What are your thoughts on UASF? Is it going to break the deadlock...or cause a fork...or who the hell knows?
My thoughts specifically on what I think is going to happen or what I think of UASF? 
Topic: The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support. - page 54. (Read 120014 times)
If only people would put as much energy into working together as they do arguing with each other this scaling problem would've been solved a long time ago.
Attempts were made to get them to work together but it was all in vain 
Quite a shame it was all in vain, because there is a real possibility that these very same people will stand to lose more than just face. Such a shame intelligence and wisdom don't often go hand in hand. You have a bunch of egotistical stubborn geeks playing crypto currency poker
Fun times ahead! Good luck to us all! lool of course I realized!
But I also decided to give you a serious answer. You clever guy you! Wizard of wit achievement unlocked!If only people would put as much energy into working together as they do arguing with each other this scaling problem would've been solved a long time ago.
The point is that the whole interaction model of a crypto (decentralized, trustless) consists in people not being able to work together (collude) because they have opposing interests (= decentralized) and cannot trust one another (trustless).
I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive. I understand that people may have opposing interests, but you would think that these opposing parties would realize that co-operation is in their own best financial interest. It does require compromise in some cases, but burning the house down when you don't get your way is childish and immature. The whole world is watching us and everyone is going to laugh at us if the community implodes in on itself. I hope people realize how much trust and good will will be destroyed if btc fragments.
Anyways, I will let you guys get back to your heated technical debate. I'll quietly hope rationality wins in the end.
Cheers!
If only people would put as much energy into working together as they do arguing with each other this scaling problem would've been solved a long time ago.
Attempts were made to get them to work together but it was all in vain Quite a shame it was all in vain, because there is a real possibility that these very same people will stand to lose more than just face. Such a shame intelligence and wisdom don't often go hand in hand. You have a bunch of egotistical stubborn geeks playing crypto currency poker
Fun times ahead! Good luck to us all! What are your thoughts on UASF? Is it going to break the deadlock...or cause a fork...or who the hell knows?
If only people would put as much energy into working together as they do arguing with each other this scaling problem would've been solved a long time ago.
Attempts were made to get them to work together but it was all in vain Quite a shame it was all in vain, because there is a real possibility that these very same people will stand to lose more than just face. Such a shame intelligence and wisdom don't often go hand in hand. You have a bunch of egotistical stubborn geeks playing crypto currency poker
Fun times ahead! Good luck to us all! If only people would put as much energy into working together as they do arguing with each other this scaling problem would've been solved a long time ago.
Attempts were made to get them to work together but it was all in vain Quite a shame it was all in vain, because there is a real possibility that these very same people will stand to lose more than just face. Such a shame intelligence and wisdom don't often go hand in hand. You have a bunch of egotistical stubborn geeks playing crypto currency poker
Fun times ahead! Good luck to us all! 
there's a scaling problem?
I don't get this. Can you give us cliffs on how this solves the problem of scalability that 20MB brings and the lack of decentralization that 1MB + Lightning Network brings? (and eventually problems anyway because even with 1MB + LN the 1MB will eventually not be enough).
if there's a problem of scalability the devs will get to it once they have done the more important work such as freeing the client from the cruft wrongheadedly added in recent yearsIf only people would put as much energy into working together as they do arguing with each other this scaling problem would've been solved a long time ago.
Attempts were made to get them to work together but it was all in vain If only people would put as much energy into working together as they do arguing with each other this scaling problem would've been solved a long time ago.
The point is that the whole interaction model of a crypto (decentralized, trustless) consists in people not being able to work together (collude) because they have opposing interests (= decentralized) and cannot trust one another (trustless).
...In the end, you would simply have many "end customers" having all their holdings locked up in a LN channel to "their exchange" (their bank)....
I can see your point from that specific scenario, but as a general concept, that's not what it's about.In general principle:
Let's say you sell hot dogs..
I want a hot dog.
I create a transaction to buy 1 hot dog.
You agree to not to "finalize" the transaction because I may want another hot dog (or I may not).
I want another hot dog.
We invalidate the 1st transaction
I create a transaction to buy 2 hot dogs.
You agree to not to "finalize" the transaction because I may want another hot dog (or I may not).
I want another hot dog.
We invalidate the 2nd transaction
I create a transaction to buy 3 hot dogs.
You agree to not to "finalize" the transaction because I may want another hot dog (or I may not).
....
My fat ass has eaten 16 hot dogs and I want no more.
We agree to process the "finalized" transaction for 16 hotdogs.
The sneaky part in this, is that I have to "commit" my bitcoin stash for 16 hotdogs from the start with you, and you better commit some coins too, or otherwise, you have nothing to lose in this. So when I buy my first hot dog, instead of paying 2 mBTC, I have to engage already some 40 mBTC with you in a channel. If after all, the first hot dog I buy is not that great, and I want to buy my second hot dog with a competitor, I have to chose: do I settle on chain, to get 38 mBTC back, but only after 100 blocks or so (the security period) ; or do I want you to transmit my transaction to the competitor (LN usage), which you may very well decide not to do, because, exactly, it is a competitor, or ask an insane fee for it (because, exactly, it is a competitor) ?
With the LN, contrary to any other form of P2P, you "lock in" your stash to your partner, and you can only get it back by settling on-chain (cost, and delay of 100 blocks) or depend on the willingness of your partner to transmit the transaction and accept all of his conditions.
This is why you better do not pair up with "just anyone on the internet", but only with a "trusted bank".
If only people would put as much energy into working together as they do arguing with each other this scaling problem would've been solved a long time ago.
...Segwit+schnorr+LN+RSK+Mimblewimble+TumbleBit will transform Bitcoin into a beast...
No, Segwit+schnorr+LN+RSK+Mimblewimble+TumbleBit will transform Bitcoin into NotBitcoin. Conjoining all this bullshit into one argument waters down the validity of any position you might attempt to maintian.
PS - In case anyone missed it before: LN can happen without segwit.
But I also don't want LN as the only second layer as some Core Maximalists like it.
Bullshit, where did you get that anti-Core FUD r/btc?
Segwit+schnorr+LN+RSK+Mimblewimble+TumbleBit will transform Bitcoin into a beast.
Innovation will florish, each sidechain with there own specialization and there will be a lot of sidechains.
Always remember; Bitcoin cannot go mainstream without sidechains and those sidechains are beeing designed around Segwit for obvious reassons.
...In the end, you would simply have many "end customers" having all their holdings locked up in a LN channel to "their exchange" (their bank)....
I can see your point from that specific scenario, but as a general concept, that's not what it's about.In general principle:
Let's say you sell hot dogs..
I want a hot dog.
....
My fat ass has eaten 16 hot dogs and I want no more.
Bitcoin Core imposed a limit on the number of hot dogs you can buy - otherwise you'll break the network - EHRMAGERD.
...In the end, you would simply have many "end customers" having all their holdings locked up in a LN channel to "their exchange" (their bank)....
I can see your point from that specific scenario, but as a general concept, that's not what it's about.In general principle:
Let's say you sell hot dogs..
I want a hot dog.
....
My fat ass has eaten 16 hot dogs and I want no more.
Wait - you'll never get there.
Bitcoin Core imposed a limit on the number of hot dogs you can buy - otherwise you'll break the network - EHRMAGERD.
...In the end, you would simply have many "end customers" having all their holdings locked up in a LN channel to "their exchange" (their bank)....
I can see your point from that specific scenario, but as a general concept, that's not what it's about.In general principle:
Let's say you sell hot dogs..
I want a hot dog.
I create a transaction to buy 1 hot dog.
You agree to not to "finalize" the transaction because I may want another hot dog (or I may not).
I want another hot dog.
We invalidate the 1st transaction
I create a transaction to buy 2 hot dogs.
You agree to not to "finalize" the transaction because I may want another hot dog (or I may not).
I want another hot dog.
We invalidate the 2nd transaction
I create a transaction to buy 3 hot dogs.
You agree to not to "finalize" the transaction because I may want another hot dog (or I may not).
....
My fat ass has eaten 16 hot dogs and I want no more.
We agree to process the "finalized" transaction for 16 hotdogs.
The "finalized" transaction goes into the mempool like any other Bitcoin transaction (basically as if we'd only ever agreed on me buying 16 hotdogs and making a "standard" Bitcoin transaction to begin with).
Yes, there are cases where someone might put up enough servers that they control the "loin's share" of the LN and "control" fees, until some random guy throws up the LN equivalent of a node, charges nominally more than the "average" mined fees, and the bank you imagined looses any "stronghold" that they had.
While I'm not a fan of altering a protocol for non-protocol related end uses for the protocol, the principle of LN is to introduce voidable transactions into a system designed to be non-voidable. I think that this opens the door for a version of Bitcoin that is anti-Bitcoin; however, since it can actually be done without segwit (a few minor tweaks and a minor softfork) and it creates a greater use for Bitcoin in the general populous, I'm not totally against it.
...Sure, but the LN could transform bitcoin into classical "banking" (but rather, classical clearing house transfers)...
From that, I think you understand the point and principles of LN less than he does. 
Care to elaborate on how you think that LN and "banking" have any relational ties?I think the incentives in the LN are such that only a "wheel-and-spokes" architecture makes sense. The LN becomes profitable (can offer competitive advantage over on-chain fees) if you have A LOT of bitcoin to lock into MANY links with MANY "end point customers". If you can only lock in 3 BTC into 3 channels with 3 other dudes with each one 1 BTC, your channels will quickly become "pushed against one side" and you'll have to settle and "reload" ; because most small nodes will not be in "windstill" places in the network, but will undergo systematic "fluxes" in one direction or another. However, if you are a big hub (say, an exchange) and you can link your customers to you with a LN channel each, in which they put all of their holdings, then your links will rarely be exhausted (people spend, and buy coins), you will be able to maintain a link for a very long time before settling, and you can divide the "settling fee" by the large amount of transactions that go over the channel. As such, your LN fees can be outcompeting all other LN fees others might demand and still be profitable.
In the end, you would simply have many "end customers" having all their holdings locked up in a LN channel to "their exchange" (their bank), and the few exchanges having big channels amongst themselves (like banks settle between them through the central bank). Exchanges and other big hubs would then be the "commercial banks" and the miners/block chain would be the settling layer/central bank. It would be very expensive/dangerous/.... for an individual customer to want to settle from his "bank" (expensive, rare, difficult to access block chain) ; so in the end, his bank has the full information of all his spendings ; can block the spendings it deems not right ; can charge customer fees.... like banks do today. These big hubs may buy guaranteed room on the block chain with mining pools (while individuals won't be able to guarantee that they can settle in time). As a small customer, you would be tied to your "exchange" in the same way as you are now tied to your bank, apart from the fact that eventually, you might succeed to settle. If miners agree and let you have room.
...Sure, but the LN could transform bitcoin into classical "banking" (but rather, classical clearing house transfers)...
From that, I think you understand the point and principles of LN less than he does. Care to elaborate on how you think that LN and "banking" have any relational ties? ...If there is a fallacy in my argumentation, please help me to find it 
Remember that time, oh so long ago (like last year), when there weren't enough transactions to fill all 144 blocks with 1MB worth of transactions every day......The problem with so many of the rationalizations I see are all based on tiny, limited scopes and the fundamental change of everything that is Bitcoin.
Segwit + 2MB + LN = all problems are fixed and the world is a happy, shiny new place where growth will no longer occur.
Not!
What if the current masses don't want their transfers "off-chain"?
Then they don't use it. In fact, "off-chain" is a perfect way to connect to exchanges. LN is perfect with exchanges as central hubs, and exchange customers having their holdings in a channel with their exchange, which protects them from theft, and renders the exchanges trustless. It would turn the current exchanges in the new banks.
A huge subset of crypto users are already transferring their wealth off the bitcoin chain - they use alts which are better proven than LIghtning, and render Lightning unnecessary. Basically the bitcoin fees got higher, and also it's believed that transferring from one blockchain to another also provides better privacy for bitcoin users.
LN is late to the party.
+1
Same I would say
...If there is a fallacy in my argumentation, please help me to find it
Remember that time, oh so long ago (like last year), when there weren't enough transactions to fill all 144 blocks with 1MB worth of transactions every day......The problem with so many of the rationalizations I see are all based on tiny, limited scopes and the fundamental change of everything that is Bitcoin.
Segwit + 2MB + LN = all problems are fixed and the world is a happy, shiny new place where growth will no longer occur.
Not!
What if the current masses don't want their transfers "off-chain"?
Then they don't use it. In fact, "off-chain" is a perfect way to connect to exchanges. LN is perfect with exchanges as central hubs, and exchange customers having their holdings in a channel with their exchange, which protects them from theft, and renders the exchanges trustless. It would turn the current exchanges in the new banks.
A huge subset of crypto users are already transferring their wealth off the bitcoin chain - they use alts which are better proven than LIghtning, and render Lightning unnecessary. Basically the bitcoin fees got higher, and also it's believed that transferring from one blockchain to another also provides better privacy for bitcoin users.
LN is late to the party.
Jump to: