinking all he needs to do is show an image as if thats proof

lauda please learn. i do not mean this as anything negative but please learn. it will help you.
your promoting something you dont understand, which is not only a failure to yourself. but a failure to anyone looking at your posts.

segwit does not fix malleability.
because malicious users wanting to malleate simply wont use p2wpkh/p2wsh keys even after segwit activates. so malleation will happen

it does not double the effective blocks
it allows users to use a new type of key (p2wpkh/p2wsh) which IF 100% use those keys then the maximum possible is effectively double.
emphasis segwit itself does not double the blocksize.. the utility % of the new key type COULD AT MOST allow double.
dont expect 100% key utility.
if 10% of users use p2wpkh/p2wsh keys expect only 10% or less change

remember pools add transactions dependant on fee's. if segwit offers discount then pools will accept NON-segwit keytypes more so then segwit keys. so spammers will bloat up the blockspace (hense less than 10% change if 10% utilise segwit keys, because they havnt paid enough)

in short ask yourself the blunt question.
will spammers and scammers use a keytype thats stops them being spammers/scammer. no. so they simple wont use the keytype. thus problem is not solved. its that simple.

i stuck to 6 paragraphs, i think lauda has trouble reading english, or his translator breaks at 10 paragraphs

Nice and shiny - good start!

I'd like to see a section, where merged features  SW + BU is promoted - Here we go!

(If you can have all , you should take it !)


 

If you think of 'store of value' - only   there is nothing better...

All other things you might think of could be build on top.

SegWit or BU are only short term decisions and improvments. I'm sure that in long term Bitcoin will be replaced by the other leading crypto. You can resent, you can steam but Bitcoin is still number 1 because it has first movers advantage and a lot of speculation driving price up. As Google hasn't appeared in the first days of internet, the same is in crypto. Improved and sophisticated projects are underway. Differently from BTC they will have advantage to learn from their predecessors mistakes.

I do not defend for BU, but I advise you not to judge it according to your thoughts. although it failed, but it will not fail forever. I am not a user BU, but I do not want anyone to misjudge it. Too early to let you assert. Bitcoin will be affected by this conflict. This is bad, I hope it will end soon. But otherwise, this conflict also help Bitcoin consolidation, this is great, a lot of advantages for the future. Expect

Probably it is a perfect time for Satoshi Nakamoto to give some comments on what he/they are thinking about BC and BU and what direction is the best for Bitcoin. I agree with you that miners who invested in Bitcoin mining their own financial resources are directly interested in BTC success, while core developers have only good training with BTC development and they can exit any time and leave it. Bitcoin was designed as a decentralized digital currency but now it seems that it is more and more centralized everyday. Core developers are meeting behind the closed doors. It reminds me meetings of the leading banks and financial corporations who are making decisions secretly. Users and holders of BTC do not have any impact on the development. They are thrown out of it. I don't support this and if it continues, I'm sure that we'll see Bitcoin killer app to overcome all the problems of developing and governance.  

---

I'm waiting for franky to get a panic attack, and write 10 paragraphs on how Segwit does not improve anything.

easy way to achieve this, is to have a 'speed test mechanism' built into an implementation.

knowing in the code you can see the time your node asks for a new block. and when it validates the block it knows the time of that.
so it can use these two milestones to set a 'score'.
EG
if a block can be requested and validated in under say 120seconds. (2minutes) where over say 2016 blocks= target 241920score.
if the node can get a score BELOW(meaning faster than) 241920 over a 2016 block period. then it can easily handle block validation

this score can be part of the nodes user agent/metadata. thus easy to get stats of the network. to see what is capable by the nodes

If you define 'automatically' = adjusted by the free market = Austrian economics type

You are with BU

Otherwise there is a BIP from sipa, adjusting by some 'magic rules' in code derived by extrapolation into future....