Topic: The Blocksize War is still ongoing. - page 3. (Read 796 times)

What for?
I use Wallet of Satoshi for some small payments (say max $50). Is this what you mean?
I don't think that using a reputable custodial solution for LN is bad per se, but we must always be aware that since we don't control the sats, they can be lost. So we must use them wisely with small amounts.

We cannot say that bitcoin cash is the same as bitcoin, there are many thing that have the pairing of the name bitcoin as their coinage and yet they are not regarded as same with bitcoin, the moment there came the split  then we recognized bitcoin cash as not part of the bitcoin network, they are now centralized as regarded by many, if you're holding your bitcoin, then its all yours once you're with the private keys and its under a non custodial means, other dramas happening outside the network should take less concern with you. 

funny comedy.. his source(VIABTC(aka nya participant) actually debunks what he says
via were part of the segwit nya side not the BCH side.. via named old block versions that persist after segwit activates BCH

emphasis
the NYA crew are the segwit supporting crew and it was the segwit supporting crew that said if there was to be a split they would call the not segwit supporting fork bitcoin cash
the split happened by old node users not changing code thus ended up on a split thus got CALLED bitcoin cash by segwit teams
it was not due to some ABC brand being developed by those wanting to create an altcoin. the ABC brand was segwit but under false pretenses to get segwit activated under a broken promise but in actual effect had mandatory rejection of old blocks(forking the network), along with the other silly mis-promises of segwit people, all done to push segwit activation by any means
 

when segwit started its mandate(due to nya) of rejecting old block versions.. in a mandate from economic nodes and mining pools (not user assisted, just economic/minerpool(NYA)). and in august those not retaining segwit blocks but retaining old versionbit blocks.. stagnated at first and adopting themselves as bitcoin cash(after august 1st) from the names the segwit crew of NYA decided to call the old versionbit block retaining chain, which the segwit supporting side caused to split(falsely/unnaturally getting 100% by rejecting old blocks and banning old nodes retaining old versionbit blocks)

https://viabtc.medium.com/statement-on-bitcoin-user-activated-hard-fork-6e7aebb67e67
by supporting the NYA option it caused segwit to activate with the faked promise of 2x base.. but where it actually required segwit1.0 to activate first with the fake promise of a 2x at later date..
the mandatory activation of segwit was their goal, by rejecting old blocks. causing any old nodes that retain old block versionbits to be forked/split away

if you look at who the NYA are (DCG) and what side they funded. you would see it was all a bait and switch to get segwit activated. and its admitted even by doomads sources that the old blocks segwit ignores and old nodes segwit bans they would call bitcoin cash

yep even garzic and g.andresen were funded(bloq) by DCG who also funding segwit(blockstream) team

doomad really fails to use blockdata and funding and real info and tries to make subtle assumptions, based on little snippets(out of context), and then uses himself as source of his misunderstanding to be then his backup source of his narrative(echo chamber/confirmation bias of his own narrative to himself)..
but if you look at it all in full context, his story falls apart
..
i keep laughing at doomad.. he tries so hard to avoid the truth by not doing any research and then not understanding the links he then grabs actually goes against what he says, as he doesnt take things in full context nor looks at the surrounding impacts things had on each other to provide a full picture of actual events

he wants to pretend he knows things.. but has changed his narrative many times whereby initially he had said that:
a. BCH changed code early and forked themselves independently (his narrative was incorrect, code, block data prove it)
b. and yes doomad actually said in early days that segwit activated via UASF(another thing he got wrong then changed tune)
c. that he can replace words with idol invented buzzwords to hide his sillyness but not admit to the mistake,
but then:
d. every 6-12 months he keeps forgetting he got the whole thing wrong and got debunked so circles back to silly old notions he had wrong in the first place, acting like he never got debunked. quoting himself as source when using his own ignorance of real sources full context still prove him wrong back then and now
.. heck there were even times doomad got things soo messed up, he then came up with notions of agreeing with what i said but pretending it was his idea and then insinuate i was saying his old wrong versions.. because soon later he would then disagree and go back to his old notions again..

he cant even get his own story straight..
to pooya:
so just look at the block history of the version bits of both chains
look at the june july august of bitcoin.
and
look at when bch first began in august, and look at which code triggered the split.. use the block data, code and use the full context of the sides involved. of who buzzworded what first, who split first and who then demanded the other side change the magic to not cause endlessly peer banning and block rejecting

you will notice those thrust/ended up becoming BCH didnt instigate/desire a fork., they just tried to object to segwit. but got thrown off

i have never used bch and dont care for it. but getting the history correct is a detail that stops idiots being idiots just to hide the tricks played by sponsored devs of a certain fraternity, that wanted more network control by throwing opposition to the fraternities roadmap sponsored plans off the network.

yes bch changed after the august split.. but look at who orchestrated the split

Let me guess, he's still rewriting history for how BCH came into existence?  Even though it's been robustly refuted?

Announced fork was announced.  Took place when announced to take place.  Did what it said on the tin.  Yet franky1 blames everyone but the people who announced it.

Definitely dropped on his head a few too many times as an infant.  

That could be the best choice retaining BTC and isolate third party of no trust is the best . The best is when you control your own asset it gives you more rest and confidence than under the custody of another party.

Wrong. Chain-split could be a subcategory of forks or at best you could call it one of the possible outcomes of forks. But they are not the same thing.
A chain-split happens in a decentralized cryptocurrency when they can not reach consensus meaning when anything less than the decided percentage of the network (which is usually above 90%) didn't accept the change.
This was never the case with SegWit since the majority voted for it.
This was also not the case with Bcash since someone created the copy without needing to reach any kind of consensus. Something anybody can do at any time just as I pointed out in my example.

I see. But your thread doesn't mention fiat, bank or government, so how would i know you refer to fiat system? Besides, only some sidechain/L2 are centralized or federated with only few members.

lightning is not the be-all end-all solution you think it is even its own developers point out many flaws even they cant fix which is where their work around is then to change LN's agenda goal into hubs of channel makers (factories/watchtowers/[insert buzzword of the month]) which users then rent/are given or offer msats(IOU) units pegged^tt to btc at a rate that has changed*.. and settle up later.. turning LN into a credit card system of buy now pay later instead of a debit system of pay first delivery of goods later..

^ttor where some lucky users that act as a multichannel hub lock up value as collateral to offer their own balance as loans(IOU for partners to owe/be owed, where it needs to settle/payback later)

*an msat iou unit was 1000msat:1sat now its more zeros depth pegged iou units

and thats before mentioning all the other flaws where LN just doesnt meet any of its old promises of being solutions to not require bitcoin to need to scale any time soon

(funny part is the recruiters that want to drive idiots to LN dont even see the flaws and work arounds as they are to even spin them into possible positives of calling it a credit system as a feature.. you know turn a negative into a positive by offering LN as a credit facility of loans(f*ck did i just give them an idea and do their job for them..))

i wont bore you with the other flaws. or we will just get the crybaby bridage playing victim again shouting insults because they dont like me pointing out the risk factors.. but there are many other risks. so dont rely on LN being the answer to all bitcoin things
..
that being said..
the future will see NEW(yet to be made) subnetworks for niche use cases that learn from the mistakes of LN and actually offer secondary options to bitcoin features.. but it is well worth you realising LN is not the solution you think it is, and LN devs admit it and are yet to offer anything different because their sponsorship deals were just to make and promote LN and that contract has yet to expire to allow them to escape endorsing LN

and with that said bitcoin still does now and will need to scale even if new subnetworks that dont have LN flaws/features/work-around's are made. so lets not just pretend subnetworks are the only option.. bitcoin needs to scale too

Talking only about offchain.

Custody is good, it's the way I believe, and the way I trust.

But it's overrated by some people who just have no understanding of the reality for millions of people. Who will never have enough to consider as savings enough to want full and only custody. Who benefit more from custodial of others.

I have a hot wallet. Gambling. I prefer it sits there easy for me to use, I don't want to keep accessing cold wallet to deposit and withdraw after every single bet.

If I could pay tips easy, I would too, hot wallet with lightning yes for sure.

We're not talking about keeping even $1k, we're talking about $50. Some people will never understand this simple reality.

chain split is another name for a fork. and yes there was one in 2017
weird that you can think there never was any of the sort..

especially in regards to the events of 2017..

a fork in the way you describe it, is not the only way one occurs.. but specifically the one you describe is usually orchestrated by a independent user doing their own change to be different than majority.. (unilateral is the cults buzzword(oops im overstepping the cult guide, ill get back to this word in a moment))
a chainsplit is where a minority move to their own thing when a main chain has a change of its own that cause 2 directions(bilateral is the cults buzzword(oops im overstepping the cult guide, ill get back to this word in a moment))

both are forks. but slight different ways they occur
oops did i beat you to the punch of you wanting to call the event a bilateral fork for instead of a chainsplit... hmm i wonder why ud ever get angry about mentioning chain split but want to call it by something else.. oh wait, the old script narrative is circling again of echo chamber stupidity just to copy and paste a silly notion of buzzword gamery..
sorry i stepped over your comments and beat you to the punch.. but yes there was a chainsplit no matter what you wanted to intend to call it instead to appease some relationship you are trying to develop with some idiot group of cultish people that dont even use blockdata or code to back up their notions of historic events but then later give in, give up, realise they are wrong, but to save face and not admit it,  give it some silly buzzword to pretend they are right by calling it something else to pretend they still stand by their own waste of time of arguing that there want a chain split by making up a new name for a chainsplit

If I waste 1-2 hours of my life I can easily create a new shitcoin using the same Genesis block with the same blockchain and same everything else except a small change like having 10 MB blocks and a different difficulty adjustment policy (to make it easily mineable with CPU/GPU). Then I can start building new blocks on top of it, pay a CEX to list my coin calling it Bitcoin Pooya and start trading it there.

Do you call that a chainsplit too?

never was a chainsplit?! oh no, you have caught the ignorant blind disease of the stupid bridage again.
sorry to tell you this but there was a chain split.
its not like BCH is a complete separate altcoin that had its own unique block 0 genesis

please just check the block data and node code of previous versions of nodes to correct yourself.. you dont need to believe me.. nor falsely TRUST the cult stupid brigade, but simply check the data, then you wil see what happened and who caused what

in 2017 there was a NYA agreement(only required economic node/pool participation) to orchestrate the banning of blocks that used old version numbers.. whereby pools and economic nodes would only accept the new block versions to signal a move to segwit, and strip the block data to old nodes that would not understand segwit that segwit nodes of economic nodes and pols were part of..  (normal user full nodes didnt get a vote(backward compatibility trick)

you can check this using real data of code and blockdata.. not human trust..
the blocks that had old versionbits ended up being BCH. and segwit via the mandated NYA policy version bits, only accepted the new version bit blocks by banning peers that tried to send old style blocks. thus causing a divergence of nodes..
so the initial split of block versions was orchestrated by segwit nodes
it was actually gmaxwell that then pleaded to the bch crowd(faction) to change some code afterwards to not cause segwit nodes to keep needing to ban older nodes/blocks to formalise the separation..(of the factions)

the mandatory block selection which you can see(via mandatory banning old versionbit marked blocks) was a unnatural incline to 100% reading of block versions to make it feel like the network wanted to 100%(via banning old block version) move to segwit to an unnatural acceptance 100% of segwit virtue signally

so when old nodes using code before 0.12 would accept old versionbit blocks. it did cause a split.. but it did not require old nodes to adjust code to do so. old nodes accepting old blocks did not need to change code to cause a fork.. the fork ocured due to segwits block selection(rejection)

emphasis the code adjustment between the block types was actually initially caused by the segwit side of nodes. and banning peers that tried to push old blocks to segwit accepting nodes.. and then segwit nodes only accepting segwit signalling blocks would strip the blocks to remove witness to then filter stripped blocks to their peers that didnt understand segwit(aka backward compatibility) to cause some user nodes to stay on the segwit accepting side without a vote..

so check the code check the blockdata. and acquaint yourself with fact not the fiction via the idiot brigade.. dont fall int the trap of the silly stupidity you followed years ago. dont fall down the wrong rabbit hole again due to trusting silly narratives.. lets the block data and code guide you to the true events.. then you cant blame yourself or anyone for what happened, nor in what order.. as the blockdata and code holds the truth

bch didnt decide to create an altcoin by tweaking code to cause a differential of different block type before august.. they only changed code afterwards due to pressure from the segwit devs AFTER the block versions separated

im saying this to correct fact, and no it does not mean i wanted nor was a bch-er i just prefer facts over fictions of versions of events of who caused what first

Much as I agree with you, I have to point out that there's ordinals floating in the network that's making it congested thus making the payments for it more expensive for those that are just using bitcoin to do transactions so even if custodial is a wrong thing for us, it still should be an option for in the cases you're going to need the money and that you don't want to be paying those high fees, they can be an option for you but nonetheless it should be a last resort kind of thing. Also, isn't BCash worth nil anymore? And it's a different kind of network anyway? So how is there a blocksize war on something that has a clear winner?

Bcash does not have the same goal as BTC, it is neither decentralized nor censorship resistant and there are also a lot of security flaws and vulnerabilities in their system. Statements that the both coins have the same goal is what leads newbies into buying Bcash in exchanges, when what they actually wanted to purchase is BTC. Only few people want to use Bcash and so there is little to no demand for it, hopefully this number reduces gradually until we see the end of this shitcoin.

Bcash is neither currency nor fair. For example one of the requirements for a fair crytocurrency based on blockchain is to have an immutable blockchain. Bcash stopped being immutable the moment they decided to roll back their blocks with a 51% attack.
There is a lot of other reasons such as being centralized, having a centralized mining cartel, having no utilities, no demand, etc.

You can't use the term "faction" for bcash because it is an unrelated altcoin like LTC or ETH or ...

Thank you all for the follow up.
I'm going to answer to some of you.

ABCbits - "Mere copies? Ridiculous, many sidechain/L2 offer feature what Bitcoin doesn't."

That's not what I said, the "current system" I'm referring in that specific quote is the FIAT system.


pooya87 -
When I talk to Bitcoiners and Bcashers, the goal in both cases is a fair currency, we can talk about factions because they both pursue the same goal, in different ways, often in contrast with each other.

Bitcoincash has not solved the problem, most blocks are mined empty and have not been tested compared to Bitcoin, as most blocks come full, but over time, many will realize that for growth in adoption, increasing block sizes may be appropriate.
Layer 2 solutions are ideal for small transactions and everyday payments but are not a solution for long-term scalability. This topic has generally been discussed hundreds of times.

Based on example he mentioned, i assume he refer usage of custodial service to avoid high free. For example, custodial LN wallet or using centralized/federated sidechain where theoretically they can freeze/steal your pegged Bitcoin.

Wrong. There was never a chainsplit or even a community split. Majority have so far always been on the singular chain which is called Bitcoin.

Everything else including bcash are copies of Bitcoin and there are lots of them (BCH, BSV, BTG, BTS, ...) in fact during 2017 there were at least 20 different copies created just like bcash.

Wrong. Bitcoin (which is not a "faction") increased the on-chain capacity back in 2017 with the soft-fork known as SegWit.

Again bcash is not a "faction" it is one out of a dozen copies created from Bitcoin which has nothing to do with it. It's just a centralized shitcoin with a mutable chain that has nothing to do with Bitcoin.

Wrong.
You scale your altcoin based on demand and this altcoin has no demand as it is clear from its empty blocks. So it did not scale anything, it just has bigger block size cap that is left unreached.

Similar to 2017, Bitcoin is under a spam attack that has created a congestion and triggered the mechanism that automatically battles spam attacks which is the fee market.

You do have to trust the centralized authority that controls this centralized altcoin and can for example perform a 51% attack anytime they want to reverse transactions.

What does it have to do with custody? Blocksize war isn't related to that. I'm curious as to what point and how it connects with the topic you presented OP. I'm quite confused now.

Anyway, I agree that self-custodial is the way if you were to ever support BTC.